In 1780 Colonel John Launance, the Judge Advocate General of the Continental Army, laid out his case against British Major John Andre.
He described the legal requirements for such a charge and then he listed the specific evidence against Major Andre. He famously concluded with “and you sir, a spy!”
There was far less evidence of Andre being a spy as there is of Senator Obama being a Marxist.
In a recent interview, Barry was asked about troop levels. Here is what he said.
“In 2002 I said we should focus on finishing the fight against Osama Bin Laden. Throughout this campaign I’ve argued that we need more troops and more resources to win the war in Iraq.”
No he didn’t! Did he just say “more troops and more resources to win the war in Iraq”? Why yes he did.
I know that his position on Iraq has evolved considerably:
a. The war is lost, immediate withdrawal of all troops
b. Avoiding genocide is a not a good reason to stay in Iraq
c. The Surge will not work, in fact it will make things worse
d. Start withdrawal immediately; two combat brigades a month
But I don’t recall Senator Obama ever demanding more troops with the intent to “WIN” in Iraq. In fact he has built his entire meteoric rise in the morally bankrupt Democrat Party by being a bigger surrender monkey than the rest of the Socialists.
Of course the media has blindly fallen in line and refused to point out his many different and conflicting positions, particularly when it comes to the military. It is apparent that the young senator doesn’t know jack-shit about anything military.
That doesn’t mean that he likes to act like he knows something. Obama writing in Foreign Affairs in July/August 2007:
We should expand our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and 27,000 marines. Bolstering these forces is about more than meeting quotas. We must recruit the very best and invest in their capacity to succeed. That means providing our servicemen and servicewomen with first-rate equipment, armor, incentives, and training — including in foreign languages and other critical skills.
That doesn’t sound so bad until you watch this video.
He proclaims that he will cut billions of dollars worth of “needless” defense spending including “I will slow the development of future combat systems”. This is not spin folks, this is what the man said openly.
Perhaps the sage wisdom of Joe Biden can explain the dynamic between “first rate equipment” and no “future combat systems”?
If this were an election between “Maverick” McCain and “Moderate” Bill Clinton, I could understand these late hold outs better but the difference between McCain and the most liberal politician to ever show up on a November ballot is puzzling in deed.
National Review has a great piece:
Here’s humorist David Sedaris in that bastion of sophistication, The New Yorker, on undecided voters:
To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I interest you in the chicken?” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of s—t with bits of broken glass in it?”
To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked.
This is a great analogy.
Most conservatives view John McCain about as favorably as most people view airline food (myself included) but the alternative is … well you know what it is, with bits of broken glass in it.
The big story today is the flack that Joe Biden started by opening his festering pie-hole again. Biden predicted a “generated crisis” within the first six months of an Obama administration designed to exploit his perceived weakness internationally.
But Michael Medved caught something that I missed.
Colin Powell predicted the same thing during his endorsement of Obama on MTP.
What is unbelievable about this is that I thought the Democrats had long ago proclaimed that using fear is a fascist tactic of the right?
At this point in 1980 Jimmy Carter held an eleven point lead in the Gallop Poll over Ronald Reagan. Nobody knows this better than Senator Obama.
Obama’s ties to ACORN are getting clearer every day and it might become just enough to turn things.
We should keep an idea on this little POS legislation that Durbin and Obama attempted to pass last year. With all of the wild flailing over the banking mess going on, it would probably be pretty easy to slip this into a “comprehensive” plan.
Not only did Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign pay more than U.S. $800,000 to a front of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform, Now, ACORN, currently under investigation in a dozen States for voter registration fraud and bribery schemes, for “get-out-the-vote-efforts”; Obama co-sponsored legislation called the “Helping Families Save their Homes in Bankruptcy Act of 2007”– that was supported by ACORN and protects them.
. . .
Notice now, another key reason why groups like ACORN support this legislation because it: “Prohibits the court from allowing a claim that is subject to any remedy for damages or rescission due to failure to comply with the Truth in Lending Act or any other state or federal consumer protection law.”
. . .
This bill absolves organizations of any guilt or culpability under TILA; perhaps the same organizations who intimidated and bullied banks into providing risky loans to unqualified borrowers like ACORN.
This is an amnesty plan for groups like ACORN, La Raza, etc who bullied banks, filed law suits and forged documents to get undeserving people into homes they couldn’t afford. Any thorough investigation would uncover this and Durbin and Obama know it. This discovery would run these organizations afoul of RICO standards and could make them ineligible for federal tax dollars not to mention possibly putting some of the leadership in prison.
There is a lot of other crap in this like making every homeowner eligible for Chapter 13 but the really big deal is the amnesty.
The ACORN scandal is getting legs and Obama is in too deep to call his trusty bus. How long before he claims that ACORN is the victim?
Ace is hearing some juicy rumors about Obama and a possible scandal about to break.
4) This woman was a major, big-time fundraiser. She raised x millions of dollars for various Democratic interests (connected to Obama) and then opened her own shop in DC. Since she was (as any fundraiser does) getting a cut of the take, this was a lucrative job. But she, for reasons unfathomable, suddenly shut the shop down and decamped to a little Caribbean island. And somewhere along the line got a “job” from her own Fred Baron. Which conveniently put her far away from Obama, Michelle, and the media.
5) Within hours of the Daily Mail article breaking, she called the Illinois hq of the Obama campaign. They wouldn’t talk to her.
She called the Illinois hq of the Obama campaign? How would anyone know that? Unless the source of these rumors are physically with this woman and she is cooperating? Here’s some advice: You’d better be very careful “sweetie”.
Obama having a girlfriend would be a scandal in itself but apparently somebody thinks that there is something far better in this story somewhere.
There’s another big twist too, which I can’t say anything about. I wouldn’t even hint about it, really, even if permitted to, because it’s so delicious it makes it nearly fantastical — in the sense of “No one gets this lucky!” — and actually would be used to denigrate the rest of it. But there is a chance it gets more interesting than even the Chicago Machine connection.
This may be just Ace feeding his Morons. Jonn hates rumor-mongering but I kind of like it ?
UPDATE: Ace has taken down the post to control some over zealous commenters.
Dan Riehl notices a change in the talking points coming from the left.
ST. JOSEPH, MO – Joe Biden echoed the campaign’s response to continued Republican efforts to highlight Obama’s past associations, adding a personal touch to the idea that McCain wasn’t willing to make the attacks in person.
“All of the things they said about Barack Obama in the TV, on the TV, at their rallies, and now on YouTube … John McCain could not bring himself to look Barack Obama in the eye and say the same things to him,” Biden said this morning. “In my neighborhood, when you’ve got something to say to a guy, you look him in the eye and you say it to him.”
Riehl makes an excellent point that seems to be very strange behavior from a campaigning point of view.
With three weeks until the election and an RCP polling advantage of +7.6 it seems very risky to launch an “in your face” attack against a bona fide war hero. Maybe they are trying to provoke McCain into saying something very angry to paint him as mean spirited and lacking the temperament to be president.
To me that might make sense but it doesn’t address the risk. If McCain blows up screaming like Howard Dean, it will work. If he calmly smacks Obama down (Face to Face), Obama is punked and his already perceived weakness is confirmed.
Why take the risk?
Running a successful presidential campaign is not unlike coaching a Super Bowl champion. Every play is measured in terms of risk and reward. Without reward you rarely see risk.
Case in point, November 19, 1978 in the Meadowlands. New York Giants fans recall it simply as “the fumble”.
On third and four with 31 seconds to play against the visiting Eagles, everyone in the stadium expected the Giants to snap the ball, take a knee and win the game 17-12. This was even more predictable as the Giants had taken a knee on the previous play forcing the Eagles to use its last time out.
There was no way in hell the Giants were going to try to run a play. But they did.
Amazingly they decided to hand the ball to Larry Csonka who promptly fumbled it. The Eagles’ cornerback Herm Edwards scooped it up and ran it back for a game winning touchdown.
Why is the Obama camp not taking a knee?
And with time running out, why on earth give the ball to Joe Biden?
Interesting times indeed.