Monday, January 29, 2007

Republican Party Suicide Watch

So, will they or won't they forge a "compromise" on the Warner-Hagel-McCain idiocy being floated around? Let's hope not, for the country's sake ... and they had better hope they need not be reelected to anything, as in ever, if they support such a measure.

If Republicans forfeit the power they have as the Senate minority for the right to stab our troops in the back (troops that are in the thick of it as we speak), then they have forfeited their right to ever again be supported by those who elected them.

I sincerely hope they understand the peril that they are placing the country and their political fortunes in. I am going to make a few calls and see if I can talk 'em off the ledge.

Well, I am heading out to work this week (without a computer), so I will not be able to post/communicate until the weekend. So, behave ... and use the comments below for the usual disciplined commentary about this post (humor me) for a bit and then just whatever comes to mind.

By the way ... it looks like I was right (and a number of others): The Russians did in Litvinenko. The MSM doesn't care any more ... but hey, it's just radiation poisoning. It's a crazy world.

Update: Okay, I have signed the pledge. And I would urge you to do so, as well.

Friday, January 26, 2007

Ford was right about Carter

I see the press is up in arms about some clowns at a two-bit Texas university dressing up like Aunt Jemima ... with guns? Clearly over-the-top and inappropriate antics by these college students. These are kids. Yes, it's wrong, but ...

Much of living life right is learning balance and context. The left seems to miss both concepts, indeed, almost wilfully.

Never mind the fact that Carter's former supporters are now questioning his views toward Israel in general and Jews in particular. Now, Carter is complaining that there are "too many Jews" on the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council. Still, the MSM yawns.

Hey, he was only president, not some mere college student from Texas. And hey, he was serious, not just joking around.

But he's a leftist, and we all know that, by definition, a leftist can not be bigoted in any fashion. If they were bigoted, then they'd be conservatives. That's what they taught me at some Texas college.

In reality, it appears that once bigotry against a certain group becomes fashionable it is redefined as "non-bigotry", that is, it is seen as correct thought by the left. Then it becomes part of the de facto platform of the Democrats.

So, have Jews joined Christians on the "approved-for-bigotry" list of Demos? I know, I know, very "neo-con" of me to pose such a question.

Things are busy around here, but I hope to see you next week. Until then,

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

They may not have voted for failure, but the Democrats sure don't seem excited about success in Iraq

Last night, the President again identified the enemy, this time in more detail than before, even explaining the Sunni and Shiite strains of what is the same face of Militant Islam. I thought that was the best part of what was, overall, a very good State of the Union. Sure, there were things in there to disagree with, not just for the left but for the right.

But Pres. Bush, as has been true for most of his presidency, got most the most important things mostly right. This may not be good enough for some, but we must consider the alternative. Speaking of which, I saw John Kerry beating feet out of the House Chamber while the President got one last ovation.

Pres. Bush made my heart sing when he reminded us that this is an ideological struggle and the security of the nation hangs in the balance. He described a nightmare scenario that would result if we fail to stabilize Iraq.

While the Demos offer nothing in the alternative, he is putting his presidency on the line.

He said that a withdrawal from Iraq at this point would result in "promises unkept, friends abandoned, and our security at risk. Let us find our resolve and turn events toward victory."

After delivering this key line, the camera panned so that the TV audience could see the whole chamber.

And we saw the Demos sitting.

That's all you need to know about why we may not succeed in Iraq.

Monday, January 22, 2007

22 January

Unfortunately, work and such do not permit me to do justice to this topic and this day. But it's a big topic and a big day.

Thirty-four years ago today, the Supreme Court said that the states can not debate, legislate, and regulate abortion in any meaningful way.

And federalism died.

I understand that abortion is an intensely personal issue. I am unapologetically pro-life, but I understand that people of goodwill do not share my views. Still, I think the only logical conclusion for some one who values living in a free society is to respect the limits of the individual's power to end innocent life.

There's another threat here that all of us can and should appreciate, though.

As the years roll on, I am more and more convinced that the manner that the abortion debate has been illegitimately tabled by the Supreme Court has damaged the nation's mind and will perhaps as badly as unfettered access to abortions has harmed the nation's soul.

The Supreme Court in Roe instituted a national standard in the middle of a raging debate. States held in 1973 (and still hold) varying views on the abortion issue. But the Supremes, yes, those same sages who preach the virtues of tolerating all manner of diverse religious and moral views, told the 50 states that their policies must be, as a practical matter, homogenous.

Why? Well, this entire experiment in judicial oligarchy finds it origins in the Supreme Court's heading off the sand bar of judicial sanity in the 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut. In that case, the Court saved Connecticut from a silly law outlawing contraceptives, based upon its discovery of a "right of privacy" in the Constitution (175 years after it was written). How this right remained hidden for so long remains a deep mystery; it seems this right wasn't there for the unwashed to see. Only the enlightened judges saw it in the "penumbra" of the Constitution. It was lurking in the shadows, you see.

Translation: They made it up to strike down a law they didn't like. They didn't trust the people of Connecticut to fix the silly law. Too stupid, those little people. It's that simple. The unelected few overruled the people on the basis of personal preference.

Federalism was in critical condition.

Eight years later, the Supremes made the next, natural leap in striking down Texas's law outlawing abortions. Again, the Court didn't trust Texans to get it right. After all, maybe they never would. But what is the role of a judge in a federal system, any way?

But by 1973, the court had the Griswold precedent to rely upon. So, they weren't making it up.

Thus, the Court delegitimized state power that had been legitimately utilized in every state since the founding of the Republic. Abortion was illegal in every state when the Constitution was ratified.

Now, the public-educated masses are taught that the Supremes heroically intervened to make abortion "legal". But actually, the Supreme Court only made the work of the people's representatives illegal.

Federalism died on January 22, 1973.

But in killing debate, discussion and federalism, the Court showed the illegitimacy of its own cause.

If this debate could be won legislatively in the sunlight, why would the Supremes go dark?

The rest of the nation has noticed. Pro-lifers were awakened, and many remain skeptical of the raw power grab that is Roe.

Aside from its complicity in encouraging an alarming number of abortions, the Supreme Court has short-circuited the nation's laboratory of federalism -- where the 50 states can pass their own laws to demonstrate what does and doesn't work. A free people usually and eventually see what works and get it right. An oligarchy always gets most things wrong, except in taking care of the ruling few.

In killing federalism, the Court showed us all that it, too, is illegitimate. Unless and until it overturns this constitutional abomination, it has forfeited its legal and moral authority.

When I was in law school at The University of Texas nearly 20 years ago, I eagerly awaited a good discussion of the relative merits of Roe. But I never heard such a debate. Quite the contrary, what I heard was a defense of abortion, not defense of the case that placed the practice beyond meaningful legislative reach.

Pro-abortion professors openly cheered the result but admitted that the opinion was a product of very suspect methodology. I never found a professor who would defend Roe on its merits. But they liked it.

Such people are beneath the deepest, darkest contempt.

For they deligitimize a free society. Ultimately, they will endanger the lives, liberty and property of us all for their own personal, sordid agendas.

I will fight them as long as I am alive.

Saturday, January 20, 2007

Missed yesterday ...

But there is/was a raging global warming storm brewing in the post below. If you are inclined, join in. Man, it's still cold down there and outside. I am moving upstairs where it's warm. Does hot air still rise, or did the Democrats outlaw that in their first 100 hours?

In the meantime, I offer for your thoughts: 1) It is becoming readily apparent to me that this is not 1995, that is, the Demo "sweep to power" was not and is not a result of a country that wants to embrace Demo ideas/ideals. It was/is more a result of the Iraq War and Republican missteps. But will the Demos realize this? And if they did, what would they do? ; and 2) I see that Hillary has surprised the world by getting into the presidential race. I am stunned. I guess the Obama train was getting too far away from the station.

I'll see you Monday.

So, feel free to comment on any or all of the above, or none of it. You know the deal.

P.S. Colts and Saints in the Super Bowl, I think.

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

More Proof of the End of the Age

Global warming is now established as a mathematical certainty. I mean, how else can you explain snow and ice covering Texas? I am on the road with my fellow global warming victims today, so we'll see how it goes.

I would rather say something about Nifong at this time, but life presses in and I can't do it justice in a brief post. This saga is part of a key battle, the outcome of which likely will affect our liberty very dramatically.

But I can deal with global warming in a short post: It ain't happening. No evidence to support the theory. It's cold outside. Temps vary. Always have. Plus there is too little evidence of causation by humans of any of this, at any rate.

Who do these libs think we/they are, any way? God? I guess they do, and that's part of the problem. Humans can do, can cause, can prevent ... everything. Whatever happened to the concept of an "act of God"? Now, we seek to assign blame, damages, credit for everything to some human or humans. There's no evidence to support the conclusion, but that's not the point.

Are you fat? Sue McDonald's. But hey, didn't humans cause that? Yes, but the ones with the money who make the hamburgers, not the fat tub of goo that won't let go of his death grip on his daily Big Mac. Get me out of here. The mind-snatching liberal pods are taking over.

All of their grand theories have a common evil seed: the totalitarian desire to control the lives and economy of the West. This is where post-modernism naturally goes. So, take off your coat! Can't you tell it's hot out there?!!?

But it's cold outside, and I didn't do that.

And incidentally, since all the left has to support its post-modern outlook is its collective personal experience, then contradict mine, please. If my personal experience says I win, I win, right? But never mind ... I forgot. That logic only applies to the post-modernly mad.

When the rest of us challenge their experience, they shout and break out the code words.

That's okay. They're wrong. Try this code word: "Burrrrrrrrrrrrr."

It's cold outside. There were fewer hurricanes this year, even though the collectivist-scientist-Kyoto Kool-aid suckers said it would be an end of the age-like hurricane season.

And the fact that the world is still cold when it turns away from the Sun (thank the Big Banger for that marvelous coincidence that reoccurs every year) hasn't helped Texans evolve into a higher driving species at all.

It's just not fair. But it's true.

Monday, January 15, 2007

A moderate is right at least once in his life?

Or something like that. Perhaps this could occur as a result of a question being asked at just the moment when a moderate is traversing the truth spectrum on the way to the latest poll result. The law of probability says that it is bound to happen.

There is just no evidence of it ... at least not until now.

Witness Pres. Gerald Ford. I read over the weekend that in interviews with his local paper Ford said that Pres. Reagan got too much credit for ending the Cold War. Actually, Ford deserves the credit, it turns out ... because of the Helsinki Accords. Oh, my. Those Helsinki Accords broke the Soviets' backs, all right.

Like I said, until this weekend, I had no evidence that a moderate had ever been right, unless political circumstances force him to behave as a conservative.

Then I read that Ford said that Carter was a "disaster" who was the "worst president of my lifetime".

Eureka.

Of course, in true moderate fashion, Ford's comments were not permitted to be released until he was literally out of Dodge.

So, Ford's beautiful, 3-point off-the-glass shot of truth against Carter is hereby ruled disqualified, as it was launched "after the buzzer", so to speak.

They are still worse than stopped clocks.

Pres. Ford shook my worldview to its core, but the rule still stands: No living moderate has ever said anything of substance that is true*

Disclosure: *Unless posing as a conservative for political reasons.

Friday, January 12, 2007

The Dunham Family: Located at the Intersection of Courage, Honor, and Grace

Had to change the channel last night before I drifted off. The Rosie-Donald thing kept rearing its ugly two heads. So, I surfed. Good thing I did. They were replaying the Medal of Honor ceremony for Marine Corporal Jason Dunham. He was awarded the medal posthumously by the President at a White House ceremony yesterday. And his parents were there to receive it. Here is the citation.

I tuned in as the citation was being read. Tears streamed down Mrs. Dunham's face. Tears streamed down the President's face. The looked at each other, and the President managed a slight smile, as if to say, when beauty and greatness reach the horizon of this world there are no longer any words.

Moments like these reveal the character of Pres. Bush. It's why, warts and admitted mistakes, disagreements and all, I will continue to support him. Rick at Brutally Honest posted thoughts on Pres. Bush that echo my own sentiments.

Afterwards, the family went outside to take questions from the press. Their character and grace was just shining. One reporter asked if Cpl Dunham had communicated his thoughts on the mission in his letters home. The parents looked at each other and smiled. "He didn't write much," Mrs. Dunham said, with a slight motherly look of "You know, Jason, I wish you had written more, but it's okay." But she pointed out that he did call. Mom didn't have much to say on the subject beyond that.

One reporter pointed out that the two Marines that Cpl Dunham had saved attended the ceremony. They had said some things to Mrs. Dunham afterwords, and the reporter wanted to know what was said. Mrs. Dunham answered, "That is a private conversation." This giant of a lady then went on to say that those two Marines that she viewed them as her own children now.

Both parents spent most of their time thanking the Marines for their support and love shown over the past three years. There was not one ounce of bitterness. I just found myself in awe of them. Mrs. Dunham nearly cried a couple of times, but she held it together. One reporter asked if there was anything else people should know, and she finished by telling the reporter, "I think you've dug up more than enough information about our family." The only people on this day that the Dunhams seemed to be upset with was the press. Great people, the Dunhams.

I found Mr. Dunham, Dan Dunham, to be a giant of a man. He was plain-spoken, simple, but I craned my neck to hear what he had to say. When the press followed up the question regarding Cpl Dunham's feelings about the mission, Mr. Dunham said, "He thought all people should live in freedom, as do I. And he loved his friends."

It reminded me that our troops, whether they understand or concur with our own views of why we are doing what we are doing in Iraq, they still believe in the mission. It shows in their professionalism. They don't flich, and neither should we.

The Dunhams repeatedly said that Jason's medal was really a tribute to all of our troops of all branches serving in Iraq. They communicated an important truth that those who have served know: Many heroes are unknown for they haven't had that special date with destiny. But they stand ready and perform their duties heroically in the day-to-day.

You could tell that even in this solemn ceremony, the press was looking for an anti-war angle. Mrs. Dunham seemed to just hover over the press corps in attendance. Not wishing to address hers or Jason's views on this day, she passed the question to her Marine officer escorts.

Maybe she knew that this would shut down the press conference. I'll bet she knew their views. I saw it coming. The press was still treading gingerly, but they asked the steely-eyed Marine major to Mrs. Dunham's left if he wanted to go back to Iraq "any time soon".

The major, who looked like about 175 lbs. of twisted steel, was visibly ticked at the question.

Here is what he said: "Well, I am currently serving in a "B" billet, which means that I am not going back any time soon. But yes, I absolutely want to get back over there as soon as possible. (Pause) Does that answer your question?"

I laughed out loud. Ooh-rah, major.

The reporter replied, "Yes, sir."

Semper Fidelis, and Godspeed Corporal Jason Dunham.

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Review of Pres. Bush Iraq Speech ... @ 1730 CST

I got a confession to make. I have developed these systems over the years that help me to do things. Decide things. It takes some time to develop them, but they are tried and true.

Light's red. I just stop. No need to question why or breeze on through if no one is around. No need to try and thread the needle just to show off. Stopping at those things is preordained for me. Hot outside? No coat. I mean, I could wear one. But it really isn't necessary. Already tackled this. The system says no coat.

I see a hippie at a "Legalize Medical Marijuana" booth on Venice Beach. No need to check. I already have run the numbers. He is hitting the medicine cabinet.

A woman with a hyphenated name? 98.3% of the time, it's trouble. Why bother to find out if this one is the exception? A man with a hyphenated name? He's at the medical marijuana booth.

Our systems seldom let us down.

Okay, so where is this going?

Well, Ted Kennedy is as reliable a detector of good and evil as there is in Washington, D.C. He really is. I am hard-pressed to find a better weather vane than old Ted.

When he was working with Bush on the Education Bill, it was preordained that there would be dastardly pork, goodies and unwieldy regulations throughout. And his signature on McCain's immigration bill (speaking of indicators, I have a complex formula that involves dividing the Kennedy evil quotient by Pi.), was a sure indicator that the thing was a disaster. He likes John Kerry, etc. It's fool-proof.

And Ted doesn't like the new Bush Iraq plan at all. He is even threatening to cut off funding to the troops (which the Demos will never do). Thus, it must be fairly good. It's at least a dramatic improvement over what we all were fearing with the Iraq Study Group.

Here's another indicator that is as reliable as Ol' Faithful: When Democrats praise the non-partisanship and inclusiveness of Republicans, that means that the Republicans are up to no good.

So, I saw today that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are complaining that Pres. Bush allowed them "no input" into his new Iraq policy. (By the way, what was that red body shawl that she was wearing at the Demo presser? Scary.) This is a good sign. Who do they think they are? His spouse? They get no input, unless it is granted. And that would be a mistake. It's always a mistake to do what the Demos want you to do. Always.

Remember when Nancy Pelosi corrected Brit Hume after she was elected Queen of Congress and told him that the objective was not winning in Iraq, but rather "solving a problem". These people don't have a plan for our success in Iraq, and candidly there is no evidence that they want us to win there. And what right do this congresswoman from California and senator from Nevada have to give their input to the commander-in-chief, any way? None.

And what do either one of them know? Pelosi's claim to fame is being a grandma. Reid is a pretty crafty land dealer. But they have no national security expertise, and they weren't elected to be commander-in-chief. Beat it.

So, based on these tried and true indicators, the troop surge policy, with an eye toward and end-of-year handover to Iraqis, seems to be a step forward rather than backward.

I don't know yet what the president will say regarding the rules of engagement. Here's hoping that our troops are given rules of engagement that free them up to clean up. We will see. And we don't know yet what the plan is with respect to the Shitte militias. Al Maliki may be hedging his bets by keeping friendly with these radical Shiites. Maybe if the surge in Baghdad works, al Maliki will warm to doing what is necessary with respect to Moqtada al Black Teeth. Again, we'll see.

But if Ted says the light is red ... by all means, go.

P.S. I know, I know ... I said I would do a post on "The Minority" ... a real spellbinder. Well, I tried but ... I am thinking next week.
"The Minority" is on hold ... life, et al., but we see that the C-130s are not on hold in Somalia. Interesting and encouraging. And neither are more troops in Iraq. This is interesting, too, and it can be encouraging if there is a plan afoot to allow them to get after the bad guys. We'll see. What do you think?

Monday, January 08, 2007

From the halls of Montezuma ...

Excellent post last week in Flopping Aces re: Keith Ellison and his bright idea to be sworn in on Jefferson's Koran. It appears there was a bit more to Jefferson's acquisition of the Koran than Ellison and his ilk let on.

To be blunt, Jefferson wanted to know the enemy:
Take, for example, the 1786 meeting in London of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Tripolitan ambassador to Britain. As American ambassadors to France and Britain respectively, Jefferson and Adams met with Ambassador Adja to negotiate a peace treaty and protect the United States from the threat of Barbary piracy.

These future United States presidents questioned the ambassador as to why his government was so hostile to the new American republic even though America had done nothing to provoke any such animosity. Ambassador Adja answered them, as they reported to the Continental Congress, “that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

Sound familiar?
Check out the whole post.

I'm shocked. It appears jihad predates Israel, Americans on the Arabian peninusula, Iraq, 9-11, and yes, even modern history.

I understand that Mohammed himself might have engaged in a "holy" battle or two.

The truth is that not much has changed (except apparently there are now Muslim mandates to wipe out other Muslims).

Even so, many have forgotten that the Marines long ago fought our nations battles all the way "to the shores of Tripoli".

Saturday, January 06, 2007

Coming Wednesday ... Life in the Minority

You might have noticed that I have given scant attention to the goings-on in Washington. The Demos think they are turning some big ship around. They are clueless, insignificant gnats upon the giant elephantine buttocks of history.

I view this whole issue of being in "the minority" in a bit of a different light.

On Wednesday, it's time to level with those who may be bemoaning their feelings for being "in the minority" these days. I am thinking it's going to be my personal "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", except I am one of those, too. Maybe it will be more like a Howard Beale moment.

Been polishing my brass.

So don't miss it. In the meantime, I'll see you on Monday.

Friday, January 05, 2007

Where's "Hubbein"?

I got a kick out of the brouhaha between CNN and the Obama campaign after an ill-fated "graphic" somehow appeared on CNN. I can't find the picture right now, but Drudge had it up earlier this week. The "graphic" was a nice photo of Osama himself, in full jihadi regalia, with "Where's Obama?" plastered over it.

Looks like the Clinton News Network is returning to its roots.

But hey, it could have been worse. They could have put a graphic up during all the recent wall-to-wall Saddam coverage, with "Where's Hubbein?"

As I told Julie recently, if he were to get the nomination (he won't) Obama would be summarily "swift boated" (insert: have the unvarnished truth told about him) by me and my compatriots without even getting to his drug "experimentation", by merely highlighting two facts: 1) his middle name is Hussein; and 2) this man of the people is from Hawaii.

So, what's next ... a CNN profile on Barack Hussein Osama? It sounds like some sort of unholy alliance, if you ask me. So, all of you Hillary fans take note. Never mind. We'll get the scoop on Obama from you.

Thursday, January 04, 2007

Important Announcement

For those of you searching the web for "Easter yard signs", we got you covered right here.

Okay, maybe tomorrow I will post something substantive. But then again, with Goomba, or is it Goomba's ghost ... Hop Sing, whatever, and all these other old people fiddling with computers, there is no telling what type of chaos might lie ahead.

Wednesday, January 03, 2007

Happy 2007: State of the Blog Presser



DC: Welcome to Cut 'n Shoot, Texas, every one. I appreciate y'all making it out here. Y'all behave, because the locals know how to shoot around here, and they are all armed. This little hamlet is just right down the road from my ranch, so I thought I would introduce you all to really the pinnacle of Texas culture. So, Happy New Year, every one. I will just stand here in the bed, so I shouldn't need to use the mike. I have pared the crowd down this year, at any rate.

First of all, I got some complaints in the past for taking questions only from Fox News reporters at these deals, so I have only invited a couple of them to this year's New Year's presser. And ... since we are not going to allow questions from "the good", I will take questions predominately from "the bad and the ugly".

I do have one announcement before I take a few questions: I have decided to discontinue this blog at the end of '07. (Fox News contingent passes out ... )

Okay, questions ... Let's start with the ugly contingent. Yes, Goomba News Network ...

Goomba News: Sir, it's great to see you again. We have to know, in light of comments recently made here, what do you think of the BCS?

DC: Well, that's a great question, and I would expect no less from GNN, believe me. But seriously, I think that Michigan showed us that they are frauds, so the BCS actually worked. I mean, I think those girls from Nevada could have beaten Michigan, or at least taken then to OT. And how about that Fiesta Bowl. Boise just wouldn't stop with the tricks, and they continued even after the simple Sooners returned to their hotel rooms after the draining 43-42 loss. I hear that they even short-sheeted OU's Bob Stoops' hotel room bed. Now, that is good.

As for the Rose Bowl, I hear that both Michigan and USC were grateful to not have to play a traditional Rose Bowl team like Texas. And Florida should be playing for the national title, as they are. And they will beat Ohio State. I know, some of you don't want me to waste time on sports, but hey ... there is some pretty good sports commentary on this site from time to time. Why? Well, as long as we have the West and the ability to wear short pants and allow our women to show their faces in public, we'll have sports. And I am a sports fan. Let's see ... What, Goomba, you have a follow up? We do have some MSM guests I would like to get to today, but I will take a quick follow-up.

Goomba News: Thank you, sir. Not to be self-serving, but what do you think of GNN being up and running again? And did you see that loser-winner from American Idol singing during the Orange Bowl halftime show with Gladys Knight and the Pimps last night?

DC: Good grief, Goomba. Please. It's Gladys Knight and the Pips, and there weren't even any pips up there. It was just that guy from American Idol. He should stick to bad Ford commercials. About your site, I am glad to see GNN is continuing the great tradition of Nickie Goomba. And I am hoping you keep the thing up for more than a week this time.

How 'bout a twin spin. Yes, Candy ...

Candy Crowley, CNN: I suppose you were heartened by the brutal execution of Saddam Hussein. Care to give us your thoughts on that?

DC: Be happy to. It's hard to have sympathy for Saddam, certainly, and he did deserve to die for his crimes. But the conduct of his execution, and the apparent chanting of "Moqtada" by his executioners does give one pause. For me, though, I was struck by the fact that his execution actually indicates progress for Iraq and the Muslim world. He got a trial and an appeal, and his head wasn't cut off. Maybe next, the sectarian taunts will disappear. Who knows? Events like the execution of Saddam are a stark reminder that Western civilization is worth defending.

Also, I find it interesting how CNN and the rest of the MSM are disturbed that the execution was filmed, but they are not likewise concerned with showing video of enemy snipers shooting at our troops.

Finally, I understand that the video of the execution does not offend the sensibilities of the Iraqis or Muslims at large (even though holding the execution on a Sunni holiday did). It's a good thing he wasn't hung in his underwear. Then there would be hell to pay.

Candy Crowley: (Gasp)

DC: I take it that was a follow-up. What is it going to take for you people to take a good hard look at what we are dealing with in Militant Islam? Note that I don't call it "Radical Islam". The evidence is that the militant jihadis are taking the admonitions of the Koran seriously, hence they are militant. Islam has been militant throughout its history. It's founder was a warrior, and the faith spread through the sword. The so-called "moderate" Muslims are hoped for by Western media much more than they exist in real life.

In the Muslim world, anti-Semitism is an article of faith. And the most dangerous thing to Muslims is other other Muslims. The late "martyr" Zarqawi was a devoted Sunni (would you please get this word to the new head of the House Intelligence Committee?) and called the Shiites "dogs who are worse than Americans". What are we to make of such people? And what are we to make of a culture that doesn't produce enough people with the guts to stare down and defeat these bad guys? I would say they need a reformation, but you can not reform something that was broken in the first place.

Of course, there are a number of people of goodwill who are Muslims. I know they are out there, but their goodwill must eventually lead them to ask hard questions and seek difficult solutions.

All religions are not the same.

Okay, who's next ... Yes, the lovely young lady right there ...

Helen Thomas: What about this blog space? What is on tap here? Can we expect more bitter right-wing and neo-con bromides paid for by Israel and Pat Robertson?

DC: Goodness. Well, you can expect me to continue to unapologetically defend America and her allies. You can expect me to remind all people of goodwill that we are in a titanic global struggle with Militant Islam. You can expect me to keep that laser-beam focus and zero tolerance for perfect-churchers and those who don't get it that the rules are different when we are involved in a world-wide struggle for the survival of Western Civilization.

The information front of this war is important. It's why I am here.

And in spite of all of the foregoing, you can expect me to smile. Because my side is the good side, and we win in the end. I've read the end of the book. What's the matter, Ms. Thomas? No time for a smile yourself? You see, once you realize that the bad guys would slit your throat just as soon as they would mine, ironically you'll smile more. We've got a lot to live for, and a lot to fight for. Chin up.

So, in sum, you can expect more conservative commentary with the focus of protecting national security, preserving culture, and promoting liberty. Unfortunately, the '08 presidential campaign will will get going this year. I think Blogs for McCain's Opponent can be a force in the primaries, and into '08. Frankly, though, regardless of what the blogs do, I think Republican primary voters are a lot smarter than the MSM, and they will not give the nomination to McCain. Okay, yikes, yes, you there ...

Christiane Amanpour: When might we have the pleasure of seeing your, what do you call them, your columns post, your postings?

DC: I am sure you will want to be right on top of when the posts will hit the net, Ms. Amanpour. So, look for them on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. My plan is to have shorter posts on Monday and Friday, with a longer one on Wednesdays. But this is only a guide, kind of like you are unbiased, except on important stories.

Okay, I'll take one last question. Well, Carol, I mean Susan, what are you doing here? I see you there. Yes ...

Susan Estrich: What about the blog discontinuing at the end of the year? That's just horrible.

DC: Yes, but not as horrible as when you allowed Mike Dukakis to don that beaut of a helmet and pose as a tank commander. But seriously, it's really not a bad deal. I am going to change the name, new URL, but (because of my day job) will keep posting as "DC", and we'll incorporate some of the old site in the new. Why? Well, I think we can have some impact in '08 here, and I think that there are some who might use the name of this here blog to denigrate the views expressed herein. And others might shy away of what should not be shied away from because they think the views are just those of a "bitter rightwing site with military wannabe references". So, on balance, I think the change will be good, and the timing will give us all time to adjust.

So, I'm going to do it this time ... unless I change my mind.

Don't worry. I'll still do pressers from the pick-up. Okay, I gotta run.

Monday, January 01, 2007

1/3 ... I return

with a quick presser and an important announcement. In the meantime, I see that a lot has been going on since I have been gone. Open thread below for your comments.