Memorial Day 2010

As a citizen of the freest, greatest country in history, I express my gratitude for those who throughout our history, have paid the last full measure so that we, collectively, could enjoy the fruits of liberty.

Thank you also to the many men and women--among them, some of my friends--who even now defend the freedoms I hold so dear. May we, collectively, never take our liberty, or those who defend it, for granted.

Congressman Sam Johnson, Air Force vet, on what you can do (broken link) to support the troops this Memorial Day.

Via Ace, a great video of our last WWI vet. Watch & learn.

Army vet & Yale alumnus Flagg K. Youngblood (my kind of name) has a great article up at the Young America's Foundation website (also broken link) about military service. From that piece, a few interesting stats:

At last count, the Department of Veterans Affairs found 41,891,368 Americans have served in uniform during times of war since 1775.

651,030 Americans have died in battle to protect liberty at home and abroad, and an additional 539,079 Americans have died in the line of military duty.

3,447 of the United States’ bravest have been awarded the Medal of Honor, our nation’s highest tribute to military valor, since Congress authorized the decoration in 1861, per the Congressional Medal of Honor Society.

At The Corner, Pete Hegseth quotes John Stuart Mill:

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse.

Remember Jason Dunham, American, Marine, Medal of Honor recipient.

There is something worse than war; there are things more important than life.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

On Obama's 'Partisan, Condescending' State Of The Union Speech

Marc Thiessen was lead writer on President Bush's last two SOTU speeches. He offered his critique of Obama's speech at The Corner and in today's WaPo.

Listening to President Obama's speech, I could not help wondering how different this night would have been had Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's bomb not malfunctioned. Four weeks ago our country was the target of a catastrophic terrorist attack. But for the grace of God, Northwest Flight 253 would have crashed into downtown Detroit, killing thousands. Yet just a month later, it is an afterthought for this president. His only mention of the failed attack was a passing reference that he was responding with "better airline security."

Worse, the president's brief discussion of terrorism focused not on what he was doing to defend the country but was, rather, a vigorous defense of himself. His first words on the subject were a chastisement of those who would dare criticize his handling of terrorism, declaring that "all of us love this country" and warning his Republican critics to "put aside the schoolyard taunts about who is tough." It's all about him. No acknowledgement of how close we came to disaster or praise for the brave passengers who subdued the terrorist. No, only this message for his critics: If you question the wisdom of telling a captured terrorist "you have the right to remain silent," you are really questioning the president's patriotism and engaging in childish taunts.

The fact is, the American people have real concerns about Obama's approach to terrorism. They do question the wisdom of eliminating CIA interrogations, closing Guantanamo Bay, bringing the terrorists held there to this country, putting Khalid Shiekh Mohammed and his cohorts on trial in civilian courts, and giving captured terrorists Miranda rights after 50 minutes of questioning. Instead of acknowledging these concerns, Obama dismissed them. It was strange, defensive, arrogant -- and un-presidential.

I'm also bothered that Iraq & Afghanistan get such short shrift from this President. I read a lot of military blogs and try and keep on top of what's happening in those places. One of the things that comes across a lot is how frustrated members of the military are with the fact that many Americans both don't know and don't seem to care about what's happening to them wherever they are.

Part of the reason for this has got to be the complete lack of attention given to them by President Obama and the Democrat party. And this was reflected in Obama's SOTU last night.

Ps. Yes, I am also annoyed by the arrogant, lecturing tilt of his head when he speaks.

UPDATE 2:34pm GMT: If you need a palate cleanser, here's President Ronald Reagan's SOTU in 1988. (via Orin Kerr @ The Volokh Conspiracy)

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Quote Of The Week I - The Age Of Reagan (UPDATED)

One of my weekly must-read columnists, Daniel Henninger, writing in today's Journal:

Today Mr. Obama releases the details of his $3.5 trillion budget, his path to the same goal. Rather than drown as usual in this accounting morass, Republicans should contrast the Obama-Pelosi budget with the Reagan-Kemp philosophy of how a striving nation works, saves and invests.

Republicans can start by taking the time to read the first Obama budget document, "A New Era of Responsibility." The word "investment" occurs over 140 times in its 142 pages. But this "investment" isn't private capital invested in private start-ups, what Mr. Kemp constantly called "entrepreneurial capitalism" and what most parents hope their children will join. Mr. Obama's document genuflects to "the market economy," then argues that it won't endure unless we "sacrifice" (through tax increases) to make "overdue investments" (which literally only means public spending) on four explicit goals: green energy, infrastructure, public health care, and education.

[...]

It is not conceivable that a Reagan or Kemp would have directed the U.S. economy's legendary energies into building hybrid cars, windmills and bullet trains. It would not have occurred to them that America's next Silicon Valley -- Apple, Intel and Oracle -- could grow out of "investments" listed in the federal budget. This would not have occurred to either man because their politics were rooted in the 300-year-old, singularly American tradition of individuals freely deciding how to spend their productive hours and money inside a public system that mainly provides security and safety.

Don't make too much of the fact that only 31% of poll respondents said they were Republicans. It has always been the case that Republicans were more apt to answer that they were "conservatives" when asked about their political philosophy.

Last election's exit polling confirmed that this is still a conservative nation--a national full of conservatives who will usually vote for Republicans, when, of course, those Republicans espouse a conservative world view. Such has not always--especially recently--been the case.

This party identification thing is just a passing popularity poll. Haters' contention that losing Specter etc., is a sign of a Republican party in decline is also a whole lot of nothing. This is a conservative nation that prefers Republicans--even if they don't want to identify themselves as such. Tuesday's generic Congressional ballot poll conducted by Rasmussen confirms that. The GOP leads the Democrat Party, 40-39.

The Age of Reagan is far from over.

UPDATE 5:01pm BST: Steve Hayward @ The Corner is on the same page as Daniel Henninger & me:

More to the point — we've been here before, and Reagan showed the way out. After the post-Watergate 1974 election disaster, some polls showed the number of voters who identified as Republicans below 20 percent (compared to 31 percent today), and there were calls to abandon the Republican Party and found a new Conservative Party. Bill Buckley wrote at the time that the Republican Party had become “an administrative convenience for a few politicians,” and speculated that “If Reagan ran for President on an independent ticket, he would get a higher percentage of the vote than the Republican Party would get if it were led by any other American.” Reagan rejected this advice (which came also even more strongly from Bill Rusher), and it prompted one of his most famous speeches, before CPAC in 1975: “Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which makes it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people? Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness.”

But there is another rant that needs registering, namely, that all those folks who claim to be Reaganites would take the time to sit down a study the man's methods — not his ideology — more seriously. As we now know, he worked extremely hard, studying the issues in depth and preparing and practicing his speeches at great length. I'm frankly appalled at the low level of rhetorical skill displayed by most GOP politicians today. It is not just a matter of talent; talent helps, but Reagan showed that hard work is the key ingredient. Too many of our would-be party leaders today are simply lazy, and think they can coast through speeches and media appearances with little forethought. Finally, Reagan lived by an old show-business adage — always leave your audience wanting more. His speeches were often memorable because they were relatively short. You could fit five of Reagan's state of the union speeches inside one of Bill Clinton's or George W. Bush's. (This means you, Governor Palin, whom I heard in Anchorage in March making a rambling hour-long speech that someone at my table rightly described as "Castroesque.") So try this out, GOP leaders: Shorter speeches. People will remember more of what you say, and want to hear you say more later. This really isn't rocket science. Heck, it isn't even political science.

Good things.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Of Liberalism & Movie Stars

I know, I know, I'm quoting Jonah Goldberg quoting himself. At least I'm not quoting myself. Or quoting myself, quoting myself.

Give me some time. I'll get there.

....So, while "Let them eat cake" has come to symbolize how rich liberals think rich conservatives see the world, it actually signifies how rich liberals screw things up by creating "compassionate" schemes that only make things worse for the poor. It even holds true to the modern tendency of liberals to distort, spin, and most of all blame the heartlessness of conservatives for all of the poor's problems. So what was actually an example of well-intentioned liberal gitchy-gooeyness on the part of Marie-Therese became, in Carvillian fashion, a slander against Marie-Antoinette as a heartless and cruel conservative. Despite the fact that Antoinette was a kind and generous woman, the French Revolutionaries dubbed her the "Austrian Whore" and "Madame Deficit" for all time, because it was good for the cause.

I got to thinking about all of this when I stumbled on an article explaining that Jennifer Lopez won't allow anyone to photograph her elbows.

Stick with me.

I've long been of the opinion that celebrities, specifically movie stars, behave and, more importantly, think like old European royalty. Before I get into that, some tidbits.

The article detailed some of the typical demands that Hollywood "Divas" make on their staffs and producers. The phenomenon was hardly new to me, but this piece offers some nice additions for my file. Mariah Carey has an assistant whose only job is to hand her towels. Also, wherever Mariah goes, her courtesans must first remove posters of rival "divas," lest they offend her delicate sensibilities: Thou shalt have no divas before me!

Incidentally, if you read your supermarket tabloids you'd know that Carey is now in some sort of psychiatric rehab clinic — the modern equivalent of a fainting couch or royal baths, I suppose.

It goes on: Kim Basinger is "allergic" to the sun and requires an assistant to carry an umbrella to protect her on the off chance she might be exposed to dangerous solar radiation. John Travolta has a staff of 12 assistants, including a personal chef. Sylvester Stallone once refused to continue with an interview until his hotel room was painted a more "likable" peach. Mike Myers (whom I like) almost quit the filming of Wayne's World because he didn't have any margarine for his bagel. Sean Penn made an assistant swim the dangerous and polluted currents of New York's East River just to bring him a cigarette.

And then there is the increasingly commonplace demand from numerous stars that no one be allowed to look them in the eye uninvited. For example, only members of Jennifer Lopez's "double-digit entourage" are permitted to gaze into the windows of her soul. Sylvester Stallone, Tom Cruise, and of course Barbra Streisand are just a handful of the folks who think they're on the same plateau as Japanese Emperors, Turkish Pashas, and Medieval Kings.

There's also all the stuff in my files about people like Julia Roberts, Sandra Bullock, and countless others who require full time aromatherapists, masseuses, acupuncturists, etc., etc. Or people like Alec Baldwin, who demands scripts be written out fö-net-tick-ally bee-kauz hee'z 2 stoopid 2 reed wurds that R speld fun-nee. Okay, I'm making that last one up, but it's a reasonable assumption.

Now, it goes without saying that the overwhelming majority of such people are dyed-in-the-wool Democrats. I would also venture to say that many of them are as ill-informed about economics (and politics and history and pretty much anything not on the room service menu) as Marie-Therese was. Oh, let's just say it: Some of them are too dumb to breathe without a cue card.

But, while stupidity rarely gets in the way of anyone being a prominent liberal, it's hardly a requirement. No, what makes these people committed lefties has nothing to do with their needing to be reminded it doesn't matter which end of the straw is "up." I think it goes directly to the fact that they live the lives they do.

I never bought into Bono's Live 8 crap. I tell anyone who asks that I don't care at all for U2. I couldn't care less what most of these boneheaded stars have to say about anything.

The smartest pop cultural observer/comedian/whatever/thinker is Dennis Miller. I said this before he became a 9/11 conservative (just ask my buddy Michael J.), and I stand by it now. I don't normally watch Bill O'Reilly, but Dennis Miller on the O'Reilly Factor is must see TV.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Mark Steyn Is Back

Fresh off his Kangaroo court acquittal in Canada, Mark Steyn is back on the humorous political commentary scene. And this one won't disappoint. It's not a short little post at The Corner, this is the real deal.

Excerpt:

Where was I? Oh, yeah. Citizen-presidents: Who needs ’em? The day after the debate I bumped into two Obama supporters in St Johnsbury, Vermont who said isn’t it great that he's on course to win. Well, they were cute chicks, and I know an obvious pick-up line when I hear one, so I stopped to chat. God Almighty, it was like reverse Viagra: After ten minutes of Babes For Barack, I never want to meet a female woman of the opposite sex for the rest of my life. Their basic pitch was:

How do you solve a problem? Like, Obama!

How do you hold a moonbeam in your hand?

That’s John McCain's problem. Traditionally, when an unknown politician emerges on the national scene, it’s a race to define him. Governor Palin is a good example: within days, the coastal sophisticates were mocking her as a chillbilly ditz with a womb that spits out inbred kids faster than the First National Bank of Welfare Swamp issues subprime mortgages. That’s politics as usual: Define your opponent. But Obama is defined by his indefinability. When I pointed out to my Vermont gals that he lives in a swank pad that was part of some shady real estate deal with a convicted fraudster (Tony Rezko), that he entrusted his daughters’ entire religious education to a neo-segregationist anti-American nut who preaches that the government created the AIDS virus to kill black people (Jeremiah Wright), that he attended fundraisers with a political patron who’s an unrepentant terrorist proud of plotting to blow up young ladies just like them at a dance at the Fort Dix military base (William Ayers), when I pointed all this out, they looked at me as if I’d brought a baseball bat to a croquet match. Mere earthbound politicians are defined by their real estate deals and sleazy buddies, but Obama is defined only by his vibe. As his many admirers in France would say, he has a certain je ne sais quoi. And, if you try to pin down quoi precisely, then they don’t want to sais.

Welcome back, Mr. Steyn. You have been missed.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Jonah Goldberg On Chris Buckley's Betrayal

For the most part, I consider myself to be a Buckley conservative (William F. Buckley Jr.). I am socially conservative, fiscally libertarian, and hawkish on foreign policy. I'm probably more interventionist and thus (by some people's definition), neoconservative in my foreign policy outlook.

I subscribe to National Review and have read Christopher Buckley's stuff (WFB's son) for years. I particularly enjoyed Thank You For Smoking, and recommend it to anyone.

However, I do not agree with his outlook on the current state of the Republican party, John McCain's candidacy, or his ticket's inclusion of Sarah Palin. You can read Chris's endorsement of Barack Obama here, if you like.

Here on the pages of OL&L, I prefer to post Jonah Goldberg's response:

I am a great fan of Christopher's. I am proud to call him my friend and I am grateful for his many kindnesses. None of that changes because of his decision to endorse Barack Obama. But I think he’s wrong.

I would very much like to leave it at that.

But since I don't need a kazillion emails complaining that I punted, I'll pick up the ball and carry it a few yards downfield without any attempt to make it to the end zone, never mind do some sort of dance at his expense.

I think Mark's reader has it basically right. Christopher knows that McCain once had great character. We know he knows this because he says so at some length. He thinks McCain has lost it. I think that is unfair and untrue. His only real evidence stems from McCain’s recent political performance. But even if you think McCain has run a less than honorable campaign (I do not – which is not to say that I think he’s run a particularly good campaign), it's hard for me to take the complaint all that seriously from someone who worked for — and greatly admires — George HW Bush. Campaigns often require a certain tackiness, as was conspicuously the case with poppa Bush. But Bush pere was not a tacky president and I see nothing in Christopher’s argument that persuades me to think it would be otherwise with McCain.

Meanwhile, Christopher invokes Oliver Wendell Holmes’ famous line that FDR had a “first-class temperament” and so too Obama. Indeed, he suggests that Obama is a man of great character because he's a man of great temperament. Conceding for the sake of argument that Obama's temperament is first rate, are the two really the same thing? I don't think so (indeed, that would be a hard case to make about FDR himself, who could be deceitful, vindictive, petty — even to his own son — and adulterous. And let us note that Holmes himself was not a man many of us should be invoking as an authority on political virtue or general decency).

The story Christopher tells of McCain's great character has no real analogue in Obama. He may be in private a deeply honorable man, but his public record is one of accommodation, shortcuts, dishonest equivocations, serious leftwing sympathies and fellow-traveling with some awful people. Obama, let us recall, threw his own grandmother under the rhetorical bus in order to defend his relationship with Jeremiah Wright. That he sounded dignified doing it does not confer dignity on the act itself or the man behind it. That is surely not all there is to say about Obama, many of his friends and fans speak very well of him. But the scales Christopher uses to weigh one man against the other seem awfully rigged to me.

If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Media Bias Re: Bill Ayers & Barack Obama

So strong is the media inthetankedness for Barack Obama that they are now claiming (see CNN) that a magazine outing the relationship between Obama and unrepentant former terrorist Bill Ayers--National Review--actually debunked the relationship. Um, no.

See Stanley Kurtz, leading researcher on this question, at NR's The Corner:

A CNN article on Sarah Palin’s criticism of Barack Obama’s relationship to unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers actually cites National Review as one of the publications supposedly debunking Palin’s point. How CNN can cite National Review this way is a mystery to me. Maybe we’ll have to set up an NR "truth squad."

I was very briefly on CNN immediately after the McCain campaign called for me to be given access to UIC library. A CNN reporter interviewed me, and almost every question was an attempt to challenge the significance of the Obama-Ayers link. I answered every query in detail. When the report finally aired, my points about the significance of the Obama-Ayers connection were cut. And now, CNN is actually claiming NR as an ally in its effort to undercut Palin. Incredible.

You can't make this stuff up.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.