Stephen Hadley, Awesome American

In the week-long run-up to VI-Day (Victory in Iraq Day), I'll be posting good articles related to the success of our troops, The Surge, and those who supported The Surge against the Democrat and public opinion tide.

One of the people to include in the pantheon was Stephen Hadley.

[...] one fact trumps everything else: Without this good man's courage and persistence, there would have been no surge.

I don't think I am talking out of school to mention facts that have been recorded in newspaper articles and books as different as Bing West's "The Strongest Tribe" and Bob Woodward's "The War Within." The surge story begins back in 2006, when al Qaeda finally succeeded in setting the Shia and Sunni at each others' throats. That October, with Baghdad consumed by sectarian fires, Mr. Hadley tasked William Luti to come up with a new way forward.

Mr. Luti was then serving in the National Security Council (NSC) as special assistant for defense policy and strategy. A retired Navy captain who had commanded an amphibious ready group that included thousands of Marines, he was familiar with war planning. The briefing that he came up with was called "Changing the Dynamics: Surge and Fight, Create Breathing Space and Then Accelerate the Transition." You know it as "the surge."

The difficulty for these two men was that outside their colleagues in the NSC and West Wing, few wanted to hear about sending more American troops to Iraq. The Democrats wanted out and were declaring the war lost. Some Republicans were joining in. The Iraq Study Group offered a face-saving out, and many in the Defense and State departments wanted to take it. The American public was weary.

By having Mr. Luti draw up the concept for a surge, Mr. Hadley ensured that when options were presented to the president, one of them would be to fight. In Mr. Luti's strategic conception, securing the population became the top priority. In public, advocates like retired Army Gen. Jack Keane and military strategist Fred Kagan did yeoman's work to press the case for a surge. But within the White House decision-making process, it was almost this simple: No Steve Hadley, no surge -- and no success.

What can this possibly mean for Mr. Obama? The answer is plenty. Many things have changed since he first came out against this war. For one thing, he is now the president-elect instead of an opposition voice in the Senate -- which means he now bears the responsibility for how the war turns out. For another, back when he first called for U.S. troops to be withdrawn, President Bush's victory talk was treated as a joke. It is no longer a joke.

As Gens. David Petraeus and Raymond Odierno are keen to remind us, the gains in Iraq are fragile and reversible. But they are nevertheless real. And that means that if Mr. Obama is not careful, he could be the president who loses Iraq.

It need not turn out that way. At bottom, Mr. Obama's war stance boils down to reducing our presence in Iraq and increasing our presence in Afghanistan. The success of the surge permits him [Obama] to carry out this strategy from a position of strength. In fact, the security pact just approved by Iraq's cabinet suggests that Mr. Obama is now in a position to achieve most of his Iraq aims without jeopardizing the hard-won gains our troops have made -- provided he keeps his word to listen to our commanders on the ground.

(per usual, emphasis added)

What a difference 2 years makes.


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

Goldberg On Social/Religious Conservatives

The Republican party needs them. And, as evidenced by Prop 8's passage in California, being socially conservative does not lose elections.

Goldberg:

It turns out that people who buy into the logic of social liberalism, not just on abortion but racial and other issues as well, usually find themselves ill-equipped ideologically to say no to additional spending on causes they care about. They even find it difficult to stay Republicans, as we can see from recent example Colin Powell, who endorsed Barack Obama for president for largely ethereal reasons.

It should be noted that it’s also difficult to be fiscally conservative and socially conservative if you’ve jettisoned the conservative dogma of limited government. We saw this in spades as President Bush embraced “activist government” and ended up wildly increasing government spending over the last eight years.

And that should serve as a warning to those, on the right and left, who would like to see the GOP defenestrate millions of actual, living, breathing members of the party — e.g., social conservatives — in order to woo millions of largely nonexistent jackalopes. The GOP would simply cease to exist as a viable party without the support of social and religious conservatives.

Keep the social cons.


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

No H8ers Allowed

In the liberal paradise that is the Castro district of San Francisco, tolerance, peace, & love abound.

Or not:



Michelle Malkin has the YouTube author's story about his experience.

Lovers of the Constitution beware, from Hot Air:

The violence wasn’t captured on camera this time; read the boss for a description of that. The media’s unwilling to place blame where it belongs in these incidents since the identities of the harassers and harassed confound the established Narrative, so they resort instead to feeble, evenhanded tsk-tsking about how “both sides” need to “cool down.” Look out for that as the coverage of this breaks big.

There’s only one man now who can rescue Prop 8 opponents from the terrible trappings of democracy — and luckily, not only has he had a lot of practice at it, this particular issue is one of his specialties. Expect a major 5-4 equal protection decision striking down the referendum sometime next year, with you-know-who writing for the majority. A surefire consolation prize for conservatives? Angriest Scalia dissent evah.

Looks like I'm going to have to break out my judicial activism rant after all.


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

Success In Iraq (UPDATED, x3 & Bumped)

Most everyone I know wrote off Iraq sometime in 2006 or 2007. I'll admit, it was rough going and things looked bleak--especially in summer and fall 2006 ahead of The Surge.

But General David Petraeus and his #2, Ray Odierno and all the many brave soldiers in their command executed the principles of The Surge masterfully, with the result being that Iraqis (and Americans) can begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel. As I've mentioned numerous times before, John McCain deserves a lot of credit for supporting it early, consistently, and to his detriment.

George W. Bush deserves the lion's share of the credit. He could have succumbed to his Democrat critics and pulled out of Iraq, leaving American military and domestic morale in a shambles and handicapping our influence for at least a generation. But he didn't.

My suspicion is that in 40 years, fair-minded historians will treat W's presidency with far greater equanimity than either today's opinion polls or pundits. I would guess that even many of his more sober critics would probably admit that they agree.

Thanks to Branden B. for the tip: Click the link and view a solemn reminder of some of the costs of victory in Iraq. The WSJ graphic shows the coalition troop losses over the course of the war. Best of all is the "biography" option which allows you to click on the dots (which represents soldiers who died) and read a short biography.

My fear (shared by many) and probably the greatest danger, is that Barack Obama will seize defeat from the jaws of victory by pulling coalition forces out of Iraq before Iraqis are able to defend themselves from interior and exterior threats. They are on the path to that goal, but they are not there yet.

To leave before they are ready would waste the sacrifice and work of thousands of brave American and coalition soldiers and would amount to the single greatest American defeat since the fall of Saigon to the North Vietnamese. It would be an unmitigated disaster that would destabilize the entire region.

UPDATE 11:50pm BST: Steve M. writes:

Sometimes in life we have to finish a job that was started by someone else or in error, but it must be finished in order to not marginalize, minimize, or totally negate the sacrifice of others.

Sorry, but I spent two years living in South America under a dictatorship and watched people suffer from the autrocities of oppression. Regardless of whether this was to fight the war on terror (which I believe it was, but our liberal friends have no concept of how to bring an unseen enemy out of the shadows to fight), or to keep control of oil, it can and has created a country where people have the freedom to choose their direction. Who are we to say they aren't worth that effort. What if we were the ones oppressed, wouldn't we welcome the restoration of our liberties? Or would we refuse the help because it was too hard and continue suffering?

UPDATE 18 November 2:54am BST: More good news from Iraq, this coming from General McCaffrey's AAR:

THE BOTTOM LINE:

a. The United States is now clearly in the end game in Iraq to successfully achieve what should be our principle objectives:

• The withdrawal of the majority of our US ground combat forces in Iraq in the coming 36 months.

• Leaving behind an operative civil state and effective Iraqi security forces.

• An Iraqi state which is not in open civil war among the Shia, the Sunnis, and the Kurds.

• And an Iraqi nation which is not at war with its six neighboring states.

b. The security situation is clearly still subject to sudden outrage at any moment by Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) or to degradation because of provocative behavior by the Maliki government. However, the bottom line is a dramatic and growing momentum for economic and security stability which is unlikely to be reversible. I would not characterize the situation as fragile. It is just beyond the tipping point.

• Daily attacks hit a high of 180+ in July of 2007--- they are now down to 20+ per day.

• Civilian deaths dropped from 3700 per month in Dec 2006 --- to 400 + in October 2008.

• US military deaths dropped from 110 in May of 2007---to 10 in October 2008.

• Iraqi Security Forces KIA dropped from 310 in June 2007--- to 50 in October 2008.)

Like his denunciation of Nafta, I hope Obama's promise to 'withdraw, regardless of conditions on the ground,' was just empty primary campaign boilerplate, designed to get the anti-war moonbat wing of the Democrat party on board, and not, you know, his grown-up position.

(thanks to Ace)

UPDATE 18 November 1:38pm BST: VICTORY IN IRAQ DAY: Alright, folks, this Saturday is Victory In Iraq Day. The day in which we celebrate the triumph of the American military over its many foes in Iraq and the establishment of a free democracy in the Middle East--by my count, the 2nd such democracy in that part of the world.

As you'll read when you click the link: don't expect the media, or either the outgoing (just trying to keep his head down) or incoming (didn't think it was possible, owes early success to our struggles there) Presidents.

Save the date and celebrate it. Thank members of the military wherever you see them for their hard work and sacrifice.


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

Help Dave Beat The KosKidz

Remember the scholarship contest to which I linked and for which I encouraged y'all to sign up? Well, I don't know if any of my readers did, but Dave Cameron of USS Mariner fame is in the contest.

And he's leading.

I voted, because I love his stuff and am grateful for the sabermetric understanding he gave me of baseball and how it cross applies to things beyond baseball. I don't know what his politics are; USS Mariner has a strict, no-politics-allowed discussion policy. But given his background--studying econ stuff at UNC Charlotte (pretty sure)--I don't think he's an Obama hipster. So there's that.

Anyway, beyond telling a few friends who also read his blog, I wasn't going to publicly support his bid for the scholarship here at OL&L. But then I found out the haters over at DailyKos were promoting one of their own. Every day. Even though they don't normally read him. Just because he's a member of their groupthink. And, well, that really peeved me off.

So now I'm appealing to you, the several hundred of you across the United States, UK, and occasionally Uzbekistan, to click the link and VOTE FOR DAVID CAMERON. If you have a blog and you want to stick it to DailyKos, post a link and encourage your readers, friends, family to vote for David Cameron. Email everyone. He's behind by about 700 votes.


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

No On 8 Folks Really Helping Their Cause (Not Really) (UPDATED, Bumped)

As I've written several times in the past: For the homosexual community, this fight was never and will never be just about being allowed to be married. It is about forcing the rest of the United States to accept as normal every aspect of their lifestyle. It's about forcing it into our churches, schools, and the institution of marriage.

The word marriage has always described, for thousands of years, the unique relationship between man and wife. Words matter. Understandings and definitions of words matter. They affect how we look and think about the objects and ideas behind them.

I won't lump all homosexuals together, because I know there are many who just want to live and let live. But there are many, some in the video below, for whom the main goal is to militantly break down and destroy the thousands of years old understanding of marriage. They've demonstrated this over the course of the campaign for Prop 8 and violently in the aftermath of their loss by 600,000 votes in the liberal state of California.



(thanks to Lance G. for the vid)

And, of course, the Prop 8 loss caused someone to send suspicious white powder (code for 'maybe anthrax') to the Mormon temples in LA and SLC.

This sends a very clear message: 'Accept our lifestyle or die.'

Do they really think this will help their cause?

UPDATE 16 November 5:11am BST: Laura W. writes: "Not sure if you heard, but the little old lady who was spit on and vilified in that vid is pressing charges, and they are using that vid to identify the suspects...
Go, Little Old Lady!"

Sure enough, here's the article.

You know, in a democracy such as ours, these people have alternatives: They can try and persuade people to see the world the way they do and then vote accordingly, or they can harass sweet old ladies, threaten, vandalize, assault, send suspicious white powder (this is just a short list, readers have written me about more).

Given that they failed in California (California!), I wonder where they can succeed? This makes pro-marriage amendments 30 for 30 in terms of approval by statewide initiative (that is, amendments like this one have passed in the 30 states that have put it to a vote).

So, they'll follow the time honored tradition of liberal activists throughout the ages (like, the last 30 years or so): Get some liberal, activist judge to overturn the emphatically voted will of the people, you know, because she/he is more enlightened and knows better than the millions of Californians who voted to amend their constitution to protect marriage.

Mind you, this is a preemptive rant (the Bush Doctrine at work). I hope I don't really have to use it.


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

More Examples Of Liberals Being Ubertolerant

Another one of the many myths of liberalism is that they, and only they, are open minded and tolerant and enlightened in the glory of their many graduate degrees and minorities (both racial and sexual) and on and on, etc., amen.

Of course, the truth is that they are only tolerant if you share their doctrinaire liberal beliefs. Otherwise, you might get "crucifixed."

Consider the response of one girl's classmates to her "McCain Girl" t-shirt, worn, unbeknownst to them, as a social experiment. This experiment was conducted in Oak Park, a suburb of Chicago.

"One person told me to go die. It was a lot of dying. A lot of comments about how I should be killed," Catherine said, of the tolerance in Oak Park.

But students weren't the only ones surprised that she wore a shirt supporting McCain.

"In one class, I had one teacher say she will not judge me for my choice, but that she was surprised that I supported McCain," Catherine said.

If Catherine was shocked by such passive-aggressive threats from instructors, just wait until she goes to college.

Yup, those liberals, so tolerant and open minded.

Look, see how enlightened they are compared to the redneck, backwoods, no-nothing, conservatives living in flyover country.

The message from these liberals (like some of the gay liberals) is clear: Join us in our dogmatic groupthink, or else.

(h/t Amanda B.)


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

Michael Steele, Conference Call

Listening in on a conference call with Michael Steele on Friday. Steele is the headline candidate for the RNC chairmanship. I've been impressed with him for a long time and became even more so impressed after interviewing him at the RNC and listening to his speech there.

So far, I've been very impressed with his emphasis on the importance of how we communicate conservative ideas. Steele says, for example, that we need to be careful about saying that we want to "cut government." Government employees hear that and think, "these guys want to fire me." We need to say that we want efficient and effective government, because then those same employees will say, "the guy in the cubicle sitting next to me didn't do anything all day, he better watch out."

This is one example of the importance of communication.

Steele on communication: We are going to try every mode of communication open to us. We won't mimic the Obama campaign, but we will steal some of their communication strategies. Obama wasn't interested in communicating his VP choice, he wanted to get people's cell and email information. This kept them excited and interested and made them feel as though they were in the game.

Steele wants to actively engage bloggers to test ideas and see what things are animating people outside of Washington. Republicans don't feel a part of anything and connected to anything. That's not going to cut it. We only ask for their checks. We want them more involved than that.

Paraphrasing Steele: I want you guys involved. I want a free-flowing exchange of ideas. Those conservative bloggers can use these tools to go out and fight the good fight. This is an important opportunity for everyone who has good ideas to get involved.

[ed. note: Clearly talking about tapping into the democracy of ideas that is the internet.]


Ok, the call is done. Steele is smart--smart enough to know that he doesn't know everything. By all accounts he would be a good fundraiser, communicater, and organizer. He seems willing to listen to ideas from all sides. And, importantly, he seems to be a true conservative.

Given the social conservatism of the African-American community (see Prop 8), it's possible that Steele could reach out and begin building some bridges.


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

What This Election Wasn't, Part 137

There is so much misinformation floating around out there, I could spend all my time reading and debunking the electoral interpretations of various pundits. Don't worry, I won't. I'll focus on the ones that interest me most.

Andrew Gelman, no conservative partisan, has the first one:

The election was pretty close. Obama won by about 5% of the vote, consistent with the latest polls and consistent with his forecast vote based on forecasts based on the economy.

(emphasis in original)

After all the reports we got about how transformational this election would be, how the youth vote would turn out in record numbers and how turnout itself would blow every previous election out of the water.

Well, it didn't. 18% of young voters turned out compared to 17% last time.

Yeah, Obama-hipsters, speak truth to power!

And overall turnout? Roughly comparable to 2004--even with all of the fake, dead, & felonious signed up by ACORN.

As for realignment? Nothing to see here. Jennifer Marsico of AEI:

The 2008 election was an important election. But it can hardly be considered realigning.

Mr. Obama won by portraying the Bush presidency as a series of mistakes that need to be avoided in the future -- essentially encouraging voters to think about the short-term past, not the long-term future.

Put another way, Mr. Obama got about 40,000 fewer votes in Ohio than John Kerry got four years ago. Mr. Obama carried the state when Mr. Kerry did not because Republicans stayed home. Nationally, the anticipated record turnout didn't materialize. About the same percentage of registered voters came out this year as in 2004. And was that a realignment year?

(emphasis added)

Wholesale rejection of conservatism? Nah, not buying it. I'll give you rejection of Bush and critique of the current economic crisis, but neither of these things are a knock on conservatism as an ideology. Republicans may be down for the count, but it's not because of their ideology. There is a wide divide between ideology and implementation.

More from Gelman (click the link for accompanying scatterplots):

The red/blue map was not redrawn; it was more of a national partisan swing. The standard deviation of the state swings (excluding D.C. and the unusual case of Hawaii) was 3.3%. That is, after accounting for the national swing in Obama’s favor, most of the states were within 3% of where they were, compared to their relative positions in 2004.

The standard deviation of these state swings was 2.4%. This was even less variation–2004 was basically a replay of 2000–still, the relative state swings of 3.3% in 2008 were not large by historical standards.

Again, Obama didn’t redraw the map; he shifted the map over in his favor. (Or, to put it more precisely, the economy shifted the map over in the Democrats’ favor and Obama took advantage of this.)

(italics added, bold in original)

Folks, the election is no more complicated than this. Trace the trajectory of the polls and the take a look at the exit poll data (Scroll down to the last bit of data. I think you'll find that the economy numbers match up pretty well with the overall election numbers).

The tanking of the economy in middle September through October lost John McCain this election. Granted, correlation doesn't prove causation, but we've got some pretty strong evidence.


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

Stealing The Election For Franken

Up in Minnesota, Democrats are doing what Democrats do--whatever it takes to win. By hook or crook. From the WSJ:

For example, there was Friday night's announcement by Minneapolis's director of elections that she'd forgotten to count 32 absentee ballots in her car. The Coleman campaign scrambled to get a county judge to halt the counting of these absentees, since it was impossible to prove their integrity 72 hours after the polls closed. The judge refused on grounds that she lacked jurisdiction.

Up in Two Harbors, another liberal outpost, Mr. Franken picked up an additional 246 votes. In Partridge Township, he racked up another 100. Election officials in both places claim they initially miscommunicated the numbers. Odd, because in the Two Harbors precinct, none of the other contests recorded any changes in their vote totals.

According to conservative statistician John Lott, Mr. Franken's gains so far are 2.5 times the corrections made for Barack Obama in the state, and nearly three times the gains for Democrats across Minnesota Congressional races. Mr. Lott notes that Mr. Franken's "new" votes equal more than all the changes for all the precincts in the entire state for the Presidential, Congressional and statehouse races combined (482 votes).

Reagan help us if Democrats somehow steal the election in Minnesota, pull off a win in Georgia, and beat the felon in Alaska. It's not quite 60--the number necessary to forestall a filibuster--but it makes it that much easier to pressure 1-2 Republican Senators into following the Democrat crowd.


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

More Evidence Sarah Palin Didn't Lose The Election

Don't listen to David Brooks. He doesn't like Sarah Palin and doesn't like social conservatives. You know this before you read his column. This is his bias. Dick Morris hates the Clintons and wants to win. This is his bias. Here's his read on Sarah Palin's effect on the election:

Sarah Palin made a vast difference in McCain’s favor. Compared to 2004, McCain lost 11 points among white men, according to the Fox News exit poll, but only four points among white women. Obama’s underperformance among white women, evident throughout the fall, may be chalked up, in large part, to the influence of Sarah Palin. She provided a rallying point for women who saw their political agenda in terms larger than abortion. She addressed the question of what it is like to be a working mother in today’s economy and society and resonated with tens of millions of white women who have not responded to the more traditional, and liberal, advocates for their gender.

Add this to the numbers Palin drew to her campaign events--literally tens of thousands of people showed up. She rivaled Barack Obama. Nobody turned up to listen to Joe Biden. And John McCain didn't pull those kinds of numbers and the base wouldn't have turned out to GOTV for him either.

Don't believe the haters. Palin isn't responsible for the loss and McCain supposed "hewing to the right" didn't do it either.

On what positions, pray tell, did McCain go right and lose? Drilling? Polls throughout the summer showed Americans in favor of drilling, 70-30%.

Similarly, on immigration, Americans are opposed to amnesty and in favor enforcement. But McCain pretty much didn't say anything about immigration because he's personally in favor of amnesty.

Oh, and all that stuff about Palin supposedly believing that Africa was a country, and not a continent, get over yourselves, it was a hoax. Who's the idiot now?

Obama did in 2008 what Tony Blair did in 1997--he coopted traditionally conservative principles--like fiscal responsibility and tax cuts. How in the world could McCain let Obama steal tax cuts? But he did, by proposing "tax cuts" for 95% of Americans. On foreign policy, Obama even out-hawked John McCain with regard to Pakistan (proposing bombings and special forces incursions).

John McCain did not lose this election by being too conservative or adding Sarah Palin to the ticket.


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

National Review On Prop 8 & Attacks On Mormons

Thanks to Blake C. for this one:

On Tuesday, by a margin of 52 to 48 percent, voters in California amended their state constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, as did voters in Florida (62 to 38 percent) and Arizona (56 to 44 percent).

Those who argue social conservatism is behind the GOP’s current electoral malaise take note: In Arizona marriage outperformed John McCain by 2 percentage points, in Florida by 14 percentage points, and in California by 15 percentage points.

The Arizona win, reversing a defeat for a marriage amendment in that state in 2006, also restores to state marriage amendments an unblemished record of victory: They have won in 30 out of 30 states where they have been on the ballot.

What lesson can we take from Tuesday’s marriage victories? Here’s one obvious one: Americans still care a great deal about this issue. The California supreme court may have believed that the public would acquiesce when it foisted same-sex marriage on the state earlier this year. But the successful campaign to overturn its ruling was an astonishing effort, unprecedented for a social issue, that raised more than 100,000 volunteers and almost $40 million from over 60,000 donors.

How have the leaders of the movement for same-sex marriage responded to their California loss at the ballot box? The same way they usually do: by getting lawyers to make ever more outrageous arguments to impose their values on unwilling people. (The ACLU is preparing to argue that a one-sentence definition of marriage constitutes such a wholesale revision of California’s constitution that the California Supreme Court should invalidate Prop 8.)

Just before they lost on Tuesday in California, same-sex marriage advocates in California descended to a new low. A group affiliated with Moveon.org, United Healthcare Workers, and the California Nurses Association released a television ad, “Home Invasion,” which portrayed Mormon missionaries as ransacking a California home: “We’re from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. We’ve come to take away your rights.” (The ad was referring to the financial contributions Mormon citizens had made to the initiative campaign.) Are there any other religious minority groups whose political giving liberals believe should be stigmatized? Can we expect the Anti-Defamation League to speak up?

So far, not a single same-sex marriage advocate in California or outside of it has been willing to repudiate this vicious tactic: not MoveOn.org, of course, and not the ACLU or the Human Rights Campaign either. But also not, for example, Sen. Diane Feinstein, who appeared in an anti-Prop 8 TV ad saying that “we must always say no to discrimination.” But not, it seems, to bigotry.

The current conflict over marriage is in part a proxy for a larger ongoing conflict about the role of religious people and religious values in public life. As courts come to endorse the principle that sexual orientation is just like race, American government is going to find itself in the position of treating traditional faith communities just like racists. Voters should beware — if they are consulted on the matter.

(emphasis added)

Religious bigotry is the last acceptable form of bigotry in this country.

One of the lessons to be drawn from this election is that social conservatism is alive and well. Coupled with fiscal conservatism and strong-on-defense foreign policy positions, conservatism as a whole, has a bright future.

Conservatives must do as Ronald Reagan always did when confronted with a new problem: Return to first principles. It's why we are conservatives--because we have sure principles which we can always apply to new problems, if we work and think hard enough.


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

Michael Crichton, RIP

I'm trying to think how many Michael Crichton novels I've read: Jurassic Park, for sure, Congo, and Sphere. I think that's it. They were all enjoyable reads.

I was saddened to learn that Crichton died over the weekend. In losing Crichton, we lose a man who wasn't afraid to poke fun at the accepted wisdom of the elites--like global warmism.

(or climate change or whatever it is they're calling it today because global temperatures aren't going their way, if you know what I mean)

John Miller, writer for the National Review, penned an excellent obit op-ed for the Wall Street Journal. My brother, Matt, pointed out the best part:

His workaholic habits were legendary, and he must have been a hard man to live with. Four of his five marriages ended in divorce. He displayed a vindictive streak, too. In 2006, Michael Crowley of The New Republic wrote a negative critique of Mr. Crichton's work. Rather than responding with a letter to the editor, Mr. Crichton retaliated in "Next," a novel about transgenic animals. It included a minor character named Mick Crowley, a child rapist who, like the real Mr. Crowley, had attended Yale.

Haters, beware. I'll be working you into my next novel.

(h/t Scott L.)


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

That Mark Hemingway, He's A Funny Guy

Don't worry, everyone on this side of the pond is super excited about Obama winning too. That must mean they like US now, right? Right?

Anyway, over at The Corner, Mark Hemingway tackles the notion that newsworthy events = a baby boom. Specifically, one reporter speculated that Obama's win would create a minor baby boom 9 months from now--you know, because liberals have so many children.

A blast email that a reporter from a New York publication sent out today:

"I'm working on a funny piece about the potential for an Obama baby boom 9 months from election night. Did you make love in the name of Obama on election night? Were you feeling particularly romantic because your candidate won? If you seriously plan to conceive, are you happy you'll be bringing a child into an Obama administration?

I'm looking for funny and/or stories and anecdotes. If you're not comfortable having your name used, please let me know and we can likely work around that."

Well, once again we have a reporter who flunked statistics:

"Because variances in birth rate are an ordinary phenomenon, spikes in the number of births will occasionally coincide with a newsworthy event that took place three-quarters of a year earlier. Those who cling to the belief in blackout babies fail to accept that the same communities they point to as proof of the theory saw even greater leaps in number of births in years that weren't preceded by memorable events. Blackouts, snowstorms, and the like are more usually followed by perfectly ordinary birth rates nine months afterwards, but because human nature is what it is, we tend to remember only the events that fit the pattern we're determined to see and unconsciously discard all the rest [...]"

Such a query does, however, seem to confirm that no one was more turned on by Obama's victory than the media.

9 months from now, check your local hospital to see how many little Barry's, Barack's, and (for the girls) Obama's there are on the baby register.


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

Sarah Palin Remains Awesome

Thanks to Jim Treacher for sharing.

Thanks also to Batton Lash.


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

Remember The Vets

According to the Department of Veterans Affairs,

President Wilson proclaimed November 11 as the first commemoration of Armistice Day with the following words: "To us in America, the reflections of Armistice Day will be filled with solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country’s service and with gratitude for the victory, both because of the thing from which it has freed us and because of the opportunity it has given America to show her sympathy with peace and justice in the councils of the nations…"

Since that original designation, 11 November has been expanded to be a day in which all veterans of all wars are remembered and their sacrifices honored.

Commander Salamander suggests--and I recommend--that you make a donation to Valour-IT, a fund set up to purchase laptops and other necessary IT equipment to help injured vets on the path to recovery. See CS's. post for more info.

Finally, you must read David French's article, Soldiers Win.


Thanks to Ace.


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

Programming Note: Dialing It Back A Bit

As many of you have noticed (an emailed as such), I've taken a bit of a break over the last weekend. In the run-up to the election I was posting sometimes as many as 10-12 times a day. Needless to say, with a PhD that needs researching and writing, that's a pace I cannot maintain.

But I won't let this thing die altogether. Too many of you are reading and emailing me good stuff. I'll carry on posting--though probably closer to 1-2 times per day--while picking my NewsBusters stuff up a bit. I'll be sure and posts links here when I write something there.

One of my duties at NewsBusters is posting links to interesting articles in the "Editors' Picks" sidebar. If you come across something particularly good that you think would be of interest to 300,000 readers of conservative, media-bias hating readers, email it my way and I'll get it posted.

Thanks again for all your emails--complimentary and not. Keep 'em coming. Our guy may not have won the election, but that doesn't mean the fight is over. We won an important victory in California by passing Prop 8, but that fight isn't over either.

Now we have to do what we can to oppose His Oneness's liberal-socialist agenda and continue to defend marriage at the state and federal level. One woman or man standing up for what's right inspires others around them to do the same.

Be that person.


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

Happy 233rd Bday, Marine Corps

In honor of the Marine Corps's 233rd bday, may I direct your attention to the story of one the Corps's greatest heroes, Colonel John Ripley. Professor Mackubin Thomas Owens tells the tale in an article at NRO.

John graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1962, receiving a commission in the Marine Corps. In October of 1966, he assumed command of “Lima” Company, 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment in Vietnam. During this tour he was wounded in action and awarded the Silver Star medal for valor.

John had a successful career in the Marines, serving as an infantry battalion and regimental commander. He also earned the “Quad Body” distinction, graduating the Army’s Rangers School (he is the only Marine in the U.S. Army Ranger Hall of Fame), the Army’s Airborne school, Marine reconnaissance training, and Britain's Royal Marines training course.

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

Barack's Call For Unity

Subtitle: Support My Leftist Proposals Or Else

Reader Matt P. provides some excellent analysis of Obama's bipartisanshipness:

"If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things. And you know what? It's worked before, because it feeds into the cynicism we all have about government."

I found this little tidbit interesting. I couldn't quite catch the context while reading it. I can't imagine that he was talking about McCain running on "small things," seeing how it seems to describe the Obama run up to the presidency so well. They were able to present trifles, meaningless platitudes and empty rhetoric as big, grandiose policy positions in such a way that he was even able to convince 20% of self-proclaimed conservatives to vote for him.

Oh, and if you didn't catch that quotation, it was in his acceptance speech. Not the one from last night but from the August convention.

There was one other theme of his that I would also like to touch on that has been discussed at length many times and evident again in his Presidential acceptance speech - his lack of bipartisanship.

In the DNC acceptance speech he spoke only of bipartisanship in the role of things that truly lack political division (i.e. his ethics reform bill, nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists and better care for veterans) and instances in which conservatives crossed the aisle to meet on the left side. This was evident again last night when he spoke of bipartisanship in vague terms and then followed it with a "call for unity" that only Barack could give: "And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn - I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too." Really?

(see http://patriotpost.us for additional thoughts on the partisanship on display as I cannot lay claim to that original thought)

(emphasis added)

As Matt P. points out, it's easy to be bipartisan when the partisans on the other side are forced to come to your side because they have no other option. And, it's easy to be bipartisan when the issue isn't one of those that divide the country and the two parties.

When Obama demonstrates that he will work with Republicans on issues that truly divide the two parties and this country, then--then, I will begin to believe that maybe he is a bi/post-partisan.


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

Voter Fraud &c.

This was hardly the first year people questioned the efficacy of our voter system. I mean, just because ACORN signed up more dead and imaginary people than every before doesn't mean this is the first time this has happened.

People, as I recall, were pretty ticked in the aftermath of 2000 with the Florida recount and other stories about voting issues.

JFK famously won the election with the help of tens of thousands of double & dead voters in Chicago. Tammany Hall in NYC was particularly good at this sort of thing and was/is the model for the Chicago machine.

It won't surprise any of you to know that these are all Democrat party machines.

It also won't surprise any of you to know that they are the ones who, year after year, oppose efforts to standardize voting requirements to bring a modicum of legitimacy to our electoral system. Heaven forbid we actually require a picture ID when someone votes.

After following this pretty regularly for the last couple of months and posting Morgan H.'s experience voting in LA, reader Victor S. emailed me the link to his new blog where he wrote a bit of a counterpoint to my many attacks. He's a good guy and his blog is worth a read.

He writes, in part:

The point I'm driving towards is this: the elections are as fair, in my view, as humanly possible. No, they are not perfect. Yes, there are sometimes minor errors, but the elections are fair, and those involved try to do the best job possible.

Yes, Victor, I've no doubt they are as fair as humanly possible. I'd like to make them as fair as inhumanly possible. That is to say, I'd like to subtract, as much as possible, the possibility for human caused error and fraud.

Requiring photo ID in every state would be a good start.


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