Quote of the Week

"Another $106 billion dollars and all we get is a lousy war. Pretty soon that is going to be about the only thing made in America – war."

Dennis Kucinich, 6/16/09 House debate on the war supplemental

Why I'm No Longer a Republican (Reason No. 874)

On June 16, the House approved the $106 billion war supplemental to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through September. The vote was 226-202 with all but 5 Republicans voting nay.

This is an example of politics at its worst. Since 2003, the Republicans have accused Democrats who voted against war funding as failing to "support the troops." Now the Republicans have opposed the war supplemental (using as an excuse inclusion of an additional $5 billion for the International Money Fund [IMF]). Add-ons to the war supplement in the past have included extension of unemployment benefits, tsunami disaster relief, low income home energy assistance, Hurricane Katrina relief and drought relief for farmers (among many others). The GOP always voted yea in the past when these add-ons were included, but that was when it was Bush's war. It is apparent that our troops are nothing but pawns in a power struggle between the two parties.

If only the GOP vote against war funding were a vote against the war(s). There is one Republican with integrity; see his statement here.

(HT: libertystickers.com)

Is America a Christian Nation?

President Obama created a stir a few weeks ago when he said the following during a speech in Turkey, "...although as I mentioned, we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation; we consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."

Faith has undoubtedly played a large role in the life of our nation. Many of the Founding Fathers were Christians. Others were deists, notably Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin (and Geo. Washington?), or indifferent "Christians" who were inspired by the Enlightenment. But I believe that the relevant question is not whether the United States was founded on Christian principles, but whether, "Are we today a Christian nation?"

Let's ignore the rhetoric and examine some facts:

• 40% of births in the US are out-of-wedlock;
  
• We (as a nation) have butchered 1 million unborn babies a year since Roe v. Wade in 1973;
  
• 1 in every 100 American adults is in either jail or prison. The U.S incarcerates more people than any other nation and is also the leader in inmates per capita;
  
• Between 40-50% of marriages end in divorce;
  
• The government's enhanced interrogation (i.e., torture) policy is supported most enthusiastically by evangelical "Christians";
  
• Pornography is now mainstream;
  
• Only 45% of Americans attend religious services weekly; and
• The definition of marriage as the union of a man and woman is being challenged.

According to Jesus, "You will know them by their fruits." (Matt. 7:16)

And of those Americans who identify as Christians, a recent Barna Group poll indicates that professing Christians either do not understand or agree with basic historical tenets of Christianity. Barna recently (4/13/09) released its survey of the beliefs of self-described Christians.

Here is a sample of the poll results:

• "More than one-fifth (22%) strongly agreed that Jesus Christ sinned when He lived on earth, with an additional 17% agreeing somewhat";
• "A slight majority of Christians (55%) strongly agree that the Bible is accurate in all of the principles it teaches, with another 18% agreeing somewhat";
• "...three-quarters (78%) said he (God) is the “all-powerful, all-knowing Creator of the universe who rules the world today";
• Four out of ten Christians (40%) strongly agreed that Satan “is not a living being but is a symbol of evil.” An additional two out of ten Christians (19%) said they “agree somewhat” with that perspective";
• "Much like their perceptions of Satan, most Christians do not believe that the Holy Spirit is a living force, either. Overall, 38% strongly agreed and 20% agreed somewhat that the Holy Spirit is “a symbol of God’s power or presence but is not a living entity.”

And these are the beliefs of people who profess to be Christians.

Based on the above, I believe that America is most accurately described as a 'post-Christian' nation. The religion of the majority of Americans is consumerism (def. "the equation of personal happiness with consumption and the purchase of material possessions") and the god that they worship is their "stuff".

Do you know Ron Paul?

Ron Paul's 2010 Republican primary challenger has a website named Do You Know Ron Paul? As if Ron Paul has a hidden agenda. I assume that Paul's opponent takes the opposing view to each of the items in the list of "what Ron Paul really stands for." Here is a sample of what Dr. Paul "really stands for":

• "Wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve and return to the Gold Standard."
  
• "Wants to get rid of the Department of Education." So did Ronald Reagan; this was actually in the GOP platform as late as 1996. (BTW - the Dept. of Ed. is only one of several US Gov't Departments that Ron Paul wants to get rid of)
• "Wants to get rid of the IRS." I wager that opposition to this will garner Mr. Cherry lots of support.
  
• "Wants to bring home all troops from Iraq immediately and shut down U.S military bases worldwide."What? Ron Paul is against the Iraq War?
  
• "Wants to cut off all foreign aid to all countries."
  
• "Wants to pull us out of the World Trade Organization, World Bank and International Monetary Fund." Apparently Mr. Cherry is a proponent of the New World Order

And Mr. Cherry apparently thinks that constituents of Texas's 14th Congressional District are a bunch of morons. After all, Dr. Paul has made no secret of what he stands for. His views are well known and documented (especially following the '08 presidential campaign) and District 14 has elected Paul to his House seat seven times (including 2008 when Paul won 70% of the vote in a primary challenge).

Will the voters of District 14 again "say yes to the Constitution and freedom" or settle for an establishment tool wannabe?

Pay no attention to the dead bodies

I've lately heard several of the GOP mouthpieces on the radio (both national and local) dismiss the recent torture controversy; saying that none of the government's "enhanced interrogation techniques" were indeed torture. Limbaugh slapped himself to simulate "torture" and Hannity has offered to be waterboarded for charity (I wager he wouldn't last 30 seconds). As opposed to defenders of torture (who are at least intellectually honest), El Rushbo and Co. argue that no detainees have even been tortured.

Well, there have been 38 suspected or confirmed homicides of detainees in US custody; and that is according to the US military. I assume that most reasonable people would define abuse that results in death as torture.

According to Jason Leopold's April 30 article at The Public Record: "Dilawar was chained by his wrists to the ceiling of his cell for four days and brutally beaten by Army interrogators on his legs for hours on end to the point where he could no longer bend them. He died on Dec. 10, 2002.

Lt. Col. Elizabeth Rouse, an Air Force medical examiner who performed an autopsy on Dilawar, said Dilawar’s leg was pummeled so badly that the” tissue was falling apart and had basically been pulpified."

“Had Dilawar lived,” Rouse told Army investigators in sworn testimony, "I believe the injury to the legs are so extensive that it would have required amputation. I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus.""

Sounds like torture to me.

Some folks will argue, "Do whatever will keep us safe." But the instance noted above was hardly a 'Jack Bauer-type' life or death situation. In fact, "The U.S. Military never produced any evidence to prove that either Habibullah or Dilawar had connections to the Taliban or al-Qaeda.

In fact, as the New York Times reported, when Dilawar had died, “most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time.”

GOP Talking Point of the Day

It didn't take long listening to talk radio today to determine that the GOP talking points of the day (regarding the torture memos released last week) were about "criminalizing policy differences" and the US becoming a "banana republic" if the Bush administration's torture policy is investigated. The radio talking heads were definitely on message. I heard four radio talk show hosts parroting the same line during my limited drive time listening.

But what if the policy itself (i.e., torture) is criminal?

Never mind that the U.S ratified the UN Convention Against Torture in 1988 under President Reagan (btw - I think that we should quit the UN and kick 'em out of New York). Never mind that our State Department prepares 'Annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices' that condemn many of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" described in the memos when practiced in other countries. According to the talking heads on my radio, I must either be a leftist or an Islamist terrorist sympathizer to even ask the question.

Update: Glenn Greenwald (my favorite liberal pundit) on the America as a 'banana republic' fallacy: "People like John McCain argue that only "banana republics" prosecute former political leaders, but the reality is exactly the opposite. As the Western world has spent decades pointing out, the hallmark of an under-developed, tyrannical society is the very same premise we have embraced: that political elites are free to break the law with impunity and never suffer the consequences that ordinary citizens do."

Socialism vs. Fascism

Is the Obama administration socialist (as Republicans are so fond of parroting) or fascist? You decide.

Socialism versus fascism, according to the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, "Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace."

Republicans + Democrats = National Socialism

Quote of the Day:

"For five decades, Americans resisted Godless Communism. If they come to realize they did so to save Godless Capitalism, or Godless Socialism, what happens to loyalty and love of country?

To love one’s country, said Edmund Burke, one’s country ought to be lovely. If this is not God’s country anymore, whose country is it?"

Pat Buchanan, Rendering Unto Caesar

Why I Dismiss the Tea Party Movement

The reason that I dismiss the Tea Party movement is because the same people that attended the tea parties on April 15 seemingly didn't give a damn about out-of-control government spending or civil liberties prior to January 20, 2009.

There is no doubt that Obama is rushing headlong to fascism through the door that Bush opened (see here the Bush deficit vs. the projected Obama deficit), but the mess that we find ourselves in did not happen overnight, and both factions (R and D) of the Government Party share plenty of blame.

To put the tea parties in perspective, estimates of nationwide tea party turnout are between 550,000 and 1 million people at 858 events. By comparison, Major League Baseball had ~358,000 people in attendance in 14 cities. That is hardly what I would describe as awakening "a sleeping giant."

The American Gulag?

I've recently been reading The Gulag Archipelago, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's account of life in the Soviet prison and labor camps . Early in the book, Solzhenitsyn lists interrogation techniques employed by the NKVD (the Soviet secret police). The techniques described by Solzhenitsyn are remarkably similar to those described in the International Committee of the Red Cross's recently released report titled "ICRC Report on the Treatment of Fourteen "High Value Detainees" in CIA Custody" (see the report here). Mark Danner of the New York Review of Books has written a couple of excellent articles on the topic (here and here) and provides a disturbing summary of the report. This quote from Danner summarizes the ICRC findings, "the CIA seems to have arrived at a method that is codified by the International Committee of the Red Cross experts into twelve basic techniques, as follows:

• Suffocation by water poured over a cloth placed over the nose and mouth...
• Prolonged stress standing position, naked, held with the arms extended and chained above the head...
• Beatings by use of a collar held around the detainees' neck and used to forcefully bang the head and body against the wall...
• Beating and kicking, including slapping, punching, kicking to the body and face...
• Confinement in a box to severely restrict movement...
• Prolonged nudity...this enforced nudity lasted for periods ranging from several weeks to several months...
• Sleep deprivation...through use of forced stress positions (standing or sitting), cold water and use of repetitive loud noises or music...
• Exposure to cold temperature...especially via cold cells and interrogation rooms, and...use of cold water poured over the body or...held around the body by means of a plastic sheet to create an immersion bath with just the head out of water.
• Prolonged shackling of hands and/or feet...
• Threats of ill-treatment, to the detainee and/or his family...
• Forced shaving of the head and beard...
• Deprivation/restricted provision of solid food from 3 days to 1 month after arrest..."

I'll bet that most Americans did not hesitate to describe the techniques detailed by Solzhenitsyn as torture when his account was published in 1973. And most Americans at the time probably thought that torture was only used by our enemies. Growing up during the Cold War, I thought that torture was a abhorrent thing only used by the Vietnamese on our POWs or by the secret police of Eastern Bloc countries to squash dissent. I never would have imagined that the same techniques would be used by my own government (I was just a naive youngster).

As a Christian, I am appalled that my government would utilize torture. But I find it even more disturbing (and perplexing) that so many of my fellow Christians are not appalled.

Privatize Profit, Socialize Loss

My edition of Webster's defines obscene as, "offensive to accepted standards of decency." The AIG corporate logo should be next to the definition (IMHO). AIG has received $170 billion of US taxpayer money (yea -that's right, billion with a "B" - $170,000,000,000). AIG lost $61 billion during the 4th quarter 2008, the largest quarterly loss in US corporate history. AIG stock was $41.18/share on March 14, 2008. The stock price closed on March 13, 2009 at $0.50 (up 9¢ on the day).

Now here's the kicker - AIG is paying out $165 million in bonuses for 2008. According to the New York Times, "The bonuses will be paid to executives at A.I.G.’s financial products division, the unit that wrote trillions of dollars’ worth of credit-default swaps that protected investors from defaults on bonds backed in many cases by subprime mortgages.The bonus plan covers 400 employees, and the bonuses range from as little as $1,000 to as much as $6.5 million. Seven executives at the financial products unit were entitled to receive more than $3 million in bonuses." Apparently bonuses at AIG are not based on performance.

Even the kleptocrats running the US government should find this offensive.

As the Italian anti-fascist Gaetano Salvemini said about fascist economies, "Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social." So Obama is not a socialist (as the Republicans are so fond of parroting), he is more of a quasi-fascist (just like his predecessor).

(HT: libertystickers.com)

Update: To keep things in perspective, the $165 million in bonuses is less than 0.1% of the $170 billion bailout of AIG.

Hope we can believe in

The preacher spoke last Sunday about hope, which got me thinking. With the economy in a downward spiral (as reflected in the balance of my brokerage accounts), people are grasping for hope. A multitude of Americans have put their hope in President Obama (as symbolized in Shepard Fairey's iconic image from the '08 campaign). But putting one's hope in man will always lead to disappointment. There is only one source of real hope.

Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead... 1 Peter 1:3

Quote of the Day

(HT: www.libertystickers.com)

Attorney General Eric Holder is right

Attorney General Eric Holder is right. America is a "nation of cowards" when it comes to discussing race. Holder urged Americans to talk frankly about race. So here goes.

Why are nearly 70% of black children born out of wedlock? The myriad of problems that plague the black community (e.g., poverty, crime, education, etc.) are rooted in the disintegration of the black family. In President Obama, black America now has an excellent model of a seemingly dedicated husband and father. Will the black community now follow his example, take responsibilty and give their children a shot at a brighter future. That would be hope and change that I can believe in.

Somehow I doubt that this is the discussion that Attorney General Holder had in mind.

The commercial you won't see during the Super Bowl

Here is the pro-life commercial from CatholicVote.org that NBC refuses to air during the Super Bowl.

Baby Naming Basics

A couple of recent news stories reinforced my opinion that my wife and I are baby naming geniuses. The stories included Sarah Palin's daughter naming her son Tripp and the sad story about the white supremacist Campbell family, with children named Adolph Hitler and Joyce Lynn Aryan Nation. Palin's baby naming faux pas comes naturally, considering she has brothers named Track and Trig (which, in itself, should have disqualified Sarah Palin from consideration as a vice presidential candidate). Other baby naming nightmares that I have heard of recently include a boy named 'Z' and brothers named Sir and Mister.

Having recently named my fourth child, I believe I have some common sense advice to offer parents-to-be. Here are six simple rules:
1. Don't name your kid something stupid (see examples above). This should be common sense; and if you don't have any common sense, then you shouldn't have kids.
2. Don't choose a name that is too popular. My wife and I taught a 3rd grade Sunday school class a few years back and three of the six girls in the class were named Morgan. The Baby Name Wizard is a great tool for determining the popularity of a particular name.
3. Don't choose a unisex name (a name that may be given to either a boy or a girl). The classic example is Pat from Saturday Night Live. Hopefully people will be able to look at, and tell if your child is a boy or girl, but there is no need to confuse things any more than necessary.
4. If you like a name that is out of the ordinary, then consider using it as a middle name.
5. Don't use the last names of dead presidents. For example: Jackson, Taylor, Tyler, Kennedy, etc.
6. Use the obvious spelling. If the boy's name is Jacob, then do not spell it as Jaykub.

It's really very simple. BTW, my kids are named Jack Brown, Marla Gwen, Erica Kate and Luke Clay (see rule 4 above).

If you disagree with me and lean toward the Palin baby-naming philosophy (i.e., giving your kids stupid names), then be sure to visit the Sarah Palin Baby Name Generator and use the name generator to name your own child. For example, if you were considering naming your son John - use the Palin name generator and name your boy "Stick" instead. Or you can just find out what your name would be if Sarah Palin were your mother.

It is little wonder...

Based on the recently released results of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute's Civic Literacy Report, it is little wonder that the American sheeple silently stand by as the Bush administration, aided and abetted by Congress, lead our nation at breakneck speed down the road to socialism. A sample of the results include the following:

• "Seventy-one percent of Americans fail the test, with an overall average score of 49%."
  
• "Fewer than half of all Americans can name all three branches of government, a minimal requirement for understanding America’s constitutional system."
  
• "Officeholders typically have less civic knowledge than the general public. On average, they score 44%, five percentage points lower than non-officeholders."
  
• "The average score on the American civic literacy exam for those who ended their formal education with a bachelor’s degree is 57%, or an “F.” That is only 13 percentage points higher than the average score earned by those who hold high school, but not college, diplomas."
  
• College graduates in all age brackets—except Baby Boomers (ages 45 to 64)—typically earn an “F” on the exam."
  
• "Thirty-two percent of college graduates falsely believe the president has the power to declare war."

The majority of Americans have no understanding of the foundation upon which our nation is built. The masses are content as long as they have their bread and circuses. This is just another reason to homeschool your kids. See the report here. Take the test yourself here. If you don't score higher than 70%, then do yourself a favor - turn off the idiot box and read a book.

Police prepare for rioting hockey/soccer moms

Considering how rampant political correctness is these days, especially in Washington D.C., I was surprised to read this article in The Hill last week. Although publishing the article itself was not too PC, these first two examples of quotes in the column are the epitome of political correctness.

" “I think it is a big deal — you got an African-American running and [a] woman running,” he (ed. note: Jeff Thomason, spokesman for the Oakland Police Department) added, in reference to Obama and GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. “Whoever wins it, it will be a national event. We will have more officers on the street in anticipation that things may go south.” "

"James Tate, second deputy chief of Detroit’s police department, said extra manpower would be assigned to duty on Election Night. He said problems could flare whichever candidate wins.“Either party will make history and we want to prepare for celebrations that will be on a larger scale than for our sports teams,” Tate said."

Translation: The blacks are going to riot no matter who wins the election. Note that both speakers mention that there is a woman on the ticket. As if there is the remote possibility that the suburbs will erupt in flames, and hockey/soccer moms will be breaking storefront windows and looting if McCain/Palin lose on November 4. The next person quoted is more straightforward.

“If [Obama] is elected, like with sports championships, people may go out and riot,” said Bob Parks, an online columnist and black Republican candidate for state representative in Massachusetts. “If Barack Obama loses there will be another large group of people who will assume the election was stolen from him….. This will be an opportunity for people who want to commit mischief.”

Translation: The blacks are going to riot no matter who wins the election. The point of the story is this; regardless of who wins the election, stay out of the city on Tuesday night.

Update: I'm happy to write that there were no reports of rioting after the election, except by a few gays in California who were upset that the voters rejected homogamy.

Socialism or Fascism - It's Not Much of a Choice

Everyone knows that Barack Obama, like most Democrat politicians, is a socialist. Unfortunately, most of the American sheeple have turned a blind eye to the fact that the GOP (especially the party's standard bearer, John McCain) are, by definition, fascists. My copy of Webster's defines fascism as, "A philosophy of governmental system marked by stringent socioeconomic control, a strong central government usu. headed by a dictator, and often a belligerently nationalistic policy." This definition includes the four fascist characteristics in the Republican party that stand out today: corporatism, nationalism, totalitarianism and militarism.

• Corporatism - John T. Flynn, in his 1944 book As We Go Marching, said about fascism, "Thus we may now say that fascism is a system of social organization that recognizes and proposes to protect the capitalist system and uses the device of public spending and debt as a means of creating national income..." As we have recently witnessed, state intervention in the economy, when it is in the interest of the state and the wealthy elites who support the political machine, is wholly supported by the Republican party (with a few exceptions - thank you Ted Poe). According to Roderick T. Long, "Fascism seeks to incorporate... private ownership into the state apparatus through public-private partnership." The result is an economic system that is somewhere between capitalism and socialism. The camels nose was already under the tent; now the camel (thanks to the Bush administration, aided and abetted by McCain and the Republican Congress) is not only in the tent, but is in your bed snuggling with your wife.

• Nationalism - Whereas communism stresses class struggle, fascism emphasizes the struggle of the nation. The nation is the unifying force of the people. The nation is depicted as facing some never ending crisis (e.g., "The War on Terror") and must rally against the common enemy (e.g., Islamofascists, Ahmadinejad, bogeyman, etc.).

Dissent is grounds to question a person's patriotism. A perfect example is Minnesota Republican Congresswoman Bachmann asking about her political opponents, "Are they pro-America or anti-America?" The incessant flag waving, chants of "USA" and "Country First" banners at the Republican convention are indicative of a brand of nationalism that, as a Christian, I believe to be idolatry (and according to Rep. Bachmann, my opinion, of course, is indicative that I am anti-American ).

• Collectivism - Republican conservatism was traditionally associated with rugged individualism, so McCain's slogan "Serving a cause greater than self-interest" does not pass the smell test for me. I'm not for Ayn Rand-style selfishness, but if the state is the cause that McCain refers to, then "no thanks." McCain's belief in the state over the individual (my interpretation) is common to both fascism and socialism/communism.

• Totalitarianism - According to the definition, fascism has a strong central government usually head by dictator. The United States is not ruled by a dictator as commonly perceived (i.e. one man), rather we have a single party government (with Republican and Democrat factions) and a newly installed economic dictator. The government does not serve the people, but vice versa. This is not what the Founders envisioned.

• Militarism - Militarism is common to all fascist states. The worship of all things military is prevalent in the Republican party. Even while our country wages an unjust, unprovoked war against a country that posed no threat to us; a war that has resulted in the deaths of scores of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and 4,000+ dead American soldiers and marines - the overwhelming majority of otherwise decent, God-fearing people that I worship with every Sunday morning still support the President and his abhorrent policies because we must "support the troops". McCain has surrounded himself with neocon advisors so one can only expect the everlasting war to continue, with potential new fronts in Iran and the former Soviet republics.

Because the lesser of two evils is still evil (and it is difficult to determine in this election which is the lesser evil), I have followed the advice of John Quincy Adams and voted for Chuck Baldwin, Constitution Party candidate for President.

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

Quote of the Day

"One benefit of this bailout is that it has ended "the lesser evil" argument once and for all."

Vox Day

Unfortunately, even though there is little demonstrable difference between the two factions of the government party, the American sheeple will continue to support either the GOP or Dems - not even considering that there are other options available.

Poor Aggies

From a Longhorn's perspective, Mike Sherman was a great hire for the Aggies. Being a 25 point underdog to Oklahoma State is embarrassing. Not covering the spread is...well, my thesaurus did not have an adequate word.

OSU 56, A&M 28. Poor Aggies.

Update: KSU 44, A&M 30

Update 2: Baylor 41, A&M 21 ("I don't care who you are, that's funny right there!")

Quote of the Week

Describing the Wall Street bailout that both of my Texas Senators voted in favor of tonight:

"This is a huge cow patty with a piece of marshmallow stuck in the middle," Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., said of the package. "I'm not going to eat that cow patty."

Some Republicans (and Democrats) Will Still Stand for Principle

I was encouraged today to see that some Republicans (and Democrats) will still stand up and vote on principle. Or more likely they were afraid of facing the wrath of their constituents come November. Democrats voted 140-95 in favor of the bailout bill (HR3997), and Republicans opposed the measure 133-65. See how your representative voted here. It's too bad those same Republicans won't stand for a non-interventionist foreign policy as well.

The wanker Hugh Hewitt actually blamed the failed bill on Nancy Pelosi. Apparently he is unable to comprehend the numbers cited above. Either that, or Hewitt is right and the Republicans are so small and petty that they voted no just to spite Pelosi in response to her partisan speech before the vote. If Pelosi is actually responsible, then thank you Ms. Pelosi.

Regarding standing on principle, Daniel Larson of the American Conservative blog Eunomia says it best, "It is easy to talk about principle when there is no crisis happening and no risk attached to standing on principle. The real test comes when holding fast may actually cost something. Holding to a principle, if it means anything, means that you value it more than mere self-interest, satisfaction or comfort. A lot of Americans want to have it all–the pretense that they are free, with none of the responsibilities or dangers that go with it. In reality, you can either have the latter and remain free, or you can cease being free and then be kept free (temporarily) from responsibility and danger."

The political label 'Conservative' no longer has any mean since so many so-called "conservatives" (e.g., Hewitt, Kristol, editorial staff at National Review, etc.) are willing to embrace socialism and abandon the free market system as long as their 401K does not take a hit.

McCain and the Surge Myth

John McCain has made his support for the "surge" in Iraq one of the central issues of his campaign for President. McCain touts his early support for the surge to highlight his foreign policy experience and judgment. In reality, the surge is not the primary, or even secondary, reason for the decline in violence in Iraq.

First and foremost, the U.S placed the Sunni insurgents on the Pentagon payroll, paying them to stop killing our troops and Iraqi civilians. These former insurgents are known as the Sunni Awakening, or the "Sons of Iraq". The Sons of Iraq form an 80,000-100,000 man militia and the Pentagon (i.e., you and me) pays each militia member $300 a month. Based on 80,000 men; that is $24 million a month, or $288 million per year. That is only a fraction of the wars trillion dollar cost; but what happens when we stop paying (bribing) these former thugs and killers? My guess is that they revert to being thugs and killers.

Five years after Bush declared "mission accomplished", the U.S. still has no understanding of sectarian tension in the country. Iraq's Shiite-dominated government have strong reservations about an 80,000 strong Sunni militia, and believe the militia is a threat to lasting peace. Many of the movement's leaders leaders have been arrested and the government will not honor U.S pledges to employ the militia members, potentially leading to renewed sectarian violence (and ending the success of the surge).
(Sources: McClatchy and LA Times)

Second, is the fact that the ethnic cleansing in Baghdad is complete. Sectarian violence has declined because the Shiites have successfully cleansed Baghdad of a large portion of it's Sunni population. There are no longer mixed Shiite/Sunni neighborhoods in Bagdhad, so there is no longer sectarian violence. The mainstream media seldom mention that Iraq has 2 million refugees residing mostly in Jordan and Syria and another 2 million internally displaced persons.
(Sources: CS Monitor, Reuters, UCLA Study and Informed Comment)

McCain does not want to be held accountable for his support of the initial unjust and immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, millions of Iraqi refugees, and 4000 dead Americans (and counting). Yet he is happy to use his support of the poorly understood surge to his political benefit.

According to McCain's logic, if you shoot yourself in the foot; seeking immediate medical attention afterward is the lesson learned. Whereas, to a sane man, the lesson learned is not to play with loaded guns.