Sometimes when you’re reading a speech, you miss something which strikes you only when you see it in isolation.   And so it was when, in these posts, I caught this line from the President’s speech Wednesday to the United Nations:

For those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months.

Instead of referencing this nation’s achievements in the 232 1/2 years prior to his inauguration, Mr. Obama tells us what he has done since he took office.

He may talk about “responsibly ending a war” in Iraq, but he doesn’t mention the word, victory, nor the tyrant we overthrew, a tyrant who, by the way, had repeatedly snubbed his nose at the United Nations, you know, the institution he was addressing.

He does not mention how we helped liberate a continent from fascist tyranny.  And the only time he mentions the President who led us to that great victory (a word absent from his discourse) was to reference his “vision for this institution” (i.e., the United Nations).

Nor did mention how Presidents of both parties stood strong against communism and for freedom, waging and subsequently winning the Cold War, bringing down the Iron Curtain and bringing freedom and economic growth to the long-suffering peoples of central and eastern Europe.  Well, he did reference the Cold War, just once, reminding us that it was “long-gone.”  Does he even appreciate how American policies made that so? (more…)

Oftentimes when a topic comes up that gets all the blogosophere a-buzzing, I try to offer my own spin, but sometimes I find that, after studying the issue and reading some of my favorite bloggers and blogresses, they have already said pretty much what I have to say.  This often happens when a story breaks early in the morning on the East Coast while I’m still in bed.

As it is my wont to read and work on my dissertation in the morning, I often don’t get to such stories until mid-day Pacific Time, well into the afternoon Eastern Standard Time.  So it is with the story of Iran’s admission to “the U.N. nuclear watchdog that it has a second uranium enrichment plant under construction“.   By the time I had gotten to it, pretty much everything I would have said has been said.

According to the New York Times, here’s what we know about the plant

Iran’s newly revealed uranium enrichment plant is a heavily guarded, still-unfinished underground facility in the arid mountains near the holy city of Qom that will be able to produce nuclear fuel — or the payload for atomic warheads, Western intelligence officials and diplomats said Friday.

As the President demands that Iran may “‘come clean’ about its nuclear program in talks next week or face the prospect of ‘sanctions that bite,’” let’s hope he recognizes as doe Jennifer Rubin that Iran’s admission undermines his attempts to change the Iranian attitude with a more gentle approach (than that of his predecessor):

This sort of news entirely undermines the Obama administration’s immediate and long-term decision-making on Iran. In the short run, the administration’s new intelligence estimate cooked up to justify pulling out of missile defense for Eastern Europe looks foolish. Do we really know all that much about Iran’s nuclear plans and capability? (more…)

Left-wing blogs have made much of the death of Bill Sparkman, a Kentucky census worker found asphyxiated next to a tree (to which he was tied) in eastern Kentucky.  Based on a ”unsubstantiated claim that ‘fed’ was ‘scrawled’ on his chest,” they’re convinced “every outspoken conservative activist and advocate for limited government” are responsible for “a murder that has yet to be determined a murder.”

Of course they are; they harbor fantasies of right-wing violence so we can fit the caricatures they’ve created of us, a caricature created without them every having studied our movement or considered our ideas.  Just as they presume the person who murdered Sparkman (if indeed he was murdered) listened to Glenn Beck’s TV show and read Michelle Malkin’s blog, they presume we’re racists who engage in violence at our rallies.

The eagerness with which they rush to conclusions about Sparkman’s death provides a window into the worldview or the accusatory left-wingers:

What’s uniquely disgusting about stories like this is the eagerness, to borrow Ace’s perfectly apt description, to find an ideological motive with which to bludgeon one’s opponents. The human life involved is reduced to the crudest sort of political prop.

But, while they’re busy accusing us of supporting violence and promoting racism at our rallies, as if the violence alone made it incumbent upon them to decry the demonstrations, they don’t seem to get all that upset when self-styled anarchists protest capitalism at the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh.  Some of those folks seem to have come dressed for violence, wearing “helmets and safety goggles.” (more…)

With the junior Senator from California, elected at the tail-end of a recession, having watched unemployment climb by 33% in the Golden State during her tenure in the United States Senate*, we in California need a representative in Washington who knows how to create jobs.  Unemployment out here is now at a post-World War II high.

Mrs. Boxer seems indifferent to the employment situation in the Golden State; just this week she voted to table an amendment which could have created or saved (to borrow an expression from the President she supports) as many as 80,000 jobs.

To bring California back, we would do well to send someone to Washington who is not a creature of government.  With a background in business, Carly Fiorina knows what it takes to get companies to move to (or stay in) the Golden State, creating jobs, fostering innovation and expanding opportunity.

Her website is now up and while it’s still pretty basic, you can contribute.  Join me in supporting this accomplished woman.

We can defeat Barbara Boxer and elect a Senator committed not to left-wing ideology and attacks on her constituents, but to representing California and helping this great state regain the status it once enjoyed, as the engine for growth, innovation and opportunity, akin to that shining city on the hill of which the greatest Californian once spoke.

Despite Mrs. Boxer’s failures, it’s not going to be an easy road for Carly.  Ma’am and her minions are sure to do what that can to slime this good woman.  The senator’s blogging allies have already been attacking her web-site.   This is just a taste of even more mean-spirited attacks to come.  Don’t let their bile deter you.  Just onsider Barbara Boxer’s record and Carly Fiorina’s accomplishments.

And think how much a businesswoman, a Washington outsider can do for our great state.

* (more…)

We have often wondered why so many on the gay left salivate over Barack Obama when there is little evidence of his eagerness to address issues of concern to gay people–or even their leaders. When gay bloggers start complaining about the Democrat’s inaction on gay issues, gay activists are palliated by an invitation to the executive mansion, complete with Gray Goose Martinis as Charles Winecoff observes: “Then, earlier this summer, just as many of His supporters in the LGBT tribe were growing restless with His neglect, it only took one White House cocktail party to get them eating right out of His palm again.”

They herald him as a hero, even though he has yet to champion our interests. While our fellows suffer under the tyranny of Islamofascism, he refused to address that suffering in his celebrate speech to the Muslim world. Nor did his mention oppression of gays in his Wednesday speech to the United Nations. I guess it was more important not to ruffle any feathers of those dictators and oligarchs who might misunderstand us.

When, however, a politically incorrect world leader of a politically incorrect country mounts the rostrum of the United Nations and addresses the plight of the gays in Iran, it seems only the conservative gays take note. Yesterday, Jimmy LaSalvia, Executive Director of GOProud, praised Israeli Prime Minister for criticizing “radical Islam for its treatment of women, gays and other minorities“:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke eloquently and with powerful moral clarity about the threat posed to the civilized world by radical Islam. All across the Muslim world, gays and lesbians, along with women and religious minorities, are denied basic civil rights. Indeed, the penalty for simply being gay in Muslim countries like Iran is death.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is absolutely right when he says that this is not a clash of civilizations but a clash between civilization and barbarism.

Netanyahu’s speech today stands in stark contrast to the speech our own President delivered to the Muslim world in June. Unlike the Israeli Prime Minister, President Obama failed to even mention the treatment of gays and lesbians in his speech in Egypt.

Netanyahu’s was a great speech–and not just because he, perhaps alone among world leaders, mentioned the plight of gays under Iranian tyranny. Jennifer Rubin called it a “speech for the ages,” while her colleague Jonathan Tobin found it “on target with respect to the Holocaust denial and genocidal threats of Iran’s Ahmadinejad as well as the hypocrisy and distortions of the UN’s Human Rights Council and its Goldstone report on the fighting in Gaza last December.” Scott Johnson calls it a “rare moment of truth in a venue that has become a cesspool of lies.”

Read the whole thing or watch it. (Below the jump, I offer the excerpt where he mentions the subjugation of gays.) I wonder how many gay leaders, how many gay activists will commend him from drawing attention to the plight of our fellows suffering under fascistic tyranny in Iran. And how many will fault the American President for his silence. (more…)

Remember how after Prop 8 had passed, how all those angry gay activists marched across Los Angeles to protest outside the Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Westwood while hurling insults against that faith and its followers? They reserved special scorn for Mormons, given their support  for the successful California ballot initiative enshrining the traditional definition of marriage in the state constitution.

Now, with gays suffering persecution (and execution) in various regimes around the world, left-wing blogger Michael Petrelis wonders Why Didn’t Gays Protest UN’s General Assembly? If they’re going to protest one church opposing state recognition of same-sex marriage, why aren’t the protesting one international institution refusing to condemn extremists of another faith for persecuting and executing gays?

Petrelis reports that when, “when Rob Anderson, a gay journalist who has covered global gay issues for the New Republic in the past, posted [a] message to the GaysWithoutBorders group on Yahoo,” asking about rallies “being planned by/for/about queer issues,” he got no responses:

Unfortunately, no one replied to Rob and I’ve been unable to locate any info about any gay-specific actions of any sort taking place during the opening this week of the United Nation’s General Assembly.

In talking to another gay journalist, Petrelis learned that other issues likely have sapped the energy of potential protesters, depriving the of media attention.  Still, he believes protests might have accomplished something: (more…)

Since I first became a fan of Bill O’Reilly when I watched him take down Barney Frank, I feel it only fair that I commend the Massachusetts Democrat for his recent appearance on the Factor.  Last fall, I thought the talk show host got the best of the Congressman.  This time, Barney came off looking better.  And he made some pretty important points.

They were discussing the Democrat’s about-face on ACORN; he now believes that the federal government should stop funding the controversial left-wing organization.

Saying ACORN “forfeited” its rights to get federal funds, the Democrat reminds us that this isn’t just about the organization’s apparent willingness to help set up a brothel for underage girls.  He points out some of the group’s other problems, including its sloppiness in their voter registration and the embezzlement of its officers.

He regretted that the legislative branch had to take this up, questioning whether Congress had the authority to single an organization out.  I believe he was referring to Bills of Attainder which, in any case, don’t apply in this case.  Article I, § 9, ¶ 3 of the Constitution provides that: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed.”  And that means that Congres may not “single out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial.”  Such bills seem only to apply in matters of criminal law, not federal appropriations.

I just don’t believe preventing the government from subsidizing an organization is the kind of punishment the framers had in mind.

That said, Mr. Frank’s “preference” would have been “for the Obama administration to cut them off.”  Fat chance that, given the President’s ties to the organization. (more…)