I really hope your buddy John McCain will straighten up and fly right after reading your upcoming columns, Fred.

If we housed terrorist prisoners in these barracks, the world would scream bloody murder. This is completely unacceptable.

More at Hot Air.

CNN has an interesting article about a couple that married in Kansas several years ago. What the wife, who is a US Citizen, didn’t know while they were dating was that her husband was an illegal immigrant. He tried to do the right thing earlier this year, which was to return to Mexico and apply for legal immigration status. The problem is, since he was in the country illegally for over a year, he is barred from returning for over 10 years unless there are extreme extenuating circumstances. You can read about it here.

While I have my doubts about this case (a 26 year old man marries a 40 year old woman, hmm...), this is one case out of over 12 million currently in the US. It illustrates, however, the difficulty faced by true immigration reform. When an illegal immigrant marries a US Citizen and they start a family (where under the Constitution the kids are US Citizens), do we tear the family apart to enforce immigration laws?

How we tackle this debate will in some ways define us as a nation, since we are a nation of immigrants. Keep in mind that 100 years ago, to the best of my knowledge, there was no such thing as "illegal" immigration. Here’s my two-cents:

It is interesting to look back at the fighting that occurred in Iraq this past week and a half when Iraqi forces entered Basra to contain and control militias in the second largest city in Iraq. All week we've been subjected to headlines of "The Lessons of Basra" (The Nation), "A Civil War Iraq Can't Win" (NYT), "Basra Assault Exposed U.S., Iraqi Limits: Anti-Sadr Gambit Seen Aiding Cleric" (The Washington Post)...you get the picture. Here's the part I don't understand:

1. As of March 30th, when the cease-fire was declared, Iraqi forces had killed 571 Mahdi Army fighters, wounded 881, captured 490, and accepted the surrender of 30 throughout Iraq.
2. Al-Sadr ordered his fighters to quit fighting, then called it a "cease-fire." While he tried to put terms on it, the Iraqi government did not accept any of the terms, with the exception of "if you quit fighting us, we won't kill you."
3. Al-Sadr "brokered" the cease-fire with the help of Iran, because that is where he is at. He is not in Iraq (nor has he been seen there in over a year), because he fears to return.
4. The Iraqi army has entered Basra in Brigade strength to restablish order. Curfews still exist for Sadr City and Basra. Not exactly conditions for the Medhi Army to be dancing in the streets.
5. In six days of fighting, the Mehdi Army suffered major setbacks in Hillah, Najaf, Karbala, Diwaniyah, Amarah, Kut, and Nasiriyah.
6. When the cease-fire was granted by the Iraqi Army, Al-Sadr's Medhi army was critically low on food, water and ammunition in Basra due to the border with Iran being sealed.

Explain to me please how people can say he "won?" I just don't get it.

... I must be doing something right. Especially when it's Tim Russo.

Behold the wages of identity politics.

When will an interviewer or a reporter ask Barack Obama whether he believes in Black Liberation Theology? It's definitely not orthodox Christianity.

Imagine that I'm a leading Democrat candidate for President, and I've been a member of the Westboro Baptist Church for 20 years, and donated tens of thousands of dollars to the ministry. I've also called the Reverend Fred Phelps my friend and spiritual mentor for years. Furthermore, he presided over my marriage and baptized my two daughters.

Now when embarrassing video clips of Fred Phelps' sermons surface during my campaign, I start distancing myself from the specific offensive statements in the specific videos. I also play down my association with Phelps by likening him to a crazy uncle and claiming "Gosh, he never said stuff like that when I was in the pews; the few times I attended it was all about Jesus and love and faith and family."

My supporters claim the media cherry-picked quotes to serve their own agenda, that people are afraid of me, and that my accusers don't understand the "context" of the rhetoric used in churches that focus primarily on homosexuals.

Would anybody believe a single word I said? Of course not. They'd all call B.S.

So why in the world do the Obamassiah's followers expect me to swallow his line of bull?

--

Update: Spin, baby, spin.

Are you ready for an eye-opening look at the kind of racist bilge that's taught by the church that Obama chose to support and attend for the last twenty years? Make sure you're sitting down first, because this is black liberation theology in its unvarnished ugliness.

Whoopsie:

Contrary to Senator Barack Obama’s claim that he never heard his pastor Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. preach hatred of America, Obama was in the pews last July 22 when the minister blamed the “white arrogance” of America’s Caucasian majority for the world’s suffering, especially the oppression of blacks.

...

In fact, Obama was present in the South Side Chicago church on July 22 last year when Jim Davis, a freelance correspondent for Newsmax, attended services along with Obama. [See: ”Obama’s Church: Cauldron of Division.”]

How many of these sermons did Obama attend? More importantly, if he lied about his supposed ignorance of Wright's hateful rhetoric, why should we believe Obama when he "condemns" those sermons?

More analysis at Hot Air.

From Barack Obama's initial stab at damage control over his anti-American racist pastor, Jeremiah Wright:

Most importantly, Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life. In other words, he has never been my political advisor; he's been my pastor. And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn.

Pray tell, what is the Gospel that forms the basis of Obama's life and beliefs? Not being one to stick to what's actually in the Bible, Pastor Wright apparently teaches another gospel:

Concerning his pastor, Obama said last week that Wright "has said some things that are considered controversial because he's considered that part of his social gospel."

When Obama says "social gospel" he means Black Liberation Theology (as Pastor Wright confirmed on March 1st, 2007). Does Obama share his pastor's belief in the Marxist principles of Kawaida? A candidate's worldview is fair game for detailed examination; Americans deserve to have enough information to make an educated decision in the voting booth. It would be nice to know if this potential President is a devotee of a kooky anti-American pseudo-religion, or whether he'll base his decisions on something resembling actual Christianity. Heck, I'd prefer a pro-American atheist as President to Jeremiah Wright's brand of wild eyed nutcase.

So far, there hasn't been much in the way of a coherent explanation from the Obamassiah.

One of the stories from Ohio’s primary yesterday that is really bothering me was a report of 21 precincts in Cuyahoga County ordered to remain open by a Federal Judge’s decree until 9:00pm due to “voting improprieties.” Specifically, the Obama campaign sued the Ohio Secretary of State about a shortage of ballots and heavy winter weather supposedly preventing voters from being able to get in line to vote before the 7:30pm deadline. Here’s why this bothers me so much. Within the documents presented, there were no witness statements or evidence collaborating the charges (normally a requirement), and more importantly the 21 precincts appear to have been “cherry picked” due to their racial demographics (i.e. mostly African-American).

I’ve been wondering for a while how fair the rules are governing who gets a state’s delegates for the democrats. I feel a little disenfranchised right now, because there is no reasonable way for me to have a say in who is selected from my home state (Wyoming). As a military family, because Wyoming is a “Caucus” state for all intents and purposes we don’t count. My wife is an ardent Hillary Clinton supporter, and at least in the primaries my loyalties follow the same path (though in the general right now my preference is for McCain). It bothers me a little bit that she cannot make her opinion known because she is currently deployed to Iraq, and that the only way I could participate would be to buy two very expensive plane tickets to our home state, then arrange for a babysitter for my four year old daughter while I go stand in a gym someplace waiting to very publicly (vs. a secret ballot) make my selection known.

Because I couldn’t sleep, I decided to take a look at a couple of figures related to how the candidates in this election are selected. An interesting contrast is created when you look at a couple of “what if” scenarios involving the way democratic delegates are awarded. What if the states were awarded like the general election, namely “winner-take-all” vs. the current allocation. If this were the case, the numbers would be Clinton in the lead with 1738 to Obama’s 1559 (at the time I am writing this, Texas Caucus results are unknown, though the primary in Texas has been called for Clinton). My assumption here is that Texas would be awarded solely to Clinton due to the Primary. If you factor in Florida and Michigan (which Clinton won, but don’t count due to moving their primaries up) the numbers would jump to 2051 vs. 1559. In other words, the contest would be over, and Clinton would be the nominee.

You've probably heard of "broken glass voters." Well, I just rolled my manual wheelchair through wind-driven sleet and two inches of bat-guano-slick slush to vote in Ohio's primary election. I'm not alone in braving the crud to go vote either.

The turnout according to the poll workers had topped 630 voters as I arrived 15 minutes from poll-closing time. Typical turnout for presidential primaries here runs about 400-450 voters. More interesting yet, the sign-in desk had almost used up its allotted stack of change-your-party-affiliation forms. With ~20 pages in the stack and 5 signature blocks on each form, that means that close to 100 voters in this suburban Cleveland area district changed their party affiliation.

With John McCain having the GOP nomination all but sewn up already, I'll give you three guesses which party's members were flocking to vote for the other side's nominee ... and your first two guesses don't count.

I'll be keeping an eye out for airborne swine, because it's been that kind of day.

Why is the question of John McCain’s citizenship being brought up now? Not meaning to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it sure seems like the NY Times has suddenly made it their mission to bring up the most asinine of charges against the presumptive Republican nominee. Here is the article McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out.

This issue hits a little close to home for me. My daughter was born overseas, specifically in the US Military Hospital in Wuerzburg, Germany while my wife was assigned there as a member of the US Army. If you follow the argument set out by the NY Times (and now floating around the blogs), she would be ineligible to become the President of this country, while the child of an illegal immigrant born in an Arizona hospital could someday become the Commander-in-Chief. Now I’m not a Constitutional Scholar, but I believe that the common sense definition needs to come into play.

Why was John McCain born in Panama? His father was a career US Navy Officer, stationed at the US Military Base in Panama at the time he was born. By pushing this argument, it means that the child of any military member, ambassador, embassy worker, or citizen serving their country outside the US borders born overseas is ineligible for this nation’s highest office. This is just flat out stupid.

When you're a Democrat running for president, you have to woo superdelegates to your side. But who's got any time in their busy campaign schedule to meet with them all to persuade them? It's so much easier to just buy them outright with campaign contributions.

H/T: Bearing Drift Ohio

Heere Bigynneth the Tale of the Asse-Hatte.

Hat tip: Pro Ecclesia

Brad Smith at RedState crystallizes the concerns rattling around in my mind over the nomination of John McCain in a clear-eyed and unemotional post. He looks at all the possibilities that worry conservatives and comes to a fairly bleak conclusion.

Atrocious policies? Check. Stubbornness and temperament? Check. The critical importance of winning the war against jihadists? Check. Judicial nominations? Check. The Democrats' likely actions if elected? Check. Division in the Republican Party throughout a McCain administration? Check. Most importantly, McCain's almost certain inability to shift his stance to conservative orthodoxy and have any hope of presiding effectively (assuming he can even win the election)? Oh, yes indeed ... check-o-rama.

Here's Smith's take on the dilemma McCain faces because of his repeated slanders of our motives:

For example, it is not just that Senator McCain opposes opening ANWR for oil drilling, but that he implies that those who support drilling in ANWR (the bulk of his party) would favor drilling in the Grand Canyon, something not remotely comparable and something no conservative wants to do. It is not just that he promoted restrictions on political speech, but he felt it necessary to call fellow Republican senators “corrupt.” It is not only that he was less than enthusiastic about the agenda of many evangelicals, but that he felt it necessary to call them, “agents of intolerance.” It was not enough for him to oppose President Bush’s tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 – he felt the need to denounce them as “tax cuts for the rich” in leftist lingo that left most Democrats in the dust. The list could go on and on.

...

Moreover, if Senator McCain is truly a “straight-talker” who tells people “things they don’t want to hear,” then we must take these types of comments – many of them repeated several times, some of them part of set piece speeches – as his true beliefs. In that case, it appears that Senator McCain really hopes to lead into battle a group of people he considers to be boorish, stupid, yahoos. It is understandable if this doesn't inspire the troops. If he is merely scoring political points, well, the “straight talking” image goes by the boards.

Which is it? Is he the leader of the boorish, stupid yahoos? Or is he not a straight talker after all? Don't expect a clarification anytime soon from candidate McCain.

Speaking personally, I'll hold my nose and vote for John McCain in November if he can do just two things.

1. Convince me that he clearly understands the nature and aims of our jihadist enemies, and that he has a coherent long-term strategy for crushing them.


2. Convince me that he will nominate judges like John Roberts and Samuel Alito without insisting on a pro-campaign-finance-reform litmus test ... and push them through a Democrat-controlled Senate.

If he can do that I'll vote for him. Otherwise, he can forget it. Convince me, Senator.

Delivered down the hall from the official CPAC room.

Red meat.

Is it just me, or are the Congress and the President doing the usual two-step “we must be seen to be doing something about a recession because it is an election year” dance when it comes to “stimulus?” Think about it. As proposed, what would the stimulus really accomplish? We give individuals $600.00 ($1,200.00 to families or couples) to spend as they wish. It will cost approximately $150 Billion dollars. WHY?!?!? From what I have read, people are usually going to do one of two things with their checks, either pay off their credit cards (no new jobs) or go to Wal-Mart and spend it (most of the money going to China). If we are determined to put ourselves in debt that much more (and I personally don’t think we should) why don’t we address it differently?

If you want to truly stimulate the economy, do something that will help people long-term. This country is beginning to have major infrastructure problems. Why not propose it as a comprehensive Infrastructure Refurbishment Bill instead. Think of how many construction workers and American businesses would be hired with this amount of money? American Steel used to rebuild bridges. American families reaping the benefits of new jobs. All of the money would go into stimulus, and it would stay in the USA.

If you want relief for all Americans, then release 15% of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve over the course of a year to stabilize (reduce the price) of the oil markets. 15% is equal to 104 million barrels of oil (the current reserve level is at 697.5 million barrels). This would result in lower gasoline costs, lower heating oil costs, lower jet-fuel costs, etc. It would probably knock the price of oil back down into the $50-$60 range, which would translate to a savings of approximately $0.50 per gallon of gasoline for each consumer. Considering each family on average uses 15 gallons of gas a week (conservatively), this translates to a savings of nearly $400.00 per year per family, and jump starts the transportation industries (airlines, shipping, etc) by boosting their profits and allowing them to afford to create new jobs. It’s not like we’re draining the reserve, it will still be at a higher level than it was in 2001 (when it held 545 million barrels).

A very well-thought-out ad.

--

Update: A dossier on McCain (PDF document), courtesy of the same folks who made the ad above:

Executive Summary

For the past year, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, has been vigorously attempting to convince conservative leaders and primary and caucus voters, whose support is critical in the Republican presidential nominating process, that he is the "right" choice.

He indeed boasts an impressive resume. He is a war hero. He is a distinguished United States senator in his fourth term—re-elected in 2004 with 77% of the vote. His media appeal is the envy of politicians on both sides of the aisle.

But throughout his Capitol Hill career, John McCain has loudly and proudly opposed a myriad of bedrock conservative principles. His record is replete with glaring examples of why conservatives should not support his presidential candidacy. On issues like abortion, campaign finance, global warming, gun control, illegal immigration, judicial appointments, same sex marriage, stem cell research, tax relief, and terrorist interrogation methods, McCain has staked out positions that are anathema to conservatism.

Consider campaign finance regulations, which is McCain’s signature issue and thus epitomizes his political worldview. As even the senator himself has conceded, banning political speech in the run-up to an election violates the First Amendment. Yet McCain believes there is a higher good than the Constitution—the purported purity of the political process—to be enforced by that instrument of incorruptibility: government itself. Never mind that McCain has taken millions of dollars from the corrupting "special interests" that he decries. It seems voters are just supposed to trust that John McCain, rather than we the people, knows what’s best.

McCain’s views and votes aren’t his only problems. News reports confirm that he has considered changing his party affiliation, and during the 2000 presidential primary campaign he actually ran against the Christian conservative base. The result speaks for itself: George W. Bush stood strong with conservatives—and won both the Republican nomination and the presidency. Conservatives understand that John McCain is pandering to us, in the hope that we will minimize his past apostasy. But the apostasy isn’t just in the past—it’s in the very fiber of his character. Conservatives deserve a standard-bearer who is completely committed to a conservative agenda, not one who just mouths its slogans. In other words, we want an heir to Ronald Reagan.

John McCain is decidedly not that person.

He dropped out. What a shame.

He just dropped out. If he endorses McCain, I'll puke.

--

Update: Did Fred only want the Vice Presidency to begin with? Fox News Channel's reporter Carl Cameron says VP was Fred's real goal all along. If that's true, I'm pretty annoyed at being played. (Hat tip: Ace)

Absolution for disappointed FredHeads is available by clicking below.

Oh how enjoyable it is to see Democrats cat fighting, yet how sad it is that the Democratic base seems to leave these squabbles unnoticed! Some tears and Hillary wins primaries! Democrats can pull the race card anytime but Republicans are damned for the same antics (Heil Hillary!).

Media pundits will forgive any candidate's sins so long as the campaign keeps sacred the holy writ of infanticide - er - choice. Case in point: John McCain.

On January 11th the former publisher of The Western Standard was hauled before the Alberta Human Rights Commission to answer for his decision to publish the "offensive" Danish cartoons of Mohammed. Ezra Levant's editorial decision got under the skin of hypersensitive islamist imam Syed Soharwardy. The whiny radical filed a complaint with the AHRC demanding a public apology from Mr. Levant.

Dude picked the wrong target.

There may be hope for Canada yet. More details at EzraLevant.com.

Mike Huckabee made another pilgrimage to The Colbert Report a few days back.

Huckabee likes to hit the late night talk shows right before a primary election, and it might well appeal to twenty-somethings who are surprised to find that he's funny (for a politician) and can act like a regular guy. I suppose that's a nice thing, but we'd better hope this isn't the kind of venue our candidates start frequenting in a quest for the elusive "youth vote." If a candidate hopes to convince the Republican base that he's thoughtful and serious about fighting Islamic jihadists or keeping Washington from wrecking the economy, he'd better not run for Comedian-In-Chief.

These are serious times. I have more confidence in Jeri Thompson than in Mike Huckabee.

This video play list ought to appeal to my co-blogger The Spider Slayer. I can imagine her chuckling with glee even now.

My other co-blogger probably won't be very impressed, but such is life.

Rasmussen's latest:

If you're a Huckabee or Thompson backer, you're wincing tonight. I mean, c'mon: McCain? Are you kidding me?

Check out the RCP Averages too.