Gay Patriot Header Image

Democrats Helping Their Constituents

Posted by V the K at 10:49 am - November 29, 2017.
Filed under: Credit to Democrats

A Philadelphia City Councilwoman wants to make it easier for thugs to rob convenience stores, liquor stores, and other businesses.

A controversial bill is currently working its way through city hall designed to regulate ‘stop and go’ liquor stores. One part of the bill would force business owners to take down bulletproof glass inside their stores. But at what cost to their safety?

It’s called the ‘Stop and Go’ bill and is being offered by city councilwoman Cindy Bass.

“Right now, the plexiglass has to come down,” she said.

 

Bass says she’s battling for her constituents.

Oh, she sure is.

 

 

Pelosi disavows Antifa

Via Cernovich Media:

Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi issued a statement [Tuesday] disavowing alt-left terrorist organization ANTIFA…

“Our democracy has no room for inciting violence or endangering the public, no matter the ideology of those who commit such acts. The violent actions of people calling themselves antifa in Berkeley this weekend deserve unequivocal condemnation, and the perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted.”

Full Pelosi statement here.

Kudos to Pelosi for denouncing Antifa by name. As The Daily Caller says, “This marks the first-time Pelosi has condemned Antifa and is quite possibly the first time she has acknowledged the group’s existence.”

Now, if only we can get Mitt Romney, John McCain, Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan to do the same. Remember how their heads exploded when President Trump condemned political violence “on both sides”?

Sidebar: In case any leftie reading this doubts Trump’s full-on condemnation of the KKK, here is a “highlight reel” of him denouncing David Duke many times, over the years:

YouTube Preview Image

Also, if you would like, you can still join the whitehouse.gov petition to Formally recognize AntiFa as a terrorist organization.

Yvonne Felarca Flashback: The Feds arrested her in July. And Eric Clanton. So there is a little pushback on Antifa; and maybe we’ll see more.

UPDATE – It’s a trend: Berkeley’s mayor finally denounces Antifa, calling for the police to classify them as a “street gang”.

Arreguin said that while he does not support the far right, it was time to draw the line on the left as well…

Trump – and we – were just ahead of the curve. 😉

More violence that Dems/media won’t disavow (or even acknowledge)

Feel free to post other recent incidents in the comments. (I can’t track it all.)

In fairness, there is one sane leftie: Let’s acknowledge Alan Dershowitz. Here he is, asking Democrats to repudiate the Alt Left for their violent opposition to free speech.

YouTube Preview Image

Also, an apology from Maria Chappelle-Nadal (after a backlash pushed her to it).

ACLU does something right

As political lobbies go, the ACLU is infuriating because they are so often wrong, left-oriented and Social Justice Warrior-ish. For example, they defend racial preferences (also known as racism) in college admissions. But on rare occasions, they will get something incredibly right.

In this instance, the ACLU challenges advertising restrictions in our nation’s capital from DC Metro:

The ACLU, ACLU of D.C., and ACLU of Virginia are teaming up to represent a diverse group of plaintiffs whose ads were all branded as too hot for transit: the ACLU itself; Carafem, a health care network that specializes in getting women access to birth control and medication abortion; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA); and Milo Worldwide LLC — the corporate entity of provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos.

To put it mildly, these plaintiffs have nothing in common politically. But together, they powerfully illustrate the indivisibility of the First Amendment. Our free speech rights rise and fall together — whether left, right, pro-choice, anti-choice, vegan, carnivore, or none of the above…

Let’s start with the ACLU. Earlier this year…the ACLU decided to remind everyone about that very first promise in the Bill of Rights: that Congress shall make no law interfering with our freedoms of speech and religion. As part of a broad advertising campaign, the ACLU erected ads in numerous places, featuring the text of the First Amendment. Not only in English, but in Spanish and Arabic, too — to remind people that the Constitution is for everyone.

ACLU intended their First Amendment campaign stupidly as an anti-Trump thing; but the ads themselves merely stated the text of the First Amendment, which people on the Left definitely need to be reminded of. Beautiful! But then:

Our ad was rejected because WMATA’s advertising policies forbid, among many other things, advertisements “intended to influence members of the public regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions” or “intended to influence public policy.”

Get it? The wise authorities at DC Metro refuse to let the First Amendment be posted on their trains. The mere text of the First Amendment! As to the Milo aspect:

Milo Worldwide submitted ads that displayed only Mr. Yiannopoulos’s face, an invitation to pre-order his new book, “Dangerous,” and one of four short quotations from different publications: “The most hated man on the Internet” from The Nation; “The ultimate troll” from Fusion; “The Kanye West of Journalism” from Red Alert Politics; and “Internet Supervillain” from Out Magazine…the ads themselves were innocuous, and self-evidently not an attempt to influence any opinion other than which book to buy.

WMATA appeared to be okay with that. It accepted the ads and displayed them in Metro stations and subway cars — until riders began to complain about Mr. Yiannopoulos being allowed to advertise his book. Just 10 days after the ads went up, WMATA directed its agents to take them all down…

The ideas espoused by each of these four plaintiffs are anathema to someone — as is pretty much every human idea. By rejecting these ads and accepting ads from gambling casinos, military contractors, and internet sex apps, WMATA showed just how subjective its ban is. Even more frightening, however, WMATA’s policy is an attempt to silence anyone who tries to make you think.

Bingo.

Leftie juvenilia – with a smidge of progress

Watching lefties digest new political happenings is often like a scene from Harrison Bergeron, the dystopian future where no one is permitted to do anything skillfully.

Lefties are handicapped by their own needs and delusions, the poor dears. They can’t handle the truth. So they ignore large parts of it, fixate on a fragment or two, distort it, then fall over like a ballet dancer wearing unnecessary weights. Still, they might learn something – on the margins.

Laura Loomer and Jack Posobiec’s Shakespeare in the Park protest was somewhat new-ish: Conservatives bringing home the Left’s disruption tactics (though still being comparatively polite about it). At this link, you can watch Seth Myers and Amy Poehler struggle to address it.

As you’d expect, Myers and Poehler ignore the real context and point of the protest, making a laughable Straw Man out of it; then laugh dutifully, complete with wide eyes and shouting. It’s fine, it’s how they operate. As you’d expect. Except for one thing.

It does dawn on them that maybe people disrupting events isn’t what we all need and the Left should try to walk that one back. They slip in these words to their audience:

Free speech isn’t about just protecting speech you like. So, if you think it’s terrible to interrupt _Julius Caesar_, you have to think it’s terrible to interrupt Ann Coulter…She gets to speak too; liberals cannot be hypocrites when it comes to free speech…so, be OK with it when Ted Nugent says “President Obama can suck my machine gun.”

I left out the crap they wrapped around it. I’m saying, we can be grateful for the small things. Two leftie celebrities had a moment of self-awareness, and smuggled it into their audience. Will it take?

Oliver Stone making sense?

Color me shocked.

YouTube Preview Image

His new series, _The Putin Interviews_, is controversial – meaning that the Left hates it, because it doesn’t tell them exactly what they want to hear. A couple of articles on it:

  • Rolling Stone, 10 Most WTF Things We Learned From Oliver Stone’s Putin Interviews.

    Pans the series – splutters with outrage over Stone lobbing too many softball questions and bad-mouthing Hillary Clinton as a war-mongering neo-con – but covers some interesting tidbits along the way.

  • Forbes’ take. Along the way, they go into some of the hacking / cybercrime issues, and the fact that the U.S. has interfered in Ukraine elections in a manner FAR beyond anything the American Left fantasizes with TrumpRussia.

Left and Right, we should be willing to watch these Putin interviews, if only on the principle of “Know your enemy”.

“Climate of Hate” update

Let’s catch up on how the left-wingers’ feared Climate of Hate is doing. Most of this is via Instapundit.

And, to give credit where it’s due: Tom Hanks Breaks from Hollywood Pack and Says He Hopes Trump Does Well.

“This is the United States of America. We’ll go on. There’s great like-minded people out there who are Americans first and Republicans or Democrats second,” Hanks told THR. “I hope the president-elect does such a great job that I vote for his re-election in four years.”

UPDATE: Good read from J.C. Bourke, Why All The Hippies Morphed Into Campus Fascists.

Martin Bashir resigns

Follow-up to an earlier post, Why wasn’t this guy fired? After a couple of weeks, Bashir has resigned from MSNBC. As Allahpundit puts it:

This is a guy who took Mormon-themed digs at Mitt Romney; brought on a shrink to analyze the allegedly violent, possibly psychotic tendencies of tea partiers; accused Republicans of treating the word “IRS” as a racist dog-whistle against Obama; and wondered if Rick Santorum wasn’t some sort of theocratic second coming of Stalin. When Steve Jobs died two years ago, he turned his on-air eulogy into an excuse to — ta da — bash Sarah Palin again. All of this is par for the course on MSNBC so imagine Bashir’s surprise, after all of that, upon finding out that introducing a little actual rhetorical scat into the figurative scat-flinging at righties was an unpardonable sin worthy of suspension.

I just say: Better late than never!

Sharpton does something right

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 1:22 am - November 26, 2013.
Filed under: American Youth,Credit to Democrats,Liberal Integrity

Heard of the Knockout Game? A couple of news reports at the link say it’s real: young guys in New York attacking Jewish strangers, trying to knock them out with one blow.

Al Sharpton gets so many issues wrong that I’m in the mood to acknowledge him for speaking out rightly on this one:

“This kind of behavior is deplorable and must be condemned by all us,” he said at his weekly National Action Network meeting in Harlem. “We would not be silent if it was the other way around. We cannot be silent or in any way reluctant to confront it when it is coming from our own community.”

On Monday, Sharpton and other leaders plan to discuss a “next move.”

“Kids are randomly knocking out people [from] another race — some specifically going at Jewish people,” he said. “This kind of insane thuggery — there is nothing cute about that. There is no game play about knocking somebody out, and it is not a game. It is an assault and is bias, and it is wrong.”

My Unrecognizable Democratic Party

The title is from Ted Van Dyk’s recent column. He’s a lifelong Democrat. As a former Democrat myself, who left in the early Naughties[1], I was intrigued. Read the whole thing, of course. A few highlights:

Mr. Obama was elected in 2008 on the basis of his persona and his pledge to end political and ideological polarization…On taking office, however, the president adopted a my-way-or-the-highway style of governance. He pursued his stimulus and health-care proposals on a congressional-Democrats-only basis. He rejected proposals of his own bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission, which would have provided long-term deficit reduction…He opted instead to demonize Republicans…

No serious attempt—for instance, by offering tort reform or allowing the sale of health-insurance products across state lines—was made to enlist GOP congressional support for the health bill…

Faced with a…GOP House takeover [in 1995], President Bill Clinton shifted to bipartisan governance. Mr. Obama [in 2011] did not...

…I couldn’t have imagined any one of the Democratic presidents or presidential candidates I served from 1960-92 using such down-on-all-fours tactics [as Obama did in 2012]. The unifier of 2008 became the calculated divider of 2012. Yes, it worked, but only narrowly, as the president’s vote total fell off sharply from 2008…

In 1965, Lyndon Johnson had Democratic congressional majorities sufficient to pass any legislation he wanted. But he sought and received GOP congressional support for Medicare, Medicaid, civil rights, education and other Great Society legislation. He knew that in order to last, these initiatives needed consensus support…

…former Democratic presidents would…know today that no Democratic or liberal agenda can go forward…if presidential and Democratic Party rhetoric consistently portrays loyal-opposition leaders as having devious or extremist motives….

Nice to see a Democrat who can admit it; a Democrat who remembers the party we used to know.

[1]As the party went insane over Gore-Bush, Iraq and more.

UPDATE: Even David Brooks, the New York Times’ notion of “conservative” who was so impressed by the crease in Obama’s pants in 2008, is starting to get it.

The progressive [Democrat] budget in the House seems to have been written by people hermetically sealed in the house of government. They work in government. They represent public-sector workers. They seem to have had little contact with private-sector job creators… while Republicans may embarrass on a daily basis, many progressives have lost touch with what actually produces growth and prosperity.

NYT defines “economic vandalism” to fit Obama campaign narrative

Reducing Republican plans to spur the economy to “tired slogans about cutting regulations and spending”, the New York Times editorial board on Wednesday accused Senate Republicans of engaging in “economic vandalism” for their “unanimous decision . . . on Tuesday to filibuster and thus kill President Obama’s jobs bill”.  Citing conclusions reached by a group a selected group of economists, the Times editors ignore Republican concerns about the package’s cost and similarity to the Democrat’s stimulus, er, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

They also ignore economists, including the two who just won the Nobel Prize in economists, who have “separately produced empirical data that Keynesian stimulus theory is highly questionable.

That Democrats’ costly stimulus, as we recall, worked wonders to restore our economy, keeping unemployment only a point or two above the rate forecast by the administration’s economic team had the package failed.  (And even as these editors fault Republicans for their “lack of serious ideas” or offering up “an ash heap of used ideas,” they fail to note how the president’s current package is merely a scaled down version of the failed “stimulus.”)

Citing not a Republican legislator — or even a GOP political strategist — but instead a representative of the president’s reelection campaign, Times editors contend Republicans seem

content to run out the clock on Mr. Obama’s term while doing very little. On Tuesday, Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, Jim Messina, accused Republicans of trying to “suffocate the economy” in hopes that the pain would work to their political advantage.

Problem with this talking point is that Republicans are willing to support items on the president’s economic agenda when they are consistent with conservative principles.  Just this week, House and Senate Republicans overwhelmingly supported three free-trade agreements that the president also backed.   (more…)

Administration Certifies DADT Repeal

There is some good news today; the administration certified the final repeal of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell:

Service members today welcomed a key milestone in repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), as President Obama, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, formally issued their certification to the Armed Services committees of both houses of Congress, signifying that the military is ready for the transition. In 60 days, as prescribed in the law passed by Congress and signed by the President last December, repeal will be final.

So much better to have the military certify this than have a court mandate it. The president dilly-dallied on this one, delaying this day. But, with pressure from left-wing gay bloggers and indeed some principled congressional Democrats as well as at least one Senate Republican, he finally acted.

One reason Obama succeeded where Bill Clinton failed was that the Illinois Democrat, unlike his Arkansas counterpart, made this a military issue rather than a gay rights’ issue.  Whereas Clinton moved to repeal the ban while standing beside Barney Frank, Obama sought to repeal the legislation Clinton signed by dispatching his top military aides to Capitol Hill.

Kudos to all those who worked hard to make this day come to pass.  Our nation will be more secure when it can draw on the strengths and patriotism of gay men and lesbian who wish to serve the country which has given us so many opportunities, chief among them, the ability to live free.

Let’s commend Obama for getting Osama, not canonize him

It’s already beginning.  Some in the media (as well as their allies in the Democratic Party) are already trying to credit Barack Obama as the man who single-handedly tracked down Osama bin Laden, okayed the risky operation to eliminate him, clandestinely went into Pakistan to face him in his lair where he, while an adoring team of Navy SEALs looked on, strangled him with his bare hands while the terrorist brandished a knife, crossbow and submachine gun.

Heck, Joy Behar thinks we should just cancel the 2012 election.

In article that doesn’t mention the contributions of any other administration official — or any member of our armed forces — the AP anoints Obama the mastermind of the operation:

By secretly sending a team of special operations forces into an enemy fortress in a suburban neighborhood of a sovereign country, President Barack Obama chose the path of greatest risk, but also greatest reward.

There were so many ways it could have gone wrong.

Meanwhile, a dubiously-sourced piece, widely referenced on conservative web-sites, suggests that CIA Director Leon Panetta was the real driving force behind the operation with the president little more than a spectator.  I’m with Glenn on this, “The story might be true, but I’ll need a lot more convincing. This is telling too many people what they want to hear.”   The supposed Washington insider contends that Panetta, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, General David Petraeus, and Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper spearheaded the operation.

Now, from everything I’ve read, it appears there is some merit to this argument, as it is clear Clintonistas Panetta and Hillary as well Bush holdovers, Gates and Petraeus, were pushing this type of operation.  But, none of them could give the final go-ahead.

We may never learn the names of many of the others responsible for its success, interrogators at Guantanamo and other U.S. detention facilities, CIA agents who worked with persistence and determination over nine years to pursue countless clues (many leading to dead ends) and, of course, those brave Navy SEALs who carried out their task so professionally. (more…)

So, it seems waterboarding helped us track down bin Laden

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:43 am - May 4, 2011.
Filed under: Credit to Democrats,Decent Democrats,War On Terror

Leon Panetta has always conducted himself with dignity on the public stage. And in this exchange with Brian Williams, he comes off as a pretty stand-up guy, not milking the dispatch of Bin Laden to partisan ends and giving credit to the immediate past president and his team for their efforts in tracking down the Saudi-born terrorist.

In this video, he indicates that our intelligence officials gained some information that would later help us track down the hide-out of the Al-Qaeda leader through, um, well, “enhanced interrogation techniques“.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

VIdeo via Gateway Pundit.

When asked, Doug Powers reports, “whether or not advanced interrogation techniques helped get Bin Laden,” Attorney General Eric Holder “said he didn’t know.”  You’d think an official of an administration which has been most critical* of such polices would have given an unequivocal response (in the negative) if they hadn’t helped.

Of all the Democrats the president could have tapped to take over from Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Panetta seems the best choice. He acknowledges truths at odds with his party’s anti-Republican talking points and acknowledges the accomplishments of Republicans as well as the merits of their policies.

RELATED:  Ed Driscoll alerts us to this observation in Investor’s Business Daily, “If President Bush had not invaded Iraq, President Obama likely would not have found Osama bin Laden. The al-Qaida operative who fingered bin Laden’s courier was caught in Iraq helping terrorists in 2004″.  Ed’s initial roundup on the death of Mr. Bin Laden also has a plethora of pithy points and interesting links.

ALSO RELATED AND WELL WORTH YOUR TIME:  Michael Barone contends that to get bin Laden, Obama relied on policies he decried.

*UPDATE:  Peter Wehner reports: “After all, Barack Obama was a fierce critic of EITs [Enhanced Interrogation Techniques] during and after the 2008 campaign.

Obama’s Much Deserved Victory Lap

Even as information comes our showing Obama’s hesitation in the run-up to Sunday’s successful operation to kill Osama bin Laden and as the White House bungles in providing that information, the fact remains that the operation succeeded.  And that President Obama gave it the go-ahead.  While many people contributed to its success, most notably Navy SEALs, the president deserves a great deal of credit.  And I for one am hesitant to criticize him on this — or other matters — at present.

Let this be a moment of national unity when we all rejoice that the man who declared war on the United States first in 1996 and then again in 1998 has, thanks to our men at arms, lost the ability to declare war on anyone.  I agree with Allahpundit that it’s “fitting” for the president to visit Ground Zero on Thursday to “mark Bin Laden’s demise by paying his respects on the public’s behalf. And if that respect-paying just so happens to produce a 24-karat photo op for his upcoming campaign, well, that’s his reward for icing the man Americans hate most.

That blogger eminds us that the immediate past president would likely have

. . . have done the same thing and, yes, unquestionably, the left would have screeched about “politicization,” but I would have taken his side then so I’ll take The One’s side now. So much goodwill has he earned in the last 24 hours, in fact, that not only are Republican leaders congratulating him but even — gasp — Donald Trump is patting him on the back.

The President of the United States should be allowed to get some political capital out of his accomplishments.  And yet when a Republican does it, we see the mainstream media castigate him for politicizing national security or whatnot.  Recall how back in 2004, when then-President George W. Bush released his first ad, the media went apoplectic that he used an image from 9/11 — as if it were blasphemy, violating some sacred compact, to show that good man’s determination in the face of attack. (more…)

Yes, friends, Obama got this one right

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:00 pm - May 2, 2011.
Filed under: Credit to Democrats,Post 9-11 America,War On Terror

The more we learn about the operation that successfully dispatched Osama bin Laden to the nether regions, the more we see just how truly American an operation it was, not just in the determination to see it through, but in the fact that leading figures in both political parties played a key part in carrying it out.  So, as Jim Geraghty puts it, “rejoice. America always gets her man, sooner or later.

From the White House, we learn that “for years”, the CIA was gathering “leads on individuals in bin Laden’s inner circle, including his personal couriers.”  Detainees had identified a certain man

. . . as one of the few al Qaeda couriers trusted by bin Laden.  They indicated he might be living with and protecting bin Laden.  But for years, we were unable to identify his true name or his location.

Four years ago, we uncovered his identity, and for operational reasons, I can’t go into details about his name or how we identified him, but about two years ago, after months of persistent effort, we identified areas in Pakistan where the courier and his brother operated.  Still we were unable to pinpoint exactly where they lived, due to extensive operational security on their part.  The fact that they were being so careful reinforced our belief that we were on the right track.

Emphasis added.  Four years ago, George W. Bush was president.  So, this operation began to blossom in the previous Administration.  But, it wasn’t until the incumbent Administration when it bore fruit.  In August, “U.S. teams located” Obama’s residence (well, his residence as until yesterday.  Thanks to the Navy SEALs, he has a new home today!)

But, “the first strands of information that ultimately led to the killing of Osama bin Laden” may have emerged has far back as 2003 with the capture of “Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks”.  Even after locating the compound, “C.I.A. analysts spent the next several weeks examining satellite photos and intelligence reports to determine who might be living”  there.  By March, they were convinced it was the refuge of bin Laden lived.  On the 14th of that month, the president “held the first of what would be five national security meetings in the course of the next six weeks to go over plans for the operation.” (more…)

An “opportunity for us to prove ourselves as Americans”

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 2:18 pm - May 2, 2011.
Filed under: Credit to Democrats,Patriotism,War On Terror

I’m with Academic Elephant on this one:

But now we have OBL, and it is an opportunity for us to prove ourselves as Americans. For those of us on the right, we should simply thank God for a CIA Director who took the time to develop the appropriate plan, a Secretary of Defense who lent him sufficient man and firepower, and a President who was decisive enough to pull the trigger at the right moment. This sort of leadership should not be parsed or resented. For their part, our fellow citizens on the left might consider giving up the relentless drumbeat of “war crimes” for those who did so much of the long and lonely work to make this possible. Even with the so-called “harsh” interrogation techniques used on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, it took years to put together the pieces. How many honestly regret those techniques this morning, or that we had Guantanamo to house KSM and his colleagues for further reference?

RELATED:  Did enhanced interrogation lead U.S. to Osama bin Laden? Yes, apparently they did.

UPDATE:  Jennifer Rubin:  “This is anAmerican victory, triumph shared by two presidents and a magnificent accomplishment for all the military and intelligence officials who worked to see this day.”  Ditto that.

President Bush Congratulates Successor on Getting Osama

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 2:45 am - May 2, 2011.
Filed under: Credit to Democrats,War On Terror

Via a variety of text from readers and friends, on Sunday night, I learned that good news that Osama bin Laden has been dispatched to join Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler in the lowest circles of Hell. I join former President Bush in congratulating President Obama and the men and women of our armed forces who accomplished the deed. In a statement, Bush said:

Earlier this evening, President Obama called to inform me that American forces killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of the al Qaeda network that attacked America on September 11, 2001.

I congratulated him and the men and women of our military and intelligence communities who devoted their lives to this mission. They have our everlasting gratitude.

Our intelligence community and the Navy SEAL Team Six who carried out the operation deserve the bulk of the credit, but they could not have done it without the authorization of the President of the United States.  This one Barack Obama got right.

Good job, Mr. President.

UPDATE:   Over the Washington Examiner, Philip Klein has some background on the operation that go Osama.  The president has met five times with his national security team since they learned about the compound last February and gave the go-ahead for operation this past Friday.  (Read the whole thing.)

Sorry, couldn’t get a copy of this song with actual footage from the Wizard of Oz. Still it does express the sentiment of all Americans tonight:

UP-UPDATE: From the president’s speech:

As we do, we must also reaffirm that the United States is not –- and never will be -– at war with Islam. I’ve made clear, just as President Bush did shortly after 9/11, that our war is not against Islam. Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims. Indeed, al Qaeda has slaughtered scores of Muslims in many countries, including our own. So his demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity.

Indeed.

UP-UP-UPDATE:  “Evil,” John Podhoretz writes, “has been met, and defeated.” On the same blog, but in a different post, Abe Greenwald reminds us, “It is not in the American DNA to waver, to give up, or to shirk its responsibilities. The U.S. meets its challenges.(more…)

Coalition Routs Taliban in Kandahar Province

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:18 am - October 21, 2010.
Filed under: Credit to Democrats,War On Terror

Wonder if this has anything to do with General David Petraeus taking over in Afghanistan:

American and Afghan forces have been routing the Taliban in much of Kandahar Province in recent weeks, forcing many hardened fighters, faced with the buildup of American forces, to flee strongholds they have held for years, NATOcommanders, local Afghan officials and residents of the region said.

A series of civilian and military operations around the strategic southern province, made possible after a force of 12,000 American and NATO troops reached full strength here in the late summer, has persuaded Afghan and Western officials that the Taliban will have a hard time returning to areas they had controlled in the province that was their base.

Let’s hope this leads to more successes in the Afghan theater — and  hope as well that further victories may cause the president to reconsider his commitment to start withdrawing our troops in July 2011.

While the commanders in the field and the brave men and women who executed the plan deserve the bulk of the credit, we should also acknowledge President Obama who wisely chose to put Petraeus in charge of Afghan operations.

Considering Obama’s Record on Gay Issues

Back when I met lefty lesbian blogress Pam Spaulding on my cross country journey, we talked about doing regular Point-Counterpoint blog posts where one of us would address a topic of the day and another would respond.

Well, even though the editors of the Hill had little knowledge of our conversations, they did ask each of us to weigh in on whether or not “gay-rights issues are being adequately addressed by the Obama administration and this Congress.” Neither Pam nor I had seen each other’s pieces before they were posted.

Here is the beginning of my post (written in haste last Friday):

Unlike most gay activists, when it comes to politics, I have a very small “gay agenda.”  I believe Congress needs to repeal Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT) and allow the Administration time (say no more than six months) to find a means to implement repeal without compromising unit cohesion or military effectiveness.  And I believe the federal and state governments should recognize same-sex civil unions (or domestic partnerships or marriages or whatever they’re called) while granting same-sex partners of government employees the same benefits that different-sex spouses in traditional marriages currently receive.

Other than that, the government should leave us alone to live our lives as we please.

With this as background, let me address the question of the day:  is the Obama Administration and the Pelosi-Reid Congress adequately addressing gay rights issue?

And the answer is well, sort of.

You can read the rest, including Pam’s piece, here.