McCain Is A Veteran and Demented

From a conference call with reporters, Tom Harkin plants the seeds that John McCain is not capable of making rational decisions, due to the fact he is from a family background of strong military service.

As the son and grandson of admirals, Harkin says his worldview is shaped by the military, and "he has a hard time thinking beyond that." "I think he's trapped in that". He went on for the Iowa reporters, according to The Des Moines Register, "Everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous." "It's one thing to have been drafted and served, but another thing when you come from generations of military people and that's just how you're steeped, how you've learned, how you've grown up."

So, the far left of the Democrat party, which is more and more the majority of the party, is now comfortable with announcing John McCain is not capable of making decisions concerning national security because he is from a military background. And, if you volunteered for military service, well, what is wrong with you anyway?

McCain has now been in politics longer than he served in the military. Harkin wants you to know he is a military vet himself so he's justified attacking McCain this way. "I just want to be very clear there's nothing wrong with a career in the military", and he continues, "But now McCain is running for a higher office. He's running for commander in chief, and our Constitution says that should be a civilian. And in some ways, I think it would be nice if that commander in chief had some military background, but I don't know if they need a whole lot."

So, in Harkin-world, the candidate must have been drafted, not volunteered, and have some military experience but not too much. How much is too much? That was not specified.

Good thing Eisenhower isn't running this year. Every president in recent history has had military experience, except Bill Clinton.

Harkin is an Obama supporter (surprise!) and this hardly sounds like the warm and fuzzy give change a chance we are the change we've been waiting for, just feel don't think kind of jibberjabber we normally hear. Obama's military experience, since Harkin thinks 'some' is good? None.

Harkin may want to note that McCain is no longer active service, so I think he qualifies as a civilian.

Dr. Tim Johnson, age 72, talking to interviewer Charlie Gibson, age 65, on ABC's World News discussed McCain's health and mental well-being. From NewsBusters, "Dr. Tim Johnson speculated about McCain's health. Gibson wondered about 'psychological damage' from his POW captivity." There's no evidence, but hey, this is network news. No need for accuracy.

Reassuring Gibson, Johnson said, "That Navy psychiatrists monitored McCain 'for many years 'after his release. They found no evidence of any serious problem. And he strongly denies any symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder." Gibson replied," But he's 71 years old. What do the actuarial tables say about a man who's 71 years old?" Johnson editorialized for the Democrats that McCain should live to be 87 years old but: "Much more difficult, of course, to predict any change in mental acuity. At age 71, there's about a 30 percent chance of developing serious memory loss or even dementia."

This is the same Dr. Johnson who said on "Good Morning America" during coverage of Senator Ted Kennedy's brain cancer announcement that the Senator was laudable for his liberal views on reforming health care. "He is a true giant in the field of those of us who care about health care reform. And we want his leadership to continue." "The Clintons are almost heroes in my mind for finally facing up to the terrible problems we have with our current health care system." Back in 1994 Johnson was on record as supporting Hillary's universal health care sham. "So at least from the physicians represented here, you get a 100 percent vote, including mine, for universal coverage."

Kennedy is 76 years old. Memory loss and dementia, Dr. Johnson?

Hey, I hear McCain has a temper.

Where's that Republican attack machine when we need it?

Stark Raving Crazy

Congressman Pete Stark (D-CA) has once again embarrassed himself and his constituents if they caught his latest looniness. As the vote on the war supplemental spending bill in the House was on the floor, Stark noticed 20 flag rank Army officers sitting in the Gallery watching the debate and vote. They observed for about two hours. According to the Weekly Standard, Stark said, "At a time when our nation is at war, our troops are over-extended, and the Administration is literally asking for emergency military spending, what good to the "war on terror" is having US Generals and other top ranked officers - who were likely accompanied by staff and escorted by their chauffeurs - spending hours sitting in the gallery of the House of Representatives?" "Please provide for me the name, rank, branch, and duties of each of these officers, as well as the number of additional staff and drivers that were used to facilitate their attendance yesterday. I would like this information by Monday, May 19th."

So, who were these people in question by the anti-war, nasty Congressman from California? A class from the Army War College in Carlisle, PA. Did Stark apologize for his hatred, and bullying screed? No. He issued a statement, as the cowards do : "If these officers were hoping for a lesson in how Congress ought to work, then perhaps the Iraq supplemental wasn't the best debate for them to witness." What an arrogant ass. While he throws his idiocy around, he'll also tell them what they should be watching.

The funding has been held up. No surprise with a Democrat controlled Congress who likes to make the war in Iraq and Afghanistan a political football instead of pulling together for the sake of the troops. Secretary of Defense Gates said before the Senate Appropriations Committee recently, "After June 15, we will run out of funds in the account to pay soldiers, including those in Iraq and Afghanistan." "Around July 5, O&M funds across the services will run out, starting with the Army. This may result in civilian furloughs, limits on training, and curbing family support activities."

Senate Majority Leader (the term leader used lightly here) said that a funding bill for the war in Iraq is not likely before the Memorial Day recess. Don't want to actually get any work done that might support those troops they claim to support or let it interrupt a few vacation days.

Where's all the praise from the we-support-the-troops Democrat leadership over the victory in Sadr City recently performed by the Iraqi troops? The ones trained by the American and coalition troops. The ones the Democrats keep bitching about that aren't trained and taking over quickly enough? And that al-Maliki has camped out in Mosul as the Iraqi troops finish taking over there, too? No, no. In an election year, we must yammer about failed policies and neo-cons. No recognition when recognition is due. That would be what? Oh yeah. Supporting the troops.

Who's Your Daddy?

"We can't drive our SUV's, and eat as much as we want, and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times - and then just expect that other countries are going to say ok," Obama said. "That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.

Ah, back to the past. Back to John Kerry's 'global test' theory. "You have to do it in a way that passes the test--that passes the global test--where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." Then, it'll be back to the further back past. It'll be Jimmy Carter's national malaise. I can't wait. Stop complaining and toss on a sweater, you selfish American. Reaping the fruits of your labor? Bah. It's all going to D.C. as taxes on your success anyway. And all those green jobs that will appear, poof, right out of the air, paid for by tax money. And to Al Gore's investment portfolio stocks.

Barack Obama wants to be your daddy. He'll find out how much you can eat and what car you can drive and what temperature your house can be after he polls the nations of the world. All on the premise that climate change is curable if we'll just go back to pre-Industrial Revolution productivity. This is just more of the arrogance Obama brings to politics. How arrogant to think nature and the climate will be 'saved' by political demands.

"Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute has actually sat down and crunched the numbers and found that Obama's 80% reduction from 1990 levels means that in 2050 we cannot emit more than one billion tons of CO2. The last time U.S. emissions were that low, Hayward estimates from historical energy data, was in 1910." That from Investor's Business Daily. Hayward says that per capita carbon emissions would have to fall to just 2.5 tons in order to reach Obama's goal. Nations relatively independent of fossil fuels like France (nuclear) and Switzerland (hydroelectric) still emit 6.5 metric tons of CO2 per capita. What Obama sets as a goal for America is at the level of a Belize or a Somalia."

Leading by example is a worthy ambition. Obama, in his crack the whip mode however, fails to acknowledge that America already leads the world in controlling emissions of greenhouse gas emissions and on energy efficiency. America exceeds the European Union, for example, who are Kyoto signatories.

Blaming America first is not always in line with the facts.

Who's your daddy? We need a real grown up with solutions, not platitudes and pie in the sky. Or, political pandering to the crunchy granola crowd in Oregon.

The Lord of Perpetual Victimhood

The Lexington Herald-Leader ran an interesting article on Obama's efforts in the state of Kentucky for the upcoming Tuesday primary. Hillary is expected to win big, as she did in West Virginia so Obama is not exerting much energy to campaign in the state.

Not to worry, though, you Kentucky voters. He'll see you later as he runs for President in the general election. He said, "When we're able to campaign in a place like Iowa for several months and I can visit and talk to people individually, I do very well. That's harder to do at this stage in the campaign." Then to back his decision, he blamed Fox News for "disseminating rumors about him and said that that and e-mails filled with misinformation that have been "systematically" dispersed have hurt him in Kentucky."

Rick Moran writing at his blog, Rightwing Nuthouse, has a good post about this continued whining from the man who hopes to be the next leader of the free world. Moran is a Chicago-area blogger and informed voice on the politics of the city. Head over there and check it out.

I don't like whining in children and I certainly don't like whining in adults. But it does fit a pattern of action from the Obama camp, doesn't it. Now, this morning he and Michelle were doing the usual puff piece on a morning news chat show and he says Michelle is off-limits for public criticism. Evidently the Tennessee GOP has an ad running that quotes Michelle and that is just not acceptable to the up and coming next American president. He calls it 'snippets' as he always does when quotes are used that reflect badly on him and his people around him.

I understand a husband coming to the defense of a wife. I'd expect it, as a matter of fact. However, when it is the political arena, when the spouse is billed as 'The Closer' by the campaign, when the spouse is an Ivy League trained lawyer, when the spouse draws her own crowds at her very own events, then she is to be held accountable, too.

She knows it. Obama knows it. But, when her remarks, from the very beginning of his campaign, have offended and angered voters - those in normal lives, in regular communities all across the country - her bitterness and anger is open for criticism. She began the campaign with statements of her opinion that Barack could be shot just going to the gas station, because he's a black man in America. Obama was given special secret service protection right away, to ward off racist threats, we were told. OK. Then Michelle was taped saying for the very first time in her life she is really proud of her country. And why is that, Michelle? She said it wasn't only because Barack is doing well, but that's exactly what the reason is. Then the media willfully did their own preferred 'snippet' of the speech and used a later quote of the first quote where Michelle takes out the 'really' adjective of her pride in America. I suppose that softens her vanity.

The wife of the post-racial candidate is overheard saying she needs more white people up on stage with her. Yes, it is normal for campaigns to stage the look of the crowd. But, aren't these folks different? They say they are. Michelle says a focus on an issue doesn't help her children. Her children. Not the children of America, which she added later.

She complained, intentionally or not, that it's hard making it out there. What with private dance lessons and summer camps for the kids, paying back student loans to those Ivy League schools and all that entails. She said she asked Barack, where's the money, if he's related along the line to Dick Cheney. Where's the money.

Now she's hurt, she's being criticised. She knew exactly what she was doing all along. She is a professional woman in Chicago, earning big bucks and sitting on corporate boards (while her husband bashes lobbyists) and like it or not, she is a woman of privilege. If she was not striving for her lifestyle, then why did she pursue the paths she pursued all along? The school choices, the career choices, the choice of husband? I know it is the left's desire to continue with the victimhood line of thought but for her it was personal choice. Grow up.

The very fact that she and her husband live the lives they do today is the counter argument to her victimhood whining. Despite what she says, America is not a 'mean country', as she also told an audience on the campaign trail.

So, Obama is whining about a new subject today. His wife is being criticised. It's those mean spirited Republicans. They must be bitter, gun toting, Bible carrying, typical white people down there in Tennessee. He implies if people aren't voting for him then they must be racists. Never mind they may just not agree with his political philosophy and it has nothing to do with skin color. Hey, he's a black man in America.

Our Lord of Perpetual Victimhood.

When Obama is given pass after pass in the media, does he notice? Probably not. I think he is so self satisfied that he just expects such treatment and that is why he whines when it doesn't happen his way. He calls a reporter 'sweetie' and the media brushes it off. Can you imagine if McCain said that? He'd be a senile old pervert. Obama said in recent remarks about Bush's speech in Israel that Bush called him 'a appeaser' when the proper grammar was 'an appeaser'. When Bush does that sort of thing, well, he's stupid. Bush's Yale and Harvard education doesn't matter in the world of the smugness of the left.

Where was the outrage from Obama when Bush and his family have been attacked on the most personal of levels? We have been told for more than 7 years that Bush, his wife and his daughters are fair game. The level of hatred aimed at the Bush family hasn't been seen in public discourse, certainly not in my lifetime.

The Obama campaign, led by the candidate, has put Michelle out there as a surrogate of the candidate. She has been billed as intelligent, strong, out-spoken, and fiercely supportive of her husband. To cry victim now is ridiculous. It is her husband, after all, who states that words matter, remember?

Americans expect a whole lot better of their next First Lady.

Timely Recognition

Do you know who should have won the Noble Peace Prize in 2007, instead of the joke that was the awarding to Al Gore? Irena Sendlerowa. You likely have never heard of Irena Sendlerowa. She died Monday in Warsaw. She was 98 years old.

She saved more than 2,500 lives during the Nazi occupation of Poland. A Catholic, Irena suffered horrific torture and risked her own life to save the lives of Jewish children during the certain death of the Holocaust. An organized Polish underground had formed the "Zegota" and Irena was a member. She posed as a nurse and, along with 20 other Poles, smuggle 2,500 Jewish children out of the ghetto of Warsaw.

The Poles gave the children Christian names and put them with Polish families as well as into orphanages and convents. The children were smuggled out to safety in ambulances, coffins, sacks and through the sewers and tunnels of Warsaw.

Sendlerowa was arrested by the Germans in 1943. She would tell them nothing, despite the torture of both broken legs and feet. That was real torture in hopes of getting the names of her helpers and the location of the children, not the alleged tortures of today's ACLU supporters.

She bribed a guard and was able to escape her death sentence. She went on to continue her work until the end of the war.

A woman who never sought recognition, she was honored in 1965 by Yad Vasem, Israel's Holocaust memorial. The Communists refused to allow her to travel to accept the award. She received the Order of the White Eagle, Poland's highest civilian decoration in 2007. The same year she was nominated to win the Noble Peace Prize and supported mightily by Polish President Lech Kazynski. Instead of making up a reason to fawn over the phony science of Al Gore, a man neither intellectual nor brave, the Prize Committee should have disavowed politics and awarded a true hero. Yes, Al Gore went to service during Vietnam, but he did so with a typewriter and with Secret Service protection at the insistence of his Senator father. That's a different kind of 'bravery'.

"Every child saved with my help and the help of all the wonderful secret messengers, who today are no longer living, is the justification of my existence on this earth, and not a title to glory."

At a time when Barack Obama brags on his campaign web site that he is the only candidate to promise to sit down with any rogue nation's leader, without preconditions, Irena's story is particularly timely. At a time when ideas on torture are a political football, Irena's story is particularly timely.

A new kind of Hollywood actor, and a part time musician, Gary Sinise and his "Lt. Dan Band" performed to a standing room only crowd in the courtyard of the Pentagon Friday. It was billed as "Rocking at the Pentagon" and it was in honor of the 4th Annual America Supports You Military Tribute Concert, part of Military Appreciation Month. The concert was also televised live to the troops overseas. The Lt. Dan reference dates back to Sinise's role in the movie, "Forrest Gump".

Soldiers, family members, civilians and veterans packed the courtyard for the concert. The music was a mix of rock, pop, and country music. Clapping, arm waving and feet tapping on the ground served as audience participation.

"It is very, very important that you know you are appreciated and that we're grateful and that we're not going to forget the sacrifices that you and your families make for our nation," he said. "We want everybody who is watching this around the world to know that we're here supporting you. We believe in you. We are depending on you. You are our volunteer defenders, and we never take that for granted."

Sinise went into the crowd as the end of the concert approached, dancing with the crowd. As he continued playing, he sat next to Marine Lance Cpl. Jeremy Stengel who was in the front row and asked how his recovery was going. "I thought it was awesome. I thought it was amazing," Stengel said. "It's a break for us to get away from the hospital scene. We're at the hospital going through therapy day in and day out. We kind of need a break."

Sinise played a bit of air guitar with Air Force Senior Master Sgt. Rene Rubiella, a member of the 920th Rescue Wing at Patrick Air Force Base, Florida. He was at the Pentagon for the first time, to receive the President's Volunteer Service Award. He has volunteered for multiple tours of Iraq. "It's people like Gary that turn around and make us feel that we are appreciated and that we are loved and that there is a commitment from our nation that we are not forgotten," Rubiella said. "I am so grateful that people take the time to commit, to volunteer their time and put on these events for our entertainment. I had a ball," he said. "It just means the world to you. It reaches your heart." "I just think it's great what Gary does. I think he's a true patriot", said Army Lt. Col. Scott Turner. "I'm very hopeful that he's reflective of all the men and women of the nation. And it's just great that he would take his time to come out and support the troops."

Maybe Barack Obama could explain his thoughts on talking to Halocaust deniers and the leader of the nation sending bombs and rockets into Iraq to kill our soldiers. And the claims of the appeasement crowd that we are not safer now? No attacks on our soil since 9/11/2001. Period.

Good Luck to You, Senator

A key characteristic of a leader is trustworthiness. How are we to follow a person, a leader, if the person is not to be trusted? A person is only as good as his/her word.

Like his policies or not, President Bush is solid on being taken at his word. A citizen may not agree with the President, but no one doubts he will carry through on what he says is his intention.

Let's hold Barack Obama to the same standard. An incident that has been in the back of my mind for quite some time now has surfaced again, this being an election cycle and all, and Obama the presumed nominee of the Democrats. Plus it has to do with an interaction between Obama and John McCain, the nominee of the Republicans.

The incident I remember, vaguely, was of McCain being upset with Obama for Obama going back on his word to McCain on lobbying reform legislation. You may notice now that Obama is running for President and has no legislative leadership of which to point, he and his minions claim he pushed through ethics reform. Back in February, 2006, the Lieberman, Nelson, McCain bipartisan bill on lobbying reform was introduced after members of both parties were included in meetings on the legislation. Remember, this is when the Republicans still controlled the Senate. And, remember, too, that McCain was catching flak for working so consistently with Democrats in a bipartisan way to get legislation through the Senate.

Obama privately told McCain that he wanted to work with the bipartisan group. He told McCain that despite pressure from the likes of Harry Reid, he (Obama) wanted to be a part of the bipartisan effort. Obama approached McCain, remember, not the other way around, so McCain thought Obama was sincere. At the last minute, Obama backed out of his commitment of support. I remember the tension between the two when both walked into a committee meeting, a committee they both sit on. Obama and McCain shook hands and went on to their seats. Obviously the situation was known to the body of the Senate.

McCain sent a letter to Obama explaining that Obama could rest assured that McCain would never again make the mistake of taking him at his word. For all of Obama's claims of working together in a bipartisan way, it is all a ruse. He has no such history in the Senate and there is no reason to believe he would behave any differently in the Oval Office.

Bush, as Governor of Texas, was known for working with Democrats in the state legislature. The Lt. Governor in Bush's first term was a Democrat and the two were very close friends besides working together at the capitol. The friendship developed as they worked together. Throughout Bush's terms as President he, too, catches static for working too closely with Democrats for many Republicans. No history of that with Obama.

A copy of the letter from McCain to Obama was referenced and available through American Thinker. The letter ends: "Furthermore, I have consistently maintained that any lobbying reform proposal be bipartisan. The bill Senators Joe Lieberman, and Bill Nelson and I have introduced is evidence of that commitment as is my insistence that members of both parties be included in meetings to develop the legislation that will ultimately be considered on the Senate floor. As I explained in a recent letter to Senator Reid, and have publicly said many times, the American people do not see this as just a Republican problem or just a Democratic problem. They see it as yet another run-of-the-mill Washington scandal, and they expect it will generate just another round of partisan gamesmanship and posturing. Senator Lieberman and I, and many other members of this body, hope to exceed the public's low expectations. We view this as an opportunity to bring transparency and accountability to the Congress, and , most importantly, to show the public that both parties will work together to address our failings."

"As I noted, I initially believed you shard that goal. But I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party's effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness. Again, I have been around long enough to appreciate that in politics the public interest isn't always a priority for every one of us. Good luck to you, Senator."

Ouch.

Another example I came across recently about Obama's two faces is contained in The Evangelical President. Bill Sammon writes "One of the top candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination was Obama, who first met Bush in 2005, when the Illinois liberal and other senators were invited to the White House to hear the president discuss his second-term agenda. Bush took the opportunity to pull Obama aside and give him some friendly advice. Noting the newly minted senator's enormous popularity, Bush cautioned that it would make him a target for rivals on both sides of the aisle. Obama thanked Bush for the advice and later recounted the episode in a memoir, The Audacity of Hope. But in the same passage, Obama described Bush as a zealot whose demeanor was downright frightening when he discussed his second-term agenda." "Suddenly it felt as if somebody in a back room had flipped a switch," Obama wrote. "The president's eyes became fixed; his voice took on the agitated, rapid tone of someone neither accustomed to nor welcoming interruption; his easy affability was replaced by an almost messianic certainty. As I watched my mostly Republican Senate colleagues hang on his every word, I was reminded of the dangerous isolation that power can bring, and appreciated the Founders' wisdom in designating a system to keep power in check."

Sammon continues: "When I quoted from this passage to Bush, the president seemed irritated to learn he had been trashed by the senator he had counseled. "I thought I was actually showing some kindness," Bush told me indignantly. "And out of that he came with this belief?" The president added with a bit of a scowl, "He doesn't know me very well."

The President could have ignored the Freshman senator or just shook his hand and said a quick hello. No good deed goes unpunished, in some quarters. The Senator from the south side of Illinois was brazen enough to write not one but two books all about himself by the time he was in his early 40's. It is obvious these books are just more of the very calculated path to the Oval Office he pursues. Like joining the church in Chicago to get into the Chicago political machine. Like his running for higher office every cycle. Like his snooty, arrogant stance with his nose in the air.

I listened to an interview this morning with Mark Helprin , who has a new book out. He is employed by Claremont Institute. He was asked about his opinion of Obama's capability as leader of the free world in foreign policy. He says Obama is a typical leftist who will not face challenges but turn his back on them. He thinks, however, McCain has strength of conviction in his bones.

Helprin was raised by a mother who was a member of the Communist party. She instilled in Helprin the belief that America is capable of any kind of change. Helprin notes change goes both ways.

And, change is not policy. It's a word. Like Michelle Obama says, don't think, just feel.

Good luck to you, Senator Obama. You'll be facing John McCain, not George W. Bush in November. The contrast couldn't be clearer. Look down your nose at that.

President Bush at the Knesset

Appeasers, it seems, don't like to be called appeasers. You would think this is a new criticism of the far left in this country. The far left is squealing like little stuck piggies all over the television today. Seems a certain campaign has a guilty conscience and thinks everything is all about him. But, why wouldn't he? The national media tells him it is every day.

The best one? Nancy Pelosi claims the remarks from President Bush's speech to the Knesset were not becoming of the Office of the President. That was priceless. You remember it was Pelosi that hightailed it to Damascus as soon as she was sworn in as Speaker of the House and met with Junior Assad, despite her State Department asking her not to, don't you? And what did it produce? Israel bitch slapped her and said she misrepresented them to Assad. Welcome to prime time, Speaker Pelosi.

Susan Rice was all over television, justifying Obama's foreign policy decision to meet with leaders of the terrorist nations, like Iran in particular, without pre-conditions, as his own web site clearly states. Susan Rice criticized the Bush administration for talking to North Korea but not to Iran. Susan Rice criticized the Bush Administration for talking to Sudan but not Syria.

Did Susan Rice get the memo that the Bush administration has sent diplomatic teams to Iran, quietly and professionally, to open dialogue? Several times. There is a big difference, however, in sending diplomats to do the job for which they are trained and that of setting up meetings at the Presidential level without any pre-conditions. You remember Rice from her days with Maddie Albright and the whole party like it's 1999 in North Korea, don't you? And, that ended how? This administration - that of the failed policies of Bush, according to the Obamabots, has made progress by demanding 6 party talks with North Korea and, again, using diplomats.

As I listened to President Bush's speech to the Knesset, where leaders and dignitaries, Israeli and American, were gathered to mark Israel's independence, I was struck by a thought. It was, why hasn't Bush had the nerve to talk like this for the past 5 years? If he had been as bold and honest as he was today, the American public would better understand the challenges of being the superpower of the world and our special bond with freedom seeking people.

"We believe that democracy is the only way to ensure human rights. So we consider it a source of shame that the United nations routinely passes more human rights resolutions against the freest democracy in the Middle East than any other nation in the world." Applause.

"We believe that free people should strive and sacrifice for peace. So we applaud the courageous choices Israeli's leaders have made. We also believe that nations have a right to defend themselves and that no nation should ever be forced to negotiate with killers pledged to its destruction." Applause.

"We believe that targeting innocent lives to achieve political objectives is always and everywhere wrong. So we stand together against terror and extremism, and we will never let down our guard or lose our resolve." Applause.

"There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century."

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history." Applause.

That is the statement that sent the far left into a tailspin. That speaks volumes, doesn't it? And then the non-serious like Howard Dean and his posse said since Secretary of Defense Gates just today said more dialogue with Iran would be helpful, they fail to point out that he is not speaking of the Presidential level, or of those of upper government in Iran. He's speaking at the defense department level. Funny how they keep editing out what they don't want to include in their criticisms of foreign policy. Like the 100 years remark of McCain that is still taken out of context to this day.

So, if you want to talk of 'disgraceful' behavior, instead of provocative as it really was, just remember Pelosi, or Albright, or Baghdad Jim McDermott, to name a few.

Appeasement is not the path to peace.

Bloggers Unite for Human Rights

Today has been designated Bloggers Unite for Human Rights day for the international blogging community to use the power of the blog to send out messages of support for human rights. For their web site: "Bloggers Unite is an initiative designed to harness the power of the blogosphere to make the world a better place. By challenging bloggers to blog about a particular social cause on a single day, a single voice can be joined with thousands of others to help make a real positive difference, from raising awareness for cancer, to an effort of better education systems or support third world countries." Sounds like a plan.

If you are interested, the web site is http://www.unite.blogcatalog.com/

I've chosen to post some parts of John McCain's recent speech at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan. The speech is titled His Vision for Defending the Freedom and Dignity of the World's Vulnerable. It encompasses everything from slavery, human trafficking, religious freedom around the world, Internet exploitation of children, etc. It can be found in full at http://www.johnmccain.com/.

"There is a tendency in our age to accede to the spurious excuse of moral relativism and turn away from the harshest examples of man's inhumanity to man; to ignore the darker side of human nature that encroaches upon our decency by subtle degree. There are many reasons for this. Blessed with opportunity, and intent on the challenges of work and family, our own lives often seem too full and hectic to take notice of offenses that seem distant from our own reality."

"Confronting evil has never been easy - in our age or any other. But the failure to do so affects even those who are complacent with our own blessings and secure in our human rights. Accepting the degradation of values we believe are universal is to relinquish some of our own humanity. America was founded on the belief in the inherent dignity of all human life and that his dignity can only be preserved through shared respect and shared responsibility. We can retain our own freedom when others are robbed of theirs, but not the sense of virtue that made our revolution a moral as well as political crusade, and which recognizes that personal happiness is so much more than pleasure, and requires us to serve causes greater than self-interest."

"It is also the appropriate concern of a nation conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all people are equal, to encourage and coax other cultures into abandoning practices that afflict the happiness and health of women and children, whether they be practices that mutilate their bodies or impose on them marriage before their maturity and without their informed consent. I would insist that our diplomacy actively raise and discourage in our relationships with other countries customs that so degrade and physically threaten people, and explain that the full benefits of friendship with the United States are predicated on a shared respect for the basic right of women and children not to suffer atrocities to their physical and emotional health to protect traditions that should have been ended long ago."

"Our nation, whose founders sacrificed for the belief that we would be an example to the world, has long appreciated that our freedom confers responsibilities on us all, and among them, is our respect for the freedom of others. Ours is not a perfect history. But it is a history distinguished by our pursuit of this ideal. As we pursue greater individual freedom and economic opportunity, as we take advantage of new technologies and explore a world more accessible to more people than ever before, we must be diligent in our support of those rights, and in our active opposition to the enemies of human dignity in our own society and in all the dark corners of the world. We must remember that our freedoms are not only defended by our diplomacy and military power but, very importantly, by the decency and respect with which we treat one another, and by our belief that as we our dignity is entitled to respect so we are obliged to respect and defend the dignity of others. Ours is a nation with a conscience, and thank God we are."

Freedom is a human right, the most basic human right.