Breaking news indicates that the Durham County, North Carolina D.A. that was recently removed from prosecuting sexual assault charges he brought against members of the Duke University Lacrosse Team and against whom grievances have been lodged with the N.C. Bar, ignored warnings to cease and desist from making public statements to the press about the facts of the case in the early stages. DeVine Law will post a follow up soon as we study the reports and investigate the matter ourselves from our Charlotte Metro vantage point.

I would not be surprised if the most serious charges against Mike Nifong relate more to public statements than his actual conduct of the prosecution and investigation itself for a number of reasons.

Prosecutors enjoy wide discretion and immunity in the carrying out of their duties, and properly so. But, when it comes to public statements, North Carolina, and the South in general, have far more ethical restrictions designed to prevent trying cases in the media, than do the out of control “OJ trial” states of California and New York. The things that lawyers from those states say and do in the press and even on cable news shows would land many in jail for contempt of court in Dixie.

I have said all along that Nifong’s greatest vulnerability lied in this area more than in the area of why he chose to prosecute a case where the DNA evidence seemed exculpatory. More on that later, but meanwhile, let’s look at the discretion more specifically and the application of same to rape cases.

A general rule employed by prosecutors in exercising their discretion whether to prosecute particular crimes against particular individuals requires that they be convinced that a crime has definitely occurred and that the defendants most probably committed it.

The 60 Minutes episodes on CBS featuring witnesses at the scene of the alleged rape of a stripper by member of the Duke University Lacrosse team have raised more questions about the propriety of the Durham County prosecutor’s decision to bring charges against the three defendants.

To review, Mike Nifong has charged members of the team with rape despite negative DNA evidence, strong alibis and other exculpatory evidence including from the accuser’s accompanying performer.

The allegations were made by an anonymous accuser less than 17 months after rape charges made by another, then anonymous accuser, against NBA basketball star Kobe Bryant, were dismissed. That famous 2004 Colorado case prompted the Legal Column to ask the question, “Are Alleged Rape Victims Unique?” in analyzing the unique evidentiary rules and press reporting practices in cases of rape allegations.

The current charges against Lacrosse players at Duke University in Durham have already made them infamous due to the reporting of their names and depiction of their faces in the press.

One issue in the Bryant case as in the N.C. case, concerns the standard press practice of not revealing the names or depicting the faces of alleged rape victims, while routinely reporting the names, with photos, of those accused of rape.

The only alleged victims or defendants afforded similar anonymity by the press, except for alleged victims of rape, are minor children.

In both the Duke and Bryant cases, and all rape cases in memory, the arguments for press protection of the anonymity of the victim have been related to an alleged “stigma” that “society” attaches to the rape victim that could cause true victims not to come forward unless their identity is protected.

However, after criminal charges were dropped against the Los Angeles Laker, the alleged victim filed a civil lawsuit against the accused seeking money damages for a crime that she was unwilling to testify about in criminal court. The alleged victim voluntarily named herself as the plaintiff in the civil lawsuit which named the basketball star as the defendant. The civil case file was later dismissed amid rumors that a settlement had been reached.

The major differences in the cases, however, concern the issues of DNA evidence, the prosecutorial discretion to bring charges in the first place and public statements by Durham County prosecutor, Mike Nifong, during the unusual month-long delay between the allegations and eventual arrests.

In the Bryant case the issue was whether consent for admitted sexual relations had been given by the accuser. In the present case at Duke, the accused deny that sex occurred.

Press reports so far, including the many statements by Nifong, have not reported any statements by any of the 41 Duke athletes saying that sex of any kind occurred in the frat house that night.

And in the promised ironic twist, the accuser, according to press reports, “identified” three Duke students as having raped her for 30 minutes through pictures of their torsos and limbs and not their faces, while pictures of her have appeared in the press scantily dressed in a stripper’s outfit reveling much of her torso and limbs, but not her face.

During that month, apparently relying primarily upon a hospital record that reports “vaginal, anal and other injuries consistent with rape,” along with the torsal and extremity identifications, Nifong made unusually definitive statements, especially for a Southern prosecutor, that a crime had occurred and that he was sure the DNA testing of the 41 college students would confirm who committed the crime.

DNA testing has failed to implicate any of the members of the Duke Lacrosse team, including the 3 players identified as the perpetrators.

In this case, given not only the DNA results, but also photographic, 911 audio tape and other exculpatory evidence including alibi, and intoxication evidence on all counts, it is possible Nifong did not follow the prosecutorial discretion rule cited above and should have continued his investigation.

But, in Nifong’s defense the severity of and extent to which the injuries identified as “consistent with rape” are consistent with the rape allegations, and whether the DNA tests were accurate, are presently unknown to the general public.

We await the decision of the N.C Attorney general’s decision on the case, as they replaced Nifong, at his request late last week.

Originally posted as More of What Happens When You Mess With the Clintons at Race 4 2008

On the Drudge Radio Report Sunday night, just as the Colts were finishing off the Pats on the RCA Dome gridiron, Matt Drudge was reporting that the Clinton machine was in the last stages of having the Democratic Party move the 2008 California primary up to soon after the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary.

Reason: Hillary is not liked in New Hampshire based on prior statements about the Granite State when her husband was a candidate. Obama is loved in Manchester as evidenced by the huge rock star-seeking-like crowds he drew there recently. Hillary trails John Edwards badly in Iowa polls. Edwards is loved in Iowa. No sign of same in the state for Hillary.

Drudge discussed this possibility with The Wall Street Journal’s John Fund, who did not disagree.

Then, on Monday morning we found this at the top of the web’s Drudge Report the following from the Sun-Sentinel:

California Wants Early Primary
State’s influence in presidential derby would grow

With Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s backing, state legislators from both parties are moving rapidly to make California a player in choosing the nation’s next president by holding the state’s primary four months earlier.

A bipartisan group of state senators introduced legislation Friday to change the 2008 presidential primary from June 3 to Feb. 5.

Another bill was introduced by an Assembly Republican on Thursday, the day after Schwarzenegger declared that moving up the primary date would make California “relevant” nationally and was “something to shoot for.”

The February date — the earliest the state can choose under national party rules — would place California at the beginning of the election season, right after four states that have secured the most privileged spots in January for their Democratic caucuses or primaries: Iowa (Jan. 14), Nevada (Jan. 19), New Hampshire (Jan. 22) and South Carolina (Jan. 29).

The Republican calendar has Iowa and New Hampshire first, with the rest of the schedule in flux.

Contenders, who now bypass California except to raise money, would be forced to establish real presences in the state.

The huge cost of competing in California — estimated by one veteran strategist to be $6 million to $8 million per candidate — would probably require all contenders to accelerate their fundraising and possibly give an edge to those candidates who have already amassed sizable war chests, such as Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and John McCain, R-Ariz., according to operatives in both parties.

Republican moderates such as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who might face opposition in Southern states for their liberal views on social issues, could benefit from the change.

“If California can succeed in moving up its primary, this truly is an earthquake in presidential national politics and the tremors will be felt through all 49 [other] states,” said Robert Zimmerman, a Democratic National Committee member from New York and major presidential fundraiser.

Gamecock believes that America has been well served by the Iowa-New Hampshire-South Carolina (with most emphasis on Iowa and NH) gauntlet, unencumbered by quickly looming major media market state primaries. Should California make this move for Hillary, and especially if NY and PA follow, as is expected, the campaigns will begin IN EARNEST years before the primaries, with the victors being almost assuredly from the establishment money candidates of each party.

The anti-free speech McCain would be the big beneficiary in 2008 on the GOP side.

We really need for candidates for the nation's highest office to be tested on the ground and in debate, and not be able to buy the position of Commander in Chief.

See also Kavon Nikrad's original This is What Happens When You Mess With the Clintons at

Race 4 2008

This all comes on the heels of former conservative tax cutter and the ostensible Maria Shriver "Republican" Governor, Arnold Swartzenegger's backing of a tax he calls a "Loan" as he Jumps the Shark, according to John Fund (and any rational conservative) of the WSJ:

When politicians break their pledges not to raise taxes, they come up with the darnedest evasions. Take Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who wants to levy new charges on California doctors, hospitals and employers to help pay for his $12 billion health-care plan. "It is not a tax, just a loan, because it does not go for general [expenditures]," he told the Sacramento Bee last Thursday. "It goes back to health care."

A loan? The first reaction of many Californians was: What state office will I be able to go to and get my loan back--perhaps with interest? It's preposterous, for example, to characterize as a "loan" the 4% payroll levy the governor wants to impose on employers who don't offer health benefits. California's gas taxes are dedicated to transportation but no one would call them "gas loans." Property taxes go to local education. Are they not taxes?

The over-the-top absurdity of the Schwarzenegger statement led Rush Limbaugh into fits of laughter last Friday "Bill Clinton calling [tax increases] 'investments' was bad enough," Mr. Limbaugh says. Bruce Bartlett, a free-market economist and harsh critic of the Bush administration, thought he'd heard all the euphemisms for a tax hike ("revenue enhancements" and "solidarity payments" are classics), but he allows that "calling one a 'loan' is new."

Read it all at the link above.

Now, more than ever, conservatives need to be strong and united against the Democrats, turncoat Republicans and 11/7 Republicans. More on that in comments to follow and Updates. See also this link for now as well:

FAQ - The 11/7 Republicans!

Question: What category of a republican is this. (Lieberman got General Petreus to denounce rhetoric and resolutions akin to such as this today in this man's face, as emboldening the enemy.) More later on that issue in comments to come below, and in updates of this blog.

Gamecock, DeVine conservative Op-Ed for The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Legal Editor for The HinzSight Report
GC also blogs at a Race 4 2008 and The Minority Report.

"Daddy, why would somebody want to shoot a preacher?"

That was a precocious little boy's first reaction upon seeing the headline of The Spartanburg Herald announcing the assassination of the 39-year-old leader of the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King Jr.

No holiday cries out for a progress report more than the one President Ronald Reagan signed into law in 1983 and that America celebrated yesterday. Where do we stand nearly 39 years after King's death on April 4, 1968?

Brandon Woolfolk, a 23-year-old African American junior at UNC Charlotte presently working as a hotel clerk, told me last week that "One change is that back then blacks feared whites. Today, they fear other blacks."

Dewey Tullis, a life-long educator and prominent black member of the Spartanburg County Democratic Party, told The Wall Street Journal before last fall's election he was supporting the Republican running for South Carolina's top education post because, "Frankly, I'm tired of seeing our young black men graduate high school without knowing how to read and write."

One main reason for these disturbing assessments: the well-intentioned but misguided liberal policies implemented immediately after the race-based "Jim Crow" laws were abolished. New race-based laws were passed, old non-race-based laws were misinterpreted by liberal judges, and new welfare policies kicked the black father out of the house and made Uncle Sam daddy.

Character building a priority

By contrast, King's dream was that people be judged based, not on skin color, but rather on the content of their character. There is hope, however.The Charlotte-Mecklenburg African American Agenda conference earlier this month, whose agenda "priorities" could have been written by whites, shows that more and more blacks get it and are about the business of character building. Event organizers even invited as a featured speaker National Public Radio correspondent and Fox News commentator Juan Williams, author of "Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America -- and What We Can Do About It."

Now, what about Caucasians?

I became active in the Democratic Party mainly due to my disdain for the racism I saw in the 1970s. Happily, I watched most of the Republican racism melt under the weight of King's mainstream American and Judeo-Christian moral arguments. Unhappily, I watched disturbing pathologies develop within my party and its members.

Then, during my five years in Atlanta before moving to the Queen City, I experienced what I call a "conservative epiphany," in large part due to the covertly racist behavior of fellow liberal Democrats in their treatment of blacks as inferior victim dependents and their overt disdain for the Christian faith that inspired King.

Radio talk show host Dennis Prager recently described being shown a video of people reacting to a talk show organized by a firm that specializes in analyzing such shows for their producers. Prager noticed that the carefully chosen panel included no blacks. The firm explained that in their previous experience they discovered that after a black person gave their opinion about a show, white people would rarely offer differing opinions for fear of being deemed racist.

This condescending and misplaced white guilt and fear of the Political Correctness Police must end.

Face down the PC crowd

I don't remember Daddy's answer to his eldest son's innocent inquiry some 39 years ago, but there is nothing I better remember than the way he lived his life. Dad employed the non-race-based Golden Rule found in Matthew's Gospel as he coached some of the first racially integrated little league baseball teams in my hometown and insisted that blacks employed with him at Southern Railway be held to the same standards as whites.

King based his civil rights message largely on that New Testament passage, which admonishes us to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, as well as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which acknowledge equality before our Creator and require equal treatment under the law.

Quite simply, whites must stop treating blacks as inferiors, and muster the courage to face down the PC crowd to make King's dream more of a reality.

Mike

DeVine

Preliminarily, I am an Erick fan, it was 4:00am, and the primary reason for my belated rebuttal is to highlight Kristol's rock solid position on the war. While I put quotes around the Big Government Conservatism (BGC) characterization, I do concede that their is a difference between Kristol, TWS, Gamecock, and many other conservatives concerning what the size of government should be and, more accurately, how we get from big to smaller.

However, I could not disagree more that Bill Kristol, TWS and any supposed choice between BGC and an alternative had anything to do with the outcome of the 2006 election.

The main reason this is true beyond a reasonable doubt, is that the voters put Democrats in charge. Do I really have to explain that? To say democrat is to say big government (and appeasement). Its like saying one chose lettuce to reject salads.

The 2006 election was, first and foremost a Year Six election. Had we not power, given our relatively small margins compared to other Year Six elections, it would have been historic.

Kristol and his magazine have been and are major players in how we gained control of congress, elected and re-elected Bush, and the conservative movement as a whole.

They are heroic in there advocacy of a vigorous foreign policy in a post-9/11, if not even a post-Pearl harbour world. Americans overall tend toward isolationism. It cost us dearly in WWII, and it could be our downfall in a much smaller world and wmd.

On the issue of big government, the fiscal cons truly do need to get specific and courageous on exactly how they would reduce government. I wrote on this over Christmas when their were not many to debate.

Would it be Too Much Trouble for Fiscal Cons to Get Really Serious

My points are this with respect to Kristol and my previous blog:

1 - Kristol, like Reagan, recognizes the need for a safety net and soc sec.

2 - Vague rhetoric about cutting government risks scaring off big govt addicted voters that need to be weaned off the stuff and shown how we get from a to b.

3-Cutting government has to be sold as solving problems, not simply as an ideological pursuit.

Fiscal cons have work to do. I want to see plans on paper. Heck, one of the main, if not THE main reason for being a conservative is this principle of smaller government due top how it reduces freedom. But this is not 1789. We have been addicted to BG for half a century. We have to not only sell smaller government, but also show how we get there.

And Erick, while I love both the TWS and National Review brands of conservative, my favorite brand is

the Redstate brand!

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson, and speaking of which, catch Gamecock's first dead-tree MSM DeVine Conservative Voice column here on Tuesday in The Charlotte Observer. GC blogs at a Race 4 2008 and The Minority Report

The HinzSight Report

The Line: It is irresponsible for elected congressmen to criticize the President's plan without offering a plan of their own.

First of all, the war critics have alternative plans. 99% of them favor various plans to withdraw as quickly as possible and accept defeat.

Second of all, this is also the plan favored by Saddam's deadenders, Baathists, al Qaida and Iran.

Third, no matter what plans appeasement war critics offer, it would not rehabilitate irresponsible messages that embolden our enemies into being responsible.

Bush needs to respond to war critics by saying:

a) I was elected to wage war.

b) You were elected to decide whether to declare war and/or fund wars and other military actions or not

c) Most of you war critics voted to authorize this war, which authorization was not necessary for me to defend this country, but nonetheless, I sought your support as a courtesy and you voted to approve of my decision

d) At the first sign of any setbacks (not unforeseeable in war) in the war, you have continually sent the message to our enemies that if they will just hold out long enough, your party and a few repubs will hand them victory

e) The American people have hired people to plan and wage war and they aren't you, but I want to hear ideas from any and all intelligent people about how we can better win this war more quickly

(anyone so in a hurry they want to drop 2 nukes yet? Didn't think so. Anyone think that Washington, Lincoln or FDR would have surrendered beacuse of the deficit or due to it taking too long? How long is too long before losing? just asking),

in private.

I have an office where I meet with people to talk about things I don't want the enemy to hear. Come see me instead of Tim Russert one Sunday. I have cleaned the carpet since the last occupant left for Chappaqua.

f) The blood of American troops are on the hands of those that emboldened enemies to fight on that otherwise would not have and then went on to kill Americans.

g) I was hired twice to defend this country across the globe and in Iraq, and when re-hired, things were tougher in Iraq than now. I will not stop waging war while President no matter what you say. If you truly want the US to leave Iraq, then de-fund the war.

Otherwise, please shut up. The enemy is listening.

At least if we withdraw at your direction, the troops won't be so at risk at the hands of the enemies you aid and abet.

The flip side is that they will be equally at greater risk here in the states where the enemy will have a better chance at attacking since they will have troops relieved from the duty of defending their base.

But at least then, you appeasers will be at the same risk you now put the troops in without consequence.

BTW, I don't watch you on C-Span.

P.S. How about this plan. We draft and ratify a Constitution that places the responsibility for waging war in one man and for funding the military in the hands of 535 men. We vote to place men in these 536 positions. One man decides we need to wage war. 535 vote, the majority agrees and funds the war. The losers in the debate accept defeat and support their country while its at war until we win. Or, if they believe we should surrender and withdraw, then force the one man to do so via a vote rather than verbally undermining what the majority voted for, so that then, the nation would have decided to withdraw quickly so as to save lives.

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson, and speaking of which, catch Gamecock's first dead-tree MSM DeVine Conservative Voice column here on Tuesday in The Charlotte Observer. GC blogs at a Race 4 2008 and The Minority Report

The HinzSight Report

Misguided liberal policies assume blacks are inferior victims

MIKE DEVINE

Special to the Observer

Read the whole column in The Charlotte Observer here.

Observer community columnist Mike DeVine, vice president of Intequity, Inc., a Charlotte-based marketing firm, and Legal Editor (DeVine Law) for http://thehinzsightreport.com/, also blogs as "Gamecock" at http://gamecock.townhall.com, www.race42008.com, and www.redstate.com.

Captain Ed's view from his Quarters is that the recent announcement by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that he will take immediate action against sectarian militias of all stripes in Baghdad is the result of President Bush's "come to Jesus" demand in a discussion less than 72 hours ago.

This announcement by al-Maliki comes less than a week before an expected Oval Office address that will re-affirm the President's determination to finish the victory in Iraq, less than a month after his rejection of the Iraq Surrender Group's recommendations and less than 24 hours before the Democrat Party took control of Congress and promptly but rejection of a strategy for finishing the victory in Iraq in writing.

Democratic Leaders Oppose More U.S. Troops in Iraq

Apparently the new, self-dubbed "Most Powerful Woman in the Country" a/k/a Nancy Drew-Mystery-Wonder Woman-osi, is at least more powerful than Senate Majority Leader "Dingy" Harry Reid, who just days ago publicly expressed support for a US troop surge that Bush is reported to be contemplating as a means to help secure Baghdad.

Moreover, MSM-dubbed moderate alternative to the former "Most Powerful US Woman but possibly still "Smartest Woman in the World" (yes, World!), Barack Obama, turns out to be just another Big-Eared Dove, as he orally affirmed his support for the "Surrender in our Time" Democrat love letter to Bush described at Bloomberg above.

Bush apparently humored, i.e. met with Osa..Obama and five other smaller-eared Doves at the White House recently, along with six GOP Hawks (ear size not disclosed).

Barack was reportedly more hawkish when it comes to chasing down Maureen "Dragon Lady" Dowd in Olfactory wars.

MoDo and Barack Hussein Odumbo (Rush 24/7 subscription required-will post excerpts in comments below)

One wishes Democrats would get as mad about enemies trying to kill us as they do accurate ear and Path to 9/11 descriptions.

Luckily, we have a man in the White House who's anger has remained righteously kindled against the enemies of the US that want to kill us all, and who understands the nature of the new Democrats' "power" which cannot stand up to..

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

I also want to address the opinions expressed in some quarters that the US should learn some lessons from the recent actions by our Ethiopian allies in Somalia. And let me first be clear to express my strongest support for their actions, but, some friends have conflated those actions.

From Redstate:

[First, preliminarily, lest we lose perspective (in a RS recco-dominated Mbeckian week long African safari sort of way - smile my friend and I know you haven't exactly conflated the "lessons" as much as your headlines would lead one to believe, but nevertheless...) its got nothing to do with Ethiopia, to which Ethiopian victorious Christian army over the Islamists in Somalia, GC says, "Keep up the good work," but we understand if you can't keep it up like the US Arsenal of Freedom has for three years.

Truly, we understand if you can't secure 70% of the Somalia, hold three free elections, kill tens of thousands of al Qaida and their fascist allies, force UBL-Zawahiri and their Base to suspend operations aimed at killing Americans in America for fear of the establishment of an American ally in the middle of the Middle East, force the same American enemies to pour all their resources of manpower and money into Iraq, decimate al Qaida, and build up an indigenous army that can't lose to the Islamist enemy after you leave.

We understand that you will have to leave soon without finishing the job and have to...but I digress (albeit for the laudatory purpose of putting the Ethiopian victory in perspective. Let's not pretend that the Ethiopians have taught us, i.e. America under this Commander-in-Chief a lesson. They haven't. They have done a great thing, limited as it is, in Somalia. We praise God for it.]

The US has done a much a harder and comprehensive work in Iraq (and continues to), than has Ethiopia in Africa or Israel ever anywhere, that no nation on Earth would even dream of attempting. We should praise God for what our troops have accomplished thus far and that our CINC is busy about the business of finishing the victory in the Battle of Iraq with his other eye on the larger War against Iran.


Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for The Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008 and TMR and is the Legal Editor for The HinzSight Report.

Long before anyone suggested that Homo sapiens had usurped The Sun's function in providing warmth for Planet Earth, (and indeed at the heighth of the speculation by some scientists that said planet was in the midst of a cooling trend that threatened a new Ice Age in the 1970's) Man, especially that portion of which resides in the United States portion of the continent of North America, sought to more efficiently employ energy use from fossil fuels for economic purposes and sought to reduce pollution from the use of same for health purposes.

President George W. Bush, prior to 9/11, earned the ire of the greenies (read: displaced socialist/communist left, and their well-meaning useful idiots) as well as the Leftist Press, a large portion of elected DC Democrats and possibly John McCain and friends when he refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty that had been unanimously rejected by a Democrat controlled Senate under Bill Clinton.

That treaty, pushed by European nations intent on reducing America's competitiveness in the global economy, has never been complied with by those nations that did sign it, and has never been used as a club to criticize India and China for following America's lead.

Meanwhile, America has reduced pollution and increased energy efficiency by much more than the signers.

Bush has never accepted the theory that man causes the Earth to be warmer (MMGW) to any significant degree. (Which is why he is not a defendant in the aforementioned lawsuit).

He dances around the question when in the presence of believers of the MMGW Church as he is sensitive toward other religions, and sees no need to offend them to their face.

Hence, we read from the AP a/k/a al-AP:

THE HEADLINE

Bush Looking at Global Warming Ideas
Jan 4, 7:18 PM (ET)
By BEN FELLER
(AP) President Bush, right, meets with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in the Oval Office of the White...

THE FIRST PARAGRAPH

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush on Thursday welcomed German Chancellor Angela Merkel's proposal to prod the Middle East peace process and said he was open to new ideas to combat global warming.

THE PENULTIMATE PARAGRAPGHS:

While Bush and Merkel are strong allies on many issues, there also are differences, including steps to combat global warming.

"We talked about climate change, and I assured the chancellor I'm committed to promoting new technologies that will promote energy efficiency and do a better job protecting the environment," Bush said.

Bush is a gentleman. They "talked" about the liberal German's MMGW religion. Bush "assured" that he would continue doing what America has been doing since Teddy Roosevelt's days, but especially since the days of the now defunct MMGC (man-made global cooling) Church days concerning energy efficiency (Earth to Lib-Dems-MSM Party: The USA is held hostage to dependence on foreign oil, much of which funds we spend on same funds terrorism-see 9/11) and pollution reduction.

GC has learned that there have been discussions that would re-name the MMGW Church to "The Chicken Little Church" so that it will be better positioned for future man-made trends.

The AP has apparently decided to make no changes in its misleading (read lying) "reporting" of the "news."

Plan your lives accordingly, and be thankful that President George W. Bush is President and that...

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for The Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008 and The Minority Report.

I have heard a number of commentators comment on the rather unique occurrence of the close proximity of the passing of so many prominent public figures, and wanted to look at them in light of history and our present circumstances.

I invite you to read Jeane Kirkpatrick, RIP, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.'s December 14 piece in the American Spectator, which includes this passage:

WASHINGTON -- It was at Jeane Kirkpatrick's funeral this week that I finally heard of some good achieved by the United Nations midst all its dithering and graft. According to Jeane's pastor, during her momentous tenure as our UN ambassador Jeane was so wobbled by the international body's cynicism and moral emptiness that she forsook years of atheism and became a person of faith. Mind you, she had always had an abundance of secular faith before President Ronald Reagan tapped her for the UN. Her faith in the American way of life, its freedom, democracy, and equality, was as ardent as it was intelligently conceived. But after leaving the house of hustlers on the East River, she became deeply Christian; and religion gently informed all she thought and did thereafter.

I rejoice that one of my hero's found the Lord. Amen. We miss you already,

But let's look more closely to the even more close-in-proximity departed:

Saddam obsessed his whole life and dedicated everything he did his whole life to obtaining and wielding power with megalomaniacal fervor. He killed anyone in his way, which numbered in the hundreds of thousands directly via political murders and mass slaughter even of the children of his political opponents, and over a million indirectly through imperialist wars. While he became the Dictator of a nation, he was thwarted in his EVIL dreams by people like Gerald Ford and James Brown who lived the American Dream and accomplished much more, and much, much, much more GOOD.

Gerald Ford epitomizes all that we admire about the Greatest Generation generally, and specifically the Midwestern variety of same, that were Boy Scouts, persevered thru the Great Depression, beat the Nazis and Imperial Japan, and stood up to the Soviets in the Cold War. It would be wrong to say that Ford was not driven by ambition, but it is accurate to say that he did not obsess over any dream of being president and that when he assumed the office, it was more as a duty than the achievement of a goal more than any other of the 42 that have held the highest office in our land.

James Brown epitomizes the now largely untold story of the monumental achievements of Black America from the end of the Civil War and before the passage of the Civil Rights and voting Rights Acts of the 1960s. In fact, liberals don't want this story told, beacuse it proves the lie that they seek to perpetuate that Blacks can't make it in America unless liberals help them.

Liberals viewed the ending of de jure segregation as but a very small step in fixing the evils of America. James Brown achieved the American Dream even before the ending of same, and after same never asked for a "more level playing field," not only as Black man, but also as a Southerner. But from 1865 thru 1965 Black Americans went from slavery to being the equivalent of the 13th most wealthy nation on Earth. But thanks to Liberals, since 1965, they remain today, January 1, 2007, still in 13th place.

And if it weren't for James Brown, they would have sunk to 14th. Yet, oftentimes liberals, black and white, resented Brown for his refusal to accept the Black public politically liberal victim-dependency orthodoxy and antipathy towards conservatives and especially Republicans.

James Brown was a conservative in the way he lived his life. He was also a sinner, yet not a whiner that blamed anyone but himself. But he was a self sufficient businessman who also had God given talent. But he wasn't called "The Hardest Working Man in Show Business" because of talent.

The man worked. He was an American pursuing the Dream. Living the Dream. Like when he sang at Nixon's Inauguration or visited Reagan's White House. Or when he sang and danced, and oh how he sang and danced!

And my fellow Southerner ate the same meal every New Years Day that I have, i.e. Greens and Black-eyed Peas!

But given the 93 years, the real question is: What did Jerry eat!? Or better, NOT eat?! And does this greens and black-eyed peas tradition cross the Mason-Dixon Line?

Expanded version cross-posted at Redstate.com, and at TMR link below.

Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for The Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008 and The Minority Report. “One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Before there was the Bush-Lied Dem-Lib-MSM Party intent on destroying a re-elected President and emboldening our enemies while our troops are at war and in harm's way, there was Walter-That's the Way it Ain't in Vietnam-Cronkite and the 3 Major Networks and the Honorable former House colleagues of Ford-Lied about the pardon so let's humiliate him and make him swear under Oath that there was no quid pro quo for the Nixon pardon and force the abandonment of our South Vietnam allies Dem-Lib-McGovern-Frank Church Party.

Two million plus dead South Vietnamese and Cambodians later, the honorable colleagues and weather-beaten old Carl Bernsteins feign respect for a "different kind of Republican" that healed our wounds after Watergate and Vietnam.

Never once mentioning that they lied about the war in Vietnam thus tearing the nation apart that Ford was needed to knit back together.

They pine for the kind of non-Reagan/George W. Bush republican that was content with minority status in Congress in perpetuity and which they could force into losing wars at will due to their shared "realism" in foreign policy.

I wretch.

Former President Gerald Ford deserves all our admiration and respect for his dignity in the battered office.

The media and former democrat colleagues of this honorable man now re-writing out of history the shabby treatment they gave him and the South Vietnamese during that time deserve our utter contempt.

Ford and Kissinger pleaded with the Democrat majority not to cut-off funds to our allies in Vietnam, that were winning at the time by the way, predicting the bloodbath that followed.

All this taking place while the Democrats made Ford the only president ever to testify before Congress. Ford didn't have to agree to testify, but he should never have been asked.

All to the Democrat Party's and their sycophant press's shame.

And I have heard not one person in the press, one republican on the MSM or any reporter on Fox News even, mention what the Dems did in calling Ford a liar about the alleged with no evidence quid pro quo pardon and in cutting off funds against Ford's objection to the South Vietnamese.

Yes, President Ford was an honorable healer. His former democrat colleagues were the same dishonorable dividers then as they are now. And the press then no more told the whole truth then as they do today.

I loathe the MSM and the Dem Party and I despise the alternative media and spineless republicans that, even today, after endless Ford-lied, Reagan was an old fool and Bush-lied, refuse to call them out.

All while the dems, libs and MSM pine for the good ole days of Republicans like Ford, who had a different "tone" and for "different times" when things were "less divisive."

Times were not less divisive then. Its just that now we have:

Townhall, Redstate, Rush, Gamecock & Co., who refuse to cooperate in the myth.

Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for The Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008, The Minority Report, and Redstate. “One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

President Bush meant it in 2003 when he identified Iran as part of an axis of evil that had to be pacified for America to be secure from more and deadly 9/11s and still means it now. He also still meant it when Iran's Hezbos and Syrian puppet were busy last summer making it clear to the whole world that Iran intended to control the Middle East. President Bush is a patient man and, while he desired that Israel take stronger action at the time including that they bomb Damascus, he knew it served his eventual purposes for Iran and its forward infantry, Hezbollah led by Nosehair Nassrallah, to make clear to all of the states of the Middle East and the whole world that Persian Iran intended to dominate the mostly Arab ME.

Also, for months we have heard Rumsfeld, Rice and Bush allude to Iran's "unhelpful" actions in Iraq (read acts of war) and wondered why the war was not being taken to the source, ie Tehran.

And now, today we read:

USA DETAINING IRANIANS CAUGHT IN IRAQ RAIDS... DEVELOPING... on www.drudgereport.com

BREAKING NEWS - UPDATE ON CAPTURED IRANIANS
(First Update above turns out to be a separate detention of Iranians and was not the major detention anticipated earlier today by the Drudge Report. Rather, the below report from Instapundit is the one)

December 25, 2006
CASUS BELLI?

The American military is holding at least four Iranians in Iraq, including men the Bush administration called senior military officials, who were seized in a pair of raids late last week aimed at people suspected of conducting attacks on Iraqi security forces, according to senior Iraqi and American officials in Baghdad and Washington. . . .

Gordon D. Johndroe, the spokesman for the National Security Council, said two Iranian diplomats were among those initially detained in the raids. The two had papers showing that they were accredited to work in Iraq, and he said they were turned over to the Iraqi authorities and released. He confirmed that a group of other Iranians, including the military officials, remained in custody while an investigation continued, and he said, “We continue to work with the government of Iraq on the status of the detainees.”

posted at 02:14 PM by Glenn Reynolds

http://instapundit.com/archives2/2006/12/post_1267.php

This comes on the heels of a major ongoing buildup of US naval presence in the Persian Gulf over the past several months.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/06/front2454083.1118055554.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/21/africa/web.1221navy.php

Bush rejected, out of hand on several occasions, the ISG aka Baker-Hamilton Surrender group's recommendations, especially the one suggesting dialogue with Iran and Syria:

From the NYT

Pres Bush distances himself from two of Iraq Study Group's most fundamental recommendations, as panel begins lobbying Congress to adopt report wholesale; Bush backs away from panel's recommendations to pull back US combat troops from Iraq over next 15 months and to engage in direct talks with Iran and Syria; Bush says he needs to consult his military commanders about troop movements, and he sets conditions for talks with Iran and Syria that are not likely to be met; Bush, with British Prime Min Tony Blair at his side, continues to talk about war in ideological terms, calling war part of broader struggle against good and evil, totalitarianism and democracy

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40A1EFA3C550C7B8CDDAB09...

Bush was clear just before and after the 2006 elections for those willing to listen:

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

Transcript

October 25, 2006

INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT WITH COLUMNISTS

The Oval Office

2:27 P.M. EDT

As I said in the press conference today, it is conceivable that 20 or 30 years from now the world will see a Middle East in which violent forms of – extreme forms of Islam compete for power, moderate governments will be toppled, oil will be used to extract concessions, and Iran will have a nuclear weapon, and writers such as yourself would say, what happened to them? How come they couldn't see the great conflict taking place in front of their very eyes? Why did they lose their nerve? Why did they not support moderate people who yearn for something better than the vision of the extremists?

And my answer to it is, I see the threat, and will use American power to protect ourselves...

READ THE WHOLE THING

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/061025/25bushtranscript.htm

Then on in Big Lizards

November 13, 2006
More Evidence Bush HASN'T Changed His Mind About Iraq

But in any event, it does appear that President Bush hasn't changed; he doesn't support withdrawal of U.S. troops; he isn't going to hand Iraq over to Iran and Syria; and even Tony Blair offered an ultimatum, not appeasement, to those two trouble making states.

READ IT ALL

http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2006/11/more_evidence_b.html

Michael Barone sees Bush Sticking to his guns:

Bush, like Truman and Churchill, seems determined not to concede defeat. And remember that for Truman on Korea and for Churchill after Dunkirk, no promising military courses were immediately apparent. Truman, after firing Gen. Douglas MacArthur, had forsaken the threat -- a nuclear attack -- that his successor Dwight Eisenhower deployed to get the communists to agree to a truce.

But Truman's perseverance despite his 22 percent job approval -- much lower than Bush's -- was essential in preserving the independence of South Korea, which now has the world's 14th-largest economy. Churchill, facing Hitler alone, could promise only "blood, toil, tears and sweat" until his enemies' mistakes -- Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union, the Japanese strike on Pearl Harbor -- gave him the allies that made victory possible.

Churchill's stubbornness prevented a Nazi victory in midsummer 1940.

We should keep in mind, as well, Bush's repeated vow not to allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. That's in tension with the Iraq Study Group's expected recommendation of direct negotiations with Iran: The obvious quid pro quo for Iranian help in stabilizing Iraq would be dropping our opposition to Iran's nuclear program. In fact, the opposite approach may be what's needed.

READ IT ALL

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelBarone/2006/12/04/sticking_to_...

NOW, Amnerica's greatest expert on and advocate for regime change in Iran, Michael Ledeen, sees a major change:

I’ve been wondering what accounts for the sudden change in tone regarding Iran from London and Washington. Both Bush and Blair had been playing the mullahs’ game, taking military options off the board, talking with feigned optimism about the diplomatic strategy, patiently working for UN sanctions, and so forth. Then, all of a sudden, we started hearing very tough talk about Iran (and Syria) from the two leaders, and over here from Secretary Rice and National Security Adviser Hadley. Blair even delivered a very strong speech in Dubai, which is virtually an Iranian protectorate. How come? Had something happened?

Copley News Service reported a few weeks ago that we and the Jordanians had uncovered an Iranian-backed plot to assassinate Bush when he was in Amman. Copley told me the evidence is very good, even though the plot never came to anything, and nobody tried to kill the president. If the story is true, it would be a virtual replay of Saddam’s efforts to kill W’s father on a trip to the region while Clinton was president. Now, the London Telegraph reports the possible cause of Blair’s ire:

A military aide to the commander of British forces in Afghanistan appeared in court yesterday accused of spying. Cpl Daniel James, 44, is charged under the 1911 Official Secrets Act with “prejudicing the safety of the state” by passing information “calculated to be directly or indirectly useful to the enemy”.

It was said he had communicated with a “foreign power” in the incident on Nov 2, believed to be Iran…The Daily Telegraph has learned that he acts as an interpreter for Gen David Richards, the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan and one of the most senior officers in the Army.

That might well do it, don’t you think? Here the Brits have been appeasing the mullahs, and all the gratitude they get is–if the story checks out–an Iranian spy getting information that would be used to kill Her Majesty’s soldiers. And notice the suppressed premise in this story: Iran is working with the (Taliban) terrorists in Afghanistan.

Leaders take these things very personally, as well they should.

READ IT ALL

http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/michaelledeen/2006/12/20/what_does_it_tak...

The Cowboy that still lived in December 2006

http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com/2006/12/cowboy-lives.html

and every December since December 2001 and which will still live, God willing, in the Decembers of 2007 and 2008, presently has Iran surrounded on two borders with its Gulf now an America Lake.

Before the US acted against Iraq it had not acted against Iraq, and during all those months of inaction after 9/11 and before Shock and Awe, Bush was criticized in the press and in conservative circles for his inaction.

Then the action came, and The Spider Hole is now history.

Bush knows what time it is, and knows that no amount of teeth gnashing BEFORE he acts can prevent him from acting, and that after he acts, all the teeth gnashing will be deemed either irrelevant or a source for self congratulations for those doing the gnashing to take credit for prodding Bush to act. (In all honesty, it certainly may be a positive good and encouragement for bush to see that many conservatives want him to act and therefore will be strong supporters after he does.)

For all who can see and hear, let them see and hear:

1 - Consistent words
2 - Troop build-up (The troop build-up that preceded the Iraq war in Kuwait. The troop build-up for action in Iran has been mostly accomplished since the troops moved from Kuwait to Iraq.)
3 - Ship movements
4 - UK unveiling of Iranian plots to assassinate UK and US leaders including President Bush
5 - Detentions of Causus Belli Iranian soldiers waging war against America and our Iraqi ally in Iraq (developing story on Drudge)

Be cool fellow warmongers, the Day of Reckoning is coming beacuse, The Spine, aka the Commander in Chief, aka President of the United States, George Walker Bush is

"One man with courage makes a majority."- Andrew Jackson
(especially when the minority are appeasement Democrats and cowardly Republicans)

UPDATE at 5:17 pm EST
RE Spokesman: U.S. Troops Detain 2 Iranians
-
Monday, December 25, 2006
(12-25) 06:52 PST BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) --

READ IT ALL

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2006/12/25/international...

more later from GC, ie
Gamecock, who is a conservative voice DeVine Columnist for The Charlotte Observer
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/2006/12/20/news/16279108.htm

and blogs at

http://gamecock.townhall.com - www.race42008.com -
http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com

Merry Christmas to all!

If we want to get serious about reducing the size and scope of government, we have to disabuse ourselves of two notions that I think keep us from making progress:

1- Reagan did not reduce the size of government; and
2- Neither did Gingrich

They did good work in slowing the growth, but grow it continued and continues to do even after their years and after six years of Republican control of all political branches of the federal government in Washington, D.C.

Fiscally minded cons that really want to reduce government, need to do so in a serious way, holistic way, factoring in the differences between 1790s America and our post-WWII space age world and really get detailed about a plan we can sell to a majority of Americans

Simply citing Bruce Bartlett columns or Joe Scarborough diatribes gets us nowhere. We have to lay out actual proposals that reduce the size and scope of the federal government. Since part of that problem will mean a devolution of responsibilities ti states, we also need to stop demonizing State government Republicans that sometimes have to raise state taxes and meet state needs through government.

We need to truly replace FDR's New Deal with a non-Depression Era Deal. Even FDR himself commented that Social Security should evolve and that many programs should be eliminated whose purposes were to deal with The Great Depression. Some programs should remain that are the Safety Net Reagan favored and measures that help prevent depressions.

But, we are faced not with creating the perfect world, but rather with transforming a big government addicted world into a preferred world reflecting conservative principles. Therefore, we must wean the addicted from Big Government thru a transition phase before we can get to the perfect world, I call PLAN B. Or we risk being rejected by much of the middle class beneficiaries. We have to sell small government/fiscal conservative measures as problem solving measures, not just as an ideological end in itself. And we must not overstate our case by broad brush demonization of ALL government social legislation or doomsday allegations that don't match the experience of the past 60 years.

So I write to ask questions (and offer some ideas) about the transition and what PLAN B would look like concerning:

Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid care
Health Care Insurance costs
Medical care Costs
Education
Agriculture
Interstate commerce laws incl the minimum wage

I want to start with education and ask a serious question, but first let me say that my plan B would be a transitional NCLB with fed money contingent on state's offering voucher plans and a phase out of the federal dept over 10 years. BUT, does any conservative see a role for the federal government in radical programs to meet national security needs, ala after Sputnik? Don't we need to an emergency plan to train scientists?

I favor reforming social security along the lines of Dubya's plan.

Got no clue on medicare, etc except that we need major medical malpractice reform.

On agriculture and the minimum wage, I intuitively oppose agriculture subsidies and as an econ major of the Milton Friedman school understand the ridiculousness of the min wage law, BUT

1- Given that we have had these subsidies so long and at the same time have had cheap food, one has to wonder if food prices would actually drop if we ended all subsidies? a question

2-Much of the rhetoric on the minimum wage here at Redstate is quite over the top. We have to face some realities.

a-We have had the minimum wage for decades most of which time has been the greatest years for n economy anywhere at anytime in history.

b-We lost the argument with the public over the minimum wage decades ago, and cannot expect to re-educate them now, especially with doomsday predictions of what will happen that fly in the face of the past 50 years.

c-As long as its low enough its mainly irrelevant.

d-The key to me is removing the issue from the dems who demonize us with it, which is why I favor indexing it to some % of inflation.

Fiscal conservatives have to do more than complain about social conservatives and others in the winning coalition that Reagan created that actually wins elections for republicans and made them the majority party. Get serious about what you purport to favor. I, and other evangelical/neo-con hawks are in your corner awaiting serious, realistic proposals that we can sell to a majority of Americans. We need each other to make a Minority Report from now thru 2008 that will allow us to make a Majority Report in January of 2009!

Gamecock - "One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
DeVine Columnist for The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com and The Minority Report

The self-contradiction's in Pat Buchanan's latest column addressing Time Magazine's latest cop-out in their selection of The Man of the Year (YOU!) proved too tempting for gamecock to let pass without a line by line de-construction. I should say at the outset, that despite my very serious disagreements with Pat on a number of issues, that I do respect his intellect, analysis and patriotism (he recently vigorously defended Bush's refusal to surrender to the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Survey (aka Surrrender) Group).
 
However, the serious disagreements are the cause of this rooster crowing post. Below I have first printed Pat's column in italics and then entered my critiques below same, with a link to Buchanan's column at the bottom of this post.

Pat begins:

1-Since 1927, the year Lindbergh flew the Atlantic in his single-engine Spirit of St. Louis, Time has devoted its final cover of the year to the Man of the Year. The Lone Eagle was first. In the 1930s and 1940s, FDR was the Man of the Year three times. Stalin, Truman and Churchill made it twice, though the selection of Churchill in 1949 seems dubious, as he had been out of power four years, while Mao was seizing China by the throat in the bloodiest revolution of the century. Hitler was chosen in the year of Anschluss and Munich, 1938. Gen. Marshall made it twice, as did Ike, in 1944 as victor of Normandy and, 15 years later, as president. In the 1960s and 1970s, JFK made it once, LBJ and Nixon twice. Nixon's 1972 designation was shared with Henry Kissinger. In 1979, the dark and brooding face gracing Time's cover was that of Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini. And Time got it right. For Time's Man of the Year, now Person of the Year, is the figure who, for good or evil, dominates the news. Yet this year Time could not bring itself to name the obvious choice. Instead, it chose you and me, all of us citizens of the digital democracy who create on the Worldwide Web. Why the copout?

Time has copped out many times that Pat inexplicably fails to mention: remember “Earth”, “the computer”, “whistleblowers.”? Time has very often gotten it wrong even when they pick a news figure. I agree that UBL should have been the Man in 2001. But the main issues here are threefold: The intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the Media; Pat’s intentional refusal to address it head-on due to his own blind spots and Pat’s limited mindset due to being a creature and prisoner inside the beltway himself.

My suggested picks on Redstate a few days ago:

2001 - UBL/Rudy
2002 - Bush or Rummy - removed Taliban/decimated al Qaeda
or Ashcroft - he prosecuted the corp ceos
2003 - Bush or Rummy or Blair - removed saddam
2004 - Ashcroft or Bush - no attacks since 911/economy booming/wins re-election despite relentless 24/7 msm-dem attacks for 18 months of bushlied
2005 - Rick Warren
2006 - members only jacket in Iran or Bush

IF, BY PAT’S AND OTHERS’ CRITERIA, IT SHOULD BE “WHO DOMINATES THE NEWS” THEN WHO ELSE BUT THE MAN THRU WHOSE PRISM EVERYTING IS EVALUATED: PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

http://www.redstate.com/redhot/mark_kilmer/2006/dec/17/time_mags_man_of_the_year

2-Perhaps it was Ahmadinejad's hosting of a conference of Holocaust skeptics, including David Duke, that caused Time to recoil. Perhaps it was fear that the face of the Iranian president on the cover of Time would repel the American people and be death for sales. Surely that was the reasoning behind Time's refusal to name Osama bin Laden in 2001, choosing Rudy Giuliani instead, though history is unlikely to conclude that Rudy, his crowded hour notwithstanding, was the central figure of that annus horribilis. Richard Stengel, editor of Time, as much as concedes he could not bring himself to choose by the traditional standard, if that meant choosing Ahmadinejad: "It just felt to me a little off selecting him." Understandably. But the refusal to select Ahmadinejad reveals an unwillingness to confront hard truths. For putting his face on Time's cover would have done a useful service, jolting America to a painful realization.

I just can’t let the irony pass that Pat suggests an unwillingness to confront hard truths and a needed jolting of America to painful realizations, when Pat has refused to face the same since 1941 and 2001 with regard to the intellectual and practical bankruptcy of his isolationist tendencies; his moral relativism and abject ridiculousness in suggesting that, post-9/11, “they are over here because we are over there” excuse and apologetics for UBL; and his refusal to put the Iraq War in historic perspective and be a part of the MSM that would actual help us with painful realizations.

3-Not only George Bush, but the United States, its Arab allies and Israel, had a dreadful year, as Iran emerged as first beneficiary of a war fought by this country at a cost of 25,000 dead and wounded. What the choice of Ahmadinejad would have said is that Iran is in the ascendancy in the Middle East and it is not inconceivable that the United States is headed for defeat, not only in Iraq but Afghanistan.

This shows his POW status to the MSM more than anything (except what he says next). Bush and the US are, well….Bush and the US. Economy is booming; never lost a battle against the jihadists or Baathists; most of Iraq and Afghanistan are free; people still trying to get INTO the US; Iraq’s economy is booming big time; Israel destroyed much of the Hezbos; and The people of Lebanon are mad as hell at the Hezbos.

Iran? Riots in the streets bi-weekly that increasingly include more than just “the Yutes.” Iran is surrounded. The “Persian” Gulf is awash in US ships, making it an “American" Lake. Yes, Iran’s BULLYING Talk dominates the news. But on the ground? Nyet. An “ascendant” Iran would only be possible if we, the USA leaves before the job is done in Iraq and before we remove the Mullahs. That has not occurred. We are still there. Iran is not Ascendant. Iran doesn't have the northern and southern borders of These United States surrounded.

4-The Taliban have come back. The Pakistanis have ceded them sanctuary. Some NATO nations are refusing to risk troops in combat. And it has been some time since guerrillas who enjoyed a privileged sanctuary in that part of the world failed to expel European soldiers perceived as imperial occupiers.

This is pure MSM BS. Notice the skillful use of vague language that tells us nothing, ie “come back”, “sanctuary”…

The fact is that the Taliban openly control no territory and every time they raise their heads they lose hundreds if not thousands of fighters.

There is no sanctuary in Afghanistan or Pakistan that US troops and planes and spy satellites don't monitor (some sanctuary). The model for the sanctuary was Afghanistan and Iraq in the 90s and early 2000s. That was a sanctuary. The US destroyed them and they remain...Destroyed! Sounds like a qualification for Man of the Year to me! Even if the NYT doesn't see fit to print it!

5-Islamists control Somalia.

Pat is right on this and I’m sure Bush will move on it. Of course, every hour that he doesn’t Pat and others will harp on it. Then when he does, he will get no credit. Just as Bush gets no credit now for removing the regime that brought us 911 and the regime that defied us for a decade. Those threats are gone.

Wasn’t that worth Man of the Year!!

6-Anti-Americanism is rampant in Lebanon – after Condi Rice blocked a U.N. cease-fire resolution to stop Israel's bombing last summer in what was supposed to be a campaign to clear Hezbollah from her northern border. The Beirut government could fall at any moment or be forced into a coalition with Hezbollah

Pat has gall to even bring this up when he cares not a whit for Israel. Mike DeVine’s ears shut down when Pat speaks on this subject and prays for Pat’s soul.

7-Even Bush's defense secretary concedes we are not winning in Iraq. It may take a "surge" of 20,000 to 40,000 troops to stave off defeat before the end of Bush's term. On the West Bank and Gaza, Hamas and Fatah appear on the brink of civil war. The elections Bush demanded produced dramatic gains for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine and Moqtada al-Sadr in Iraq.

Pat conveniently leaves out that Bush said we weren’t losing either, with all this sophomoric talk of “-ings” insulting my intelligence. Were we “winning” at Iwo Jima?

Pat should appreciate that the elections produced CLARITY!! That was good. Later elections when Gazan and Lebanese barber shop owners vote for candidates that don’t want barber shop bombing wars no more, will produce what democracy promises over time.

Yes, let’s get Mookie in Iraq.

8-Eighteen months ago, Ahmadinejad was the unknown mayor of Tehran. Today, he is the visible face of anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism, both a cause of and the personification of our failures. He has defied Bush's demand that he give up the enrichment of uranium, split the Security Council, mocked the Holocaust, called for the end of the Zionist state and the expulsion of America from the Mideast, terrified the Sunni monarchs, and united the Arab and Islamic masses behind his defiance.

What “failures” of the US has Iran caused? None

Does Iran have the US surrounded in Mexico and Canada? Iran has no one unified. Not even the specially elected opponents  of the Mullahs in his own country!

9-His trip to the United Nations, where he ran circles around U.S. journalists, was a diplomatic triumph. And he has done it all not with military power – Iran would not last a week in an all-out war with the United States and has no defense against Israel's nuclear weapons – but with theatrics and rhetoric.

Diplomatic triumphs? Like the ones UBL and Saddam had before we removed them from nation-state sanctuary? Whoopee, the NYT lauds them.

10-He inspires all who hate Israel and Bush's America. And, according to the Zogby polling yesterday, that is a majority which, in some once-friendly nations, is approaching near unanimity.

The liberated peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan aren’t united with Iran or UBL. They are united with the USA. They despise the extremists.

11-Ahmadinejad, a man of words without real power, is the big winner of 2006, because Bush, America and Israel were the big losers.

Losers of what? Sticks and stones Pat, sticks and stones.

Pat puts too much importance on what he and Eleanor say on The McLaughlin Group…

12-Why do a billion Muslims prefer Ahmadinejad to America? That is the question that needs to be addressed.

Earth to Pat. They don’t prefer members-only-jacket. Most Iranians hate him. See the riots in the streets.

Pat's whole article:

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53426

Rush Limbaugh's brief comment:

He thinks Ahmadinejad should have been the Man of the Year and TIME Magazine copped out. He's got some interesting points in his piece. A year and a half ago, Ahmadinejad was the never-heard-of mayor of Tehran. Today, he dominates the world with words. He doesn't fire a shot. He's got proxies that do it. He has proxies in Lebanon, proxies in Syria, and he's got proxies in Iraq. But he has totally dominated the news and the world. He has an army. If we decided to take care of Ahmadinejad militarily, there's no way he could compete with us. He would lose a war inside of a month with the United States of America. He is saber rattling. He is threatening practically weekly to blow Israel off the map, to end the United States as we know it. What are we doing? We're sitting around doing nothing! We're practicing words. We're trying to beat his words with our words in the form of diplomacy, but it isn't working. He's not intimidated; he's not shutting up. But in a contest of actual warfare, I mean this guy couldn't beat the Iraqis in eight years back in the 1980s! It would be no contest for us, and yet we're sitting around and apparently doing nothing. Well, we're not, actually, doing nothing. We're beefing up the Navy in the Persian Gulf, if you haven't heard that, in a response to his words, which is a helpful sign.

Gamecock thinks Rush may be guilty of a bit of what Pat and many Americans are guilty of, i.e. falling for the MSM meme that we are "doing nothing". Rush of course admits one something at the end. But we are doing a lot, and prior to all our doings of somethings, same is preceded by not somethings. Before D-Day, Normandy Beach was empty.

Moreover, Pat is simply a bevy of contraductions when it comes to recognizing the good guys and the bad guys in the Middle East, even with respect to his own country, and especially with respect to Israel. Pat mistakes media talk for facts on the ground.

Patience, and not letting the MSM meme's be one's reality are what's called for. Because Dubya is still The Cowboy with a spine and...

"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

www.race42008.com
http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com/

I believe we'll prevail...I wouldn't have our troops in harm's way if I didn't believe that...[and]...we're in an ideological struggle between forces that are reasonable and want to live in peace, and radicals and extremists...trying to gain power and topple moderate governments, with energy which they could use to blackmail Great Britain or America, or anybody else who doesn't kowtow to them, and a nuclear weapon in the hands of a government that is -- would be using that nuclear weapon to blackmail to achieve political objectives -- historians will look back and say, how come Bush and Blair couldn't see the threat? That's what they'll be asking. And I want to tell you, I see the threat and I believe it is up to our governments to help lead the forces of moderation to prevail.

Bush still gets it.

Cross-posted at The Minority Report

http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com/2006/12/cowboy-lives.html

So Gate's Boss speaks, again, as he did Monday to Hume, last week with Malachi, and humorous times since the Election and before including since the Axis of Evil Speech, always consistently strong and resolute, never showing weakness for one second, yet never seemingly enough to satisfy many of even his hawkish supporters here at Redstate.

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock/2006/nov/30/bush_still_sane_still...

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock/2006/nov/12/rumsfelds_departure_o...

He satisfies me, and more importantly, I suspect his enemies tremble at his continued hold on the power as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces that have removed regimes on their borders and who control their Persian Lake.

President Bush, after hours of Seinfeld re-runs, 24/7 MSNBC, the latest musing of anti-semite Baker whose advice Reagan regularly ignored in a nice way, and the Gates Declaration that sent so many here and all over the Conservative blogosphere into teeth-gnashing (are their any teeth left for many of these minute-to-minute seekers of gloom?) speaks at a news conference with Blair.

President Bush uses answers to snivelling reporters to reveal continued existence of Cowboy to enemies. The highlights followed by full answers and transcript of whole news conference with Blair:

-I believe we'll prevail. I know we have to adjust to prevail, but I wouldn't have our troops in harm's way if I didn't believe that...

-I believe we're in an ideological struggle between forces that are reasonable and want to live in peace, and radicals and extremists...trying to gain power and topple moderate governments, with energy which they could use to blackmail Great Britain or America, or anybody else who doesn't kowtow to them, and a nuclear weapon in the hands of a government that is -- would be using that nuclear weapon to blackmail to achieve political objectives -- historians will look back and say, how come Bush and Blair couldn't see the threat? That's what they'll be asking. And I want to tell you, I see the threat and I believe it is up to our governments to help lead the forces of moderation to prevail.

-And one of the things that has changed for American foreign policy is a threat overseas can now come home to hurt us, and September the 11th should be a wake-up call for the American people to understand what happens if there is violence and safe havens in a part of the world. And what happens is people can die here at home. So, no, I appreciate your question. As you can tell, I feel strongly about making sure you understand that I understand it's tough. But I want you to know, sir, that

-I also believe we're going to succeed. I believe we'll prevail. Not only do I know how important it is to prevail, I believe we will prevail. I understand how hard it is to prevail. But I also want the American people to understand that if we were to fail -- and one way to assure failure is just to quit, is not to adjust, and say it's just not worth it -- if we were to fail, that failed policy will come to hurt generations of Americans in the future.

-Make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is, sir. I talk to families who die. I understand there's sectarian violence. I also understand that we're hunting down al Qaeda on a regular basis and we're bringing them to justice.

Snivelling reporter's question and full response:

Q Mr. President, the Iraq Study Group described the situation in Iraq as grave and deteriorating. You said that the increase in attacks is unsettling. That won't convince many people that you're still in denial about how bad things are in Iraq, and question your sincerity about changing course.

PRESIDENT BUSH: It's bad in Iraq. Does that help? (Laughter.)

Q Why did it take others to say it before you've been willing to acknowledge for the world --

PRESIDENT BUSH: In all due respect, I've been saying it a lot. I understand how tough it is. And I've been telling the American people how tough it is. And they know how tough it is. And the fundamental question is, do we have a plan to achieve our objective. Are we willing to change as the enemy has changed? And what the Baker-Hamilton study has done is it shows good ideas as to how to go forward. What our Pentagon is doing is figuring out ways to go forward, all aiming to achieve our objective.

Make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is, sir. I talk to families who die. I understand there's sectarian violence. I also understand that we're hunting down al Qaeda on a regular basis and we're bringing them to justice. I understand how hard our troops are working. I know how brave the men and women who wear the uniform are, and therefore, they'll have the full support of this government. I understand what long deployments mean to wives and husbands, and mothers and fathers, particularly as we come into a holiday season. I understand. And I have made it abundantly clear how tough it is.

I also believe we're going to succeed. I believe we'll prevail. Not only do I know how important it is to prevail, I believe we will prevail. I understand how hard it is to prevail. But I also want the American people to understand that if we were to fail -- and one way to assure failure is just to quit, is not to adjust, and say it's just not worth it -- if we were to fail, that failed policy will come to hurt generations of Americans in the future.

And as I said in my opening statement, I believe we're in an ideological struggle between forces that are reasonable and want to live in peace, and radicals and extremists. And when you throw into the mix radical Shia and radical Sunni trying to gain power and topple moderate governments, with energy which they could use to blackmail Great Britain or America, or anybody else who doesn't kowtow to them, and a nuclear weapon in the hands of a government that is -- would be using that nuclear weapon to blackmail to achieve political objectives -- historians will look back and say, how come Bush and Blair couldn't see the threat? That's what they'll be asking. And I want to tell you, I see the threat and I believe it is up to our governments to help lead the forces of moderation to prevail. It's in our interests.

And one of the things that has changed for American foreign policy is a threat overseas can now come home to hurt us, and September the 11th should be a wake-up call for the American people to understand what happens if there is violence and safe havens in a part of the world. And what happens is people can die here at home.

So, no, I appreciate your question. As you can tell, I feel strongly about making sure you understand that I understand it's tough. But I want you to know, sir, that I believe we'll prevail. I know we have to adjust to prevail, but I wouldn't have our troops in harm's way if I didn't believe that, one, it was important, and, two, we'll succeed. Thank you.

Later Question on Talks with Iran and Syria:

Q Well, are you willing to engage direct talks with --

PRESIDENT BUSH: Oh, Iran and Syria.

Q -- just a regional effort --

PRESIDENT BUSH: No, no, I understand. Steve, let me talk about engaging Iran. We have made it clear to the Iranians that there is a possible change in U.S. policy, a policy that's been in place for 27 years, and that is that if they would like to engage the United States, that they've got to verifiably suspend their enrichment program. We've made our choice. Iran now has an opportunity to make its choice. I would hope they would make the choice that most of the free world wants them to make, which is there is no need to have a weapons program; there is no need to isolate your people; there's no need to continue this obstinance when it comes to your stated desires to have a nuclear weapon. It's not in your interest to do so.

And should they agree to verifiably suspend their enrichment, the United States will be at the table with our partners.

It's really interesting to talk about conversations with countries -- which is fine; I can understand why people speculate about it -- but there should be no mistake in anybody's mind, these countries understand our position. They know what's expected of them.

There is -- if we were to have a conversation, it would be this one, to Syria: Stop destabilizing the Siniora government. We believe that the Siniora government should be supported, not weakened. Stop allowing money and arms to cross your border into Iraq. Don't provide safe haven for terrorist groups. We've made that position very clear.

And the truth of the matter is, is that these countries have now got the choice to make. If they want to sit down at the table with the United States, it's easy -- just make some decisions that will lead to peace, not to conflict.

BUSH HUMORS THE CONSENSUS SURRENDER GROUP, MAKES CLEAR TO ENEMIES COWBOY STILL LIVES

Full News Conference Transcript Link:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061207-1.html

Bush is still the Cowboy, ie Old Hickory's

"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

www.race42008.com
The Minority Report