NY-23: The race that won’t die.

by Mike

Due to some balloting errors a recanvassing of the NY-23’s eleven county districts shows that Dour Hoffman is behind Democrat, Bill Owens, by 3,026 votes. Rather than the 5,335 as was originally thought. This means the race will be determined by a count of absentee ballots which could or could not shift the race in Hoffman’s favor. If Hoffman is victorious, Bill Owens would then be summarily removed and Hoffman would be allowed to enter office.

Syracuse.com-Conservative Doug Hoffman conceded the race in the 23rd Congressional District last week after receiving two pieces of grim news for his campaign: He was down 5,335 votes with 93 percent of the vote counted on election night, and he had barely won his stronghold in Oswego County.

As it turns out, neither was true.

But Hoffman’s concession — based on snafus in Oswego County and elsewhere that left his vote undercounted — set off a chain of events that echoed all the way to Washington, D.C., and helped secure passage of a historic health care reform bill.

Democratic Rep. Bill Owens was quickly sworn into office on Friday, a day before the rare weekend vote in the House of Representatives. His support sealed his party’s narrow victory on the health care legislation.

Now a recanvassing in the 11-county district shows that Owens’ lead has narrowed to 3,026 votes over Hoffman, 66,698 to 63,672, according to the latest unofficial results from the state Board of Elections.

In Oswego County, where Hoffman was reported to lead by only 500 votes with 93 percent of the vote counted election night, inspectors found Hoffman actually won by 1,748 votes — 12,748 to 11,000.

The new vote totals mean the race will be decided by absentee ballots, of which about 10,200 were distributed, said John Conklin, communications director for the state Board of Elections.

Under a new law in New York that extended deadlines, military and overseas ballots received by this coming Monday (and postmarked by Nov. 2) will be counted. Standard absentee ballots had to be returned this past Monday.

Conklin said the state sent a letter to the House Clerk last week explaining that no winner had been determined in the 23rd District, and therefore the state had not certified the election. But the letter noted that Owens still led by about 3,000 votes, and that the special election was not contested — two factors that legally allowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to swear in Owens on Friday.

“We sent a letter to the clerk laying out the totals,” Conklin said. “The key is that Hoffman conceded, which means the race is not contested. However, all ballots will be counted, and if the result changes, Owens will have to be removed.”

read more…

This has proven to be one of the more astoundingly fascinating races I have ever witnessed. It won’t die!

A Veteran’s Day Poem

by Mike

Provided by a reader and friend. In honor of veteran’s who have served and are serving.

He was getting old and paunchy
And his hair was falling fast,
And he sat around the Legion,
Telling stories of the past.
Of a war that he once fought in
And the deeds that he had done,
In his exploits with his buddies;
They were heroes, every one.
And ‘tho sometimes to his neighbors
His tales became a joke,
All his buddies listened quietly
For they knew where of he spoke.
But we’ll hear his tales no longer,
For ol’ Bob has passed away,
And the world’s a little poorer
For a Soldier died today.
He won’t be mourned by many,
Just his children and his wife.
For he lived an ordinary,
Very quiet sort of life.
He held a job and raised a family,
Going quietly on his way;
And the world won’t note his passing,
‘Tho a Soldier died today.
When politicians leave this earth,
Their bodies lie in state,
While thousands note their passing,
And proclaim that they were great.
Papers tell of their life stories
From the time that they were young
But the passing of a Soldier
Goes unnoticed, and unsung.
Is the greatest contribution
To the welfare of our land,
Some jerk who breaks his promise
And cons his fellow man?
Or the ordinary fellow
Who in times of war and strife,
Goes off to serve his country
And offers up his life?
The politician’s stipend
And the style in which he lives,
Are often disproportionate,
To the service that he gives.
While the ordinary Soldier,
Who offered up his all,
Is paid off with a medal
And perhaps a pension, small.
It’s so easy to forget them,
For it is so many times
That our Bobs and Jims and Johnnys,
Went to battle, but we know,
It is not the politicians
With their compromise and ploys,
Who won for us the freedom
That our country now enjoys.
Should you find yourself in danger,
With your enemies at hand,
Would you really want some cop-out,
With his ever waffling stand?
Or would you want a Soldier–
His home, his country, his kin,
Just a common Soldier,
Who would fight until the end.
He was just a common Soldier,
And his ranks are growing thin,
But his presence should remind us
We may need his like again.
For when countries are in conflict,
We find the Soldier’s part
Is to clean up all the troubles
That the politicians start.
If we cannot do him honor
While he’s here to hear the praise,
Then at least let’s give him homage
At the ending of his days.
Perhaps just a simply headline
In the paper that might say:

“OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING,
A SOLDIER DIED TODAY.”

Author ~Unknown

Happy Veteran’s Day!

Gallup and Rasmussen: Republicans ahead of Dems in Generic Congressional Ballot and Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

by Mike

Two polls released today show an interesting trend that is starting to shape up the battlefield for 2010 and are sure to linger into 2012.

First off is the Gallup Poll.

For the first time, specifically according to Gallup, Republicans moved ahead of Democrats in a generic Congressional ballot. They are now ahead of their Liberal counterparts by 4%, after trailing them by 2% last month. This makes a total of a six point shift towards Conservatives.

Over at Hot Air, Ed Morrissey’s mention of Bill Clinton’s convoluted logic that Democrats lost in 94′ because of the failure to pass HillaryCare had me bemused. Ed rightfully points out that the Gallup poll is more of a reminder as to why they got shoved out of office and they might be in a similar situation now. The only difference I can detect is that ObamaCare is more than likely a reality and passing it might just relegate Liberals to generational political minority.

Hot Air-Bill Clinton just got done explaining to Congressional Democrats that the party lost control of Congress in 1994 because they didn’t pass the Hillarycare takeover of the American health-care industry.  Gallup gives a clearer reminder today why Democrats got shoved out of power fifteen years ago, and why they risk losing power today.  Republicans lead for the first time in their generic Congressional ballot, with a six-point shift from last month putting them four points over the Democrats.

As always, the Indies are the key here for the short term. While Republicans are enjoying 93% support from their base, they are now in command of 53% of the Independent vote. This will undoubtedly play a major factor if they are victorious in 2010 and beyond.

Here is Gallup’s bottom line.

Gallup-Roughly a year before the 2010 midterm elections, Republicans seem well-positioned to win back some of their congressional losses in 2006 and 2008. Independents are increasingly coming to prefer the Republican candidate for Congress, and now favor the GOP by 22 points. Political conditions could still shift between now and Election Day to create a more favorable environment for Democratic candidates, but a Republican lead on the generic ballot among registered voters has been a sign of a strong Republican showing at the polls in the coming election.

This is also backed up when fact checked against Rasmussen’s own polling of the Generic Congressional Ballot. They also have the Republicans at 6% ahead of Democrats.

The second poll released today was the Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

For today, it sits like this, 30% Strongly Approve of the President, 40% Strongly Disapprove of the President, Total approve 46%, and Total Disapprove 53%. Now it is very important to keep in mind that is a daily poll which only represents 11/11/2009. What is more important is the established trend.

The disparity between President Obama’s approval and disapproval rating, for the majority of the time, holds in the double digits. A strong indication that the Honeymoon period is over. Now, will this translate into defeat in 2012? Of course this is nearly impossible to tell at this juncture and is nothing more than sheer speculation.

Since politics is more polarized these days than normal, what will indicate that the President is in trouble, as far as re-election is concerned, is his loss of Democratic support. Republicans are staunchly against the President’s policies while he enjoys statistical highs amongst Left leaning supporters. Past trends indicate that Independents will invariably move up and down in their approval or disapproval of the President and are a difficult metric to use for indicating any potential trouble. Although their disapproval has remained fairly consistent in its growth over the past few months. So this rule of thumb may change.

Nevertheless, 2010 is sure to be an interesting election year and 2012 will more than likely prove to be even more dramatic.

John Allen Muhammad, the DC sniper, is executed by lethal injection.

by Mike

After moving to Washington DC seventeen days after September 11th, 2001, I figured I had witnessed a city which had faced the pinnacle of fear and uncertainty. Not quite. I sat by and watched two more unnerving events unfold, the anthrax letter scares and the DC sniper.

A little over a year after 9-11 John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo held a city hostage for almost three weeks brutally murdering ten people and injuring four more. Local law enforcement seemed helpless and citizens were constantly looking over their shoulders, wondering if they were the next target.

Eventually both men were caught, tried, and convicted with Lee Boyd Malvo serving a life sentence with no possibility of parole and Muhammad facing execution.

Well part of that story has finally come to an end. Last night, John Allen Muhammed was executed by lethal injection for his crimes.

ABC News-Just after 9 p.m. this evening — seven years and 12 days after he was captured and later charged with orchestrating a cold-blooded shooting spree, that killed 10 people in 2002 and terrorized the Washington, D.C., area for weeks, John Allen Muhammad, the convicted so-called D.C. sniper, was put to death by the state of Virginia.

He was killed by lethal injection, at Greensville Correctional Center, about an hour south of Richmond after Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, as expected, declined to grant a request to commute the sentence to life in prison.

He was pronounced dead at 9:11 p.m., prison spokesman Larry Traylor told reporters. He said he didn’t hear Muhammad utter a word the entire time. When asked if he had any last words, Traylor said Muhammad, “did not even look at us or acknowledge us.”

read more…

President Warren G. Harding: The best and the worst of 882 days in office.

by Mike

Around here,  it isn’t hard to figure out that we have a certain affinity for American Presidential history. Which brings me to Jason’s post on Warren G. Harding, the 29th President of the United States, and an essay that appeared on First Principles titled, “Warren Harding and the Forgotten Depression of 1920.”

Harding, throughout history, has been labeled, fairly or unfairly, one of the worst Presidents that has graced the American political scene.  H.L. Mencken wrote of him after his death, “He was first to last, and obscure man, even as President. No salient piece of legislation bears his name. He led no great national movement. He solved no great public problem. He said nothing arresting or memorable.”

As history often does, it proves observers of present day moments, such as journalists, wrong. There is hardly anyway to see past the moment into the future and guess the legacies people might leave behind them or how they might influence. Harding might just be an example of this.

The most obvious place to start is his dealing with the 1920-21 Recession which acted as one of the inspirations for this post.

First Principles-The economic situation in 1920 was grim. By that year unemployment had jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent, and GNP declined 17 percent. No wonder, then, that Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover—falsely characterized as a supporter of laissez-faire economics—urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to turn the economy around. Hoover was ignored.

Instead of “fiscal stimulus,” Harding cut the government’s budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding’s approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third. The Federal Reserve’s activity, moreover, was hardly noticeable. As one economic historian puts it, “Despite the severity of the contraction, the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and fight the contraction.” 2 By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7 percent and was only 2.4 percent by 1923.

Another of Harding’s more positive contribution to the political landscape of America was popularizing the civil rights movements. Harding was one of the first sitting Presidents to address the idea of equal rights for all Americans.

Marion History-By the 1920s the Ku Klux Klan had its largest membership ever and had become a formidable political force in many parts of the nation. On October 26, 1921, in a speech in Birmingham, Alabama, President Harding advocated civil rights for all segments of the American populace, including African Americans. Earlier, he had proposed appointing African Americans to federal positions and supported an anti-lynching bill and establishment of an interracial commission to find ways to improve race relations. Politicians from both the Republican and Democratic parties had a hand in thwarting these presidential initiatives.

Harding also created  the Veteran’s Bureau. At the time there was no social infrastructure in place to deal with the problems facing veterans returning home from WW I. Many were displaced, crippled, or mentally incapable of normalcy. Although the Bureau was plagued with corruption  it was later consolidated with the Bureau of Pensions of the Interior Department and the National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers into the Veteran’s Administration. This created a more comprehensive government approach to answering the needs of the country’s veterans.

Among his other accomplishments, Harding was the first President to become involved with the budgetary and fiscal expenditures of the United States, officially ended WW I, and assisted the country in returning to its normal state of affairs after the war.

However, one of Hardings most famous quotes exemplifies the troubles that followed his Presidency.

“I have no trouble with my enemies. I can take care of my enemies in a fight. But my friends, my goddamned friends, they’re the ones who keep me walking the floor at nights!”

Harding’s administration was afflicted with corruption brought on by his “friends.”

• Albert Hall (Secretary of the Interior)-TeaPot Dome Scandal

• Thomas W. Miller (Office of Alien Property)-Convicted of conspiring to defraud the American government. Served 18 months in federal prison but was later pardoned in 1933 by then President Herbert Hoover.

• Harry M. Daughtery (Attorney General)-Although never convicted on any particular criminal activity, it was widely alleged that Daughtery was engaged in working with bootleggers and resulted in investigations into illicit activities. At the time the 18th Amendment strictly prohibited the manufacture or sales of alcohol. Despite never being found guilty of any wrongdoing, Daughtery resigned his post as AG on March 28, 1924 while the Senate was still conducting its investigation.

• Charles R. Forbes-(First Director of the Veterans Bureau) While serving in his appointment it was found that Forbes had entered into corrupt arrangements with a number of contractors, particularly with those involved in the operation of hospitals, and sold government property at a fraction of its value.This resulted in him embezzling $200 million from the United States government. After fleeing to Europe he was later convicted, fined $10,000, and served two years in Leavenworth.

With all of this in mind, there was never any evidence that President Harding was involved with or even had knowledge of the corruption that riddled his administration. Unfortunately for the President he passed away from a heart attack in San Francisco on August 2, 1923 and was never able to defend himself against allegations.

Often history is written by the victorious, other times it is written under the veil of opinion. However, looking through the prism of history often, more than not, shows us a different picture than we first assumed. This leaves us scratching our heads saying, “Wow, I always thought…”

Well said, Mr. President. Your best moment yet.

by Jason

To say we’ve been critical of President Obama on here in the past would be charitable. We’ve met him at every turn when we thought the need warranted it. But we have never been rabid, baseless, nor reactionary hyper-partisans while doing so. There have been times, albeit only a few, where we have applauded or agreed with him on one subject, action, or other. This is one of those moments. (I can almost speak for Mike on this one). This speech wasn’t about a shining moment for Obama as the title wrongly suggest. It was about a grieving military and shocked nation being consoled by its Commander in Chief and president.

President Obama’s remarks for the Memorial Service at Fort Hood (full transcript) will go beside Reagan’s as one of the best in recent history. There was no unicorn and rainbows. No cheap talk of healing the planet or the blind. No hope. No change. It was none of those things. Instead, it was simply direct, passionate, strong, uplifting, unapologetic, determined and, most of all, entirely American.  It was that good – and he may even start liking that “whole Americanism” thing.

It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy.  But this much we do know – no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice – in this world, and the next.

These are trying times for our country. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, the same extremists who killed nearly 3,000 Americans continue to endanger America, our allies, and innocent Afghans and Pakistanis. In Iraq, we are working to bring a war to a successful end, as there are still those who would deny the Iraqi people the future that Americans and Iraqis have sacrificed so much for.

As we face these challenges, the stories of those at Fort Hood reaffirm the core values that we are fighting for, and the strength that we must draw upon. Theirs are tales of American men and women answering an extraordinary call – the call to serve their comrades, their communities, and their country. In an age of selfishness, they embody responsibility. In an era of division, they call upon us to come together. In a time of cynicism, they remind us of who we are as Americans.

We are a nation that endures because of the courage of those who defend it. We saw that valor in those who braved bullets here at Fort Hood, just as surely as we see it in those who signed up knowing that they would serve in harm’s way.

We are a nation of laws whose commitment to justice is so enduring that we would treat a gunman and give him due process, just as surely as we will see that he pays for his crimes.

We are a nation that guarantees the freedom to worship as one chooses. And instead of claiming God for our side, we remember Lincoln’s words, and always pray to be on the side of God.

Commentary

• Below The Beltway
• Political Punch
• baldilocks
• Political Punch
• The Moderate Voice
• The Swamp

George Bush and a touch of class.

by Mike

One of the biggest problems I personally had with George Bush was his relentless ideal never to fight back during his Presidency. The former President seemed more preoccupied with the maintaining the integrity of his position rather than engaging or allowing his subordinates to engage in political muckracking. Regardless of that fact his sense of class is suddenly missing. However, it was on full display today.

Fox News-Former President George W. Bush and his wife Laura secretly visited Fort Hood last night and spent “considerable time” consoling those who were wounded in Thursday’s shooting spree, Fox News has learned.

The Bushes entered and departed the sprawling military facility in secret, having told the base commander they did not want press coverage of their visit, a source told Fox News.

The couple was described as “deeply concerned” about military families on Fort Hood after Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly opened fire on soldiers and civilians, killing 13 and wounding 38.

and

LA Times-Last night former President George W. Bush and his wife Laura made a secret visit to the devastated military families at Fort Hood.

The Bushes instructed the commander of the mourning military base that they wanted no publicity. With their Secret Service detail, Bush and his wife made the 30 mile trip unannounced from their ranch near Crawford, Texas Friday evening.

Fox News broke news of the visit this afternoon. Other sources said the former first couple spent about two hours meeting with family and soldiers, talking quietly and at times hugging them as they did in private at other times of crisis such as post-9/11.

Most presidents come to feel a genuine respect and affection for the people they lead as commander-in-chief and sometimes the affection is reciprocated.

read more…

Needless to say the answer to this is a resounding, “Yes!”

Congressional Democrat Logic: The house is on fire, so let’s remodel the bedroom then arrest the carpenter.

by Mike

Ridiculous title? Not really when you look at what is unfolding in our government these days. Many of the situations that are in the backdrop of the political melodrama of health care reform range from pathetic to sheer insanity. Meanwhile, as all of this uselessness is transpiring while people are living through real world problems, like finding a job.

The house is on fire!

October’s jobless report was released on Friday and the news still isn’t good. One hundred and ninety thousand more jobs bled off and unemployment now sits at an overall 10.2%, a .4% rise from last month.

While the payroll data shows 190,000 jobs lost, the household survey reflects a larger statistical anomaly or 558,000 jobs lost. That is to say the total number of unemployed has risen from approximately 15.2 million to 15.7 million. While statistical divergence between payroll and household data is not uncommon due to differences in sampling methodology, this month’s household data triples the tally of the payroll report.

On a darker front, when you look at the overall picture of the Labor report the unemployment situation is far worse than being reported. This occurs when you take into account extraneous factors such as marginal and part-time workers.

WSJ-The economy shed another 190,000 jobs in October, taking the total job losses to 3.5 million since January. The larger measure of joblessness that includes marginal and part-time workers jumped 0.5% to 17.5%. And the average hours worked in a week stayed the same at 33.0, which means that millions of Americans working part-time will have to become full-time before employers start hiring new workers

While Rome burns, Nero tries to remodel the bedroom and play a fiddle.

This evening the House of Representatives, rather than calling an emergency session to deal with unemployment, is forcing Pelosi’s H.R. 3962 down the collective pie-holes of every American.

When the bill was unveiled it was touted as costing a “meager” $894 billion, just below the $900 billion cap set by President Obama. However, upon more rigorous analysis the total cost of the bill is much higher than Democratic officials would have you believe due to some innovative budgetary gimmicks.

According to Donald Marron, former acting Director of the Congressional Budgetary Office, the price tag sits somewhere around $1.3 trillion.

Donald Marron| The House Health Bill Costs Almost $1.3 Trillion

The Heritage Foundation has taken it a step further by including the “Doc Fix.” What this does is adjusts medical payments made to physicians by taking into consideration medical inflationary costs. This would add about $245 billion to the total cost.

The Doc Fix–Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR)–was covered in a separate bill–H.R. 3961–by Rep John Dingell (D.-MI) on October 29th. The Heritage Foundation’s conclusion, as to the cost, is somewhat confirmed by a recent CBO estimate. Although as you can see there is a $35 billion variance.

A procedural vote on including H.R. 3961–Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act–with H.R.3962 will be part of today’s debate. Hence, by conjoining these two bills the House can avoid a stand alone vote on the Doc Fix in the Senate. This will avoid the Senate’s original mistake, made just a few weeks ago, of offering the same bill as separate legislation. It was summarily defeated when 13 Democrats sided with their GOP counterparts and voted it down.

To a point none of this really matters since this health care leviathan will inevitably pass the House and be in route to the Senate where it will debated. Even though there will more than likely be some changes this is irrelevant also,  Pelosi has bid high. By that I mean the bill, as noted, will be changed but its legislative structure will remain intact. Some bones will be thrown to lawmakers in order to guarantee their votes but it will essentially be the same in cost and application.

Don’t count on a Senate filibuster either. Most of the its members lack the political fortitude to risk all and protect the American people from this legislative abortion.

Hey, the house burned down while we were remodeling the bedroom. Arrest the carpenter!

The final insult in this debacle is if a person does not comply with Pelosi’s mandate to purchase health insurance they could not only face a stiff penalty but also end up in jail.

Republican Ways and Means-H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.

Now, failure to pay your “tax” can result in civil, as well as criminal prosecution, by the Internal Revenue Service since you will have been relegated to the status of tax cheat.

Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:

• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.”

For your reading pleasure here is the complete letter, sent to Rep. Camp from the JCT.

In conclusion, we have a nation facing a lucid and anemic jobless recovery in which almost 16 million, and growing, of our fellow countrymen and women are facing an abysmal economic future. While this is happening our esteemed majority in Congress is more concerned with opening a door that will force these people, and eventually the rest of us, into a world of government dependency and “entitlement.”  You can forget tackling a non-agenda driven problem like unemployment, there is no power consolidation on that path.

Well if it gets any worse we can always blame George Bush!

Commentary

• Hot Air

• Patterico

• Michelle Makin

• American Spectator

• QandO

Update: The house just burned down.

AP-In a victory for President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled House narrowly passed landmark health care legislation Saturday night to expand coverage to tens of millions who lack it and place tough new restrictions on the insurance industry. Republican opposition was nearly unanimous.

The 220-215 vote cleared the way for the Senate to begin debate on the issue that has come to overshadow all others in Congress.

read more…

The lone Republican vote, embarrassingly for Jason and myself, was Joseph Cao (R P-La.). Cao’s future has just been consigned to politically non-existent, along with the Democrats Progressives.

Update II: I couldn’t resist putting this up. Now that the bill has passed the House, the New York Times is interestingly reporting that health care reform now costs $1.1 trillion. Talk about convenient editorial honesty. More from the WaPo, also.

Now this is a Nobel Peace Prize winner: Sgt. Kimberly Munley

by Jason

New York Daily News | Police Sgt. Kimberly Munley credited with ending Fort Hood gunman Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s rampage

The hero cop who ended the bloody rampage at Fort Hood by pumping four bullets into the crazed gunman even though she was wounded is known for her toughness, friends say.

Before relocating to Texas, civilian police Sgt. Kimberly Munley spent about five years as a cop in North Carolina where she forged a reputation as a no-nonsense officer.

“I’d like to say I’m surprised, but I’m really not,” said close friend Drew Peterson, 27.

“She was born and bred to be a police officer. If you were ever to be in a fight, she’d be the first person to stand up next to you and back you up. She’s a tough cookie.”

Munley’s toughness and grace under pressure were on display Thursday when she and her partner responded within three minutes of reported gunfire, said Army Lt. Gen. Bob Cone.

Munley, who had been trained in active-response tactics, rushed into the building and confronted the shooter as he was turning a corner, Cone said.

“It was an amazing and an aggressive performance by this police officer,” Cone said.

Munley was only a few feet from Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan when she opened fire.

Wounded in the exchange of bullets, the 34-year-old Munley was reported in stable condition at a local hospital.

In a posting on her Twitter page before the shooting, she wrote: “I live a good life….a hard one, but I go to sleep peacefully @ night knowing that I may have made a difference in someone’s life.”

Munley’s brother Daniel Barbour told ABC News that his sister had been shot three times in the hand and the leg.
One of the bullets pierced an artery, requiring her to undergo surgery Friday.

The diminutive Munley – she stands 5-foot-4 and weighs about 120 pounds – served as a cop in Wrightsville Beach,
N.C., before she moved to Texas to enlist in the military, friends said.

She is married with two daughters and is no longer in the armed forces.

Also read Pajama Media, Fort Hood Massacre: A Day of Courage and Cowardice

The brave soldiers who were massacred at Fort Hood had trained to fight the jihadist enemy abroad. But they seem to have ended up being murdered by the same enemy on American soil, in a place where they thought they were safe — murdered, apparently, because a series of military and medical officials recognized what was going on with this major and chose to do nothing about it.

Commentary

• Atlas Shrugs
• The Jawa Report
• Weekly Standard
• protein wisdom
• Michelle Malkin

Mr. Sinh Tho Nguyen’s shore to shore journey is finally at an end.

by Mike

Amid the horrible news coming out of Killeen, Texas here is a little inspiration. Back in late July, Jason posted a story about Mr. Sinh Tho Nguyen, an Army National Guard Veteran, who was walking across America to honor the sacrifice made by those in the military.

Well Mr. Nguyen’s journey is finally coming to its end on 4:00pm November 8th at the Veterans Memorial Ocean Beach San Diego CA. (Newport Ave and Abbott Street / North of the OB Pier parking lot)

Director of Events for the Veterans Museum and Memorial Center, Melani Bruce, thoughtfully contacted us and provided a link with more information for the event in San Diego. Link: Shore to Shore If you are in the area then please stop by and show your support and gratitude for Mr. Nguyen. There really are no words that can express our appreciation for him undertaking such an arduous journey in honor of our military, I wish we could attend.

U.S. soldiers gunned down on U.S. soil

by Jason

I’ll cut to the chase. This was planned and carried out as evident from multiple shooters. One of the shooters, Major Malik Nadal Hasan, is a convert to Islam — the religion we’ve all grown to know over the last decade. We’ll see how long it takes for those kind of details to come out as this story develops and spreads tomorrow. President Obama is said to be horrified at what took place. I think that is an appropriate feeling for right now.

ABC News | 12 People Killed and 31 Wounded in Fort Hood Shooting

Twelve people have been killed and 31 wounded in a shooting spree at a Texas military base in a murderous rampage that officials believe was carried out by an Army officer.

The suspected gunman was identified by ABC News as Major Malik Nadal Hasan.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, R-Texas, told Fox News that military sources informed her that the gunman was about to be deployed to Iraq.

The shooter was killed and two other suspects, who are also soldiers, have been apprehended, Lt. Gen. Robert W. Cone said.

Hasan allegedly opened fire and killed 11 people on the base before he was shot, bringing the total number of fatalities to 12.

The general said there were “eyewitness accounts of more than one shooter,” and the others were tracked to an adjacent facility.

We’ll be sure to followup on this.

Commentary

• Hot Air
• The Jawa Report
• Outside The Beltway
• Nice Deb
• THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS

Outside experts and former officials say Obama’s national security team is ‘incredibly weak’

by Jason

President Clinton once quipped, “foreign policy is not what I came here to do,” I think we can make the same case for President Obama. Except unlike Clinton, Obama inherited two wars and highly focused GWOT policies on international terrorism and our battle against al Qaeda and the Taliban. As a member of the U.S. Senate and the successor to Bush, Obama should be well up to speed on what needs to be done and exactly what the country is facing even if his decisions and ideas to those challenges are different from his predecessors. President Clinton inherited the end of the Cold War and believed that foreign policy had changed. When that turned out to not be the case, he showed weakness because of it.

President Obama had no illusions of global peace and the march of democracy. He just seems uninterested or reluctant to put his feet in the water for whatever reasons. Like Clinton, Obama seems to view the military as too much of a part of national security and American foreign policy decisions. No where is this more apparent than in his efforts to demilitarize the intelligence community, investigations on the CIA and interrogation units, pursuing the closing of Gitmo, preemptive strikes and his dithering on Afghanistan even after the well publicized advise from his top commander in Afghanistan asked him to move quickly on a troop transfer.

Foreign Policy | Report: Obama’s national security team ‘incredibly weak

“Reform must take place,” said James Locher, President & CEO of the Project on National Security Reform (PNSR), “If you did not like what happened in the last 7 or 8 years… you’re not going to like what’s coming in the future.”

“Momentum for reform is building, but it is largely rhetoric and good intentions,” reads PNSR’s new report . The congressionally funded group was begun as the result of a cooperative agreement between the Defense Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. “Strategic management of the national security system remains absent and is desperately needed to make it integrated, cohesive, and agile,” the report continues.

Calling reform of the national security infrastructure “the number one national security issue,” Locher said that America’s ability to operate in international arenas the world over is “crippled” by the dysfunction within the system.

He called the White House’s national security staff “incredibly weak,” preventing integration and coordination that the National Security Council should be doing.

“There’s almost no strategic guidance from the president or the executive office of the president,” Locher said, adding, “We have almost no knowledge management in the national security system.”

There’s also no effective means for delegating the president’s authority, he added.

Locher spoke a an event rolling out the latest PNSR report at the New American Foundation, hosted by its foreign policy chief and editor of The Washington Note Steve Clemons.

Clemons noted that according to the Goldwater-Nichols act, President Obama was required to submit a national security strategy by June 18, 150 days into his presidency, but he failed to do so.

The fact that President Obama has paid far more attention to his domestic agenda, fundraising, TV appearances, and waging the “good fight” here at home, shows that maybe foreign policy is not what he came here to do either. His selections of individuals to carry out his economic and domestic policies demonstrate that his main concern is domestic and economic, and foreign policy would go on autopilot until he found out away to end America’s wars. His economic team is a well regarded, star-studded cast that was highly publicized. His national security team received less fanfare and was created in away that highlighted the various individuals differing world views they had with each other and with Obama. However watching Secretary of Defense Gates go along with some of the Obama administrations most recent decisions to reverse policies on Reliable Replacement Warhead for our strategic missile force, national missile defense at home, and missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic shows without a a doubt only one person is calling the shots.

The two notable individuals that were brought in under the illusion that they would often initiate vigorous debate with the president were Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. They actually turn out to be the safest picks for the president totally sold on his agenda. Biden factors in as a mouthpiece to relay the differences over Afghanistan and Iraq to the public and the press on Capital Hill. Hillary Clinton was chosen for political reasons and not for an impact on American foreign policy, only as a rubber stamp with a notable name. The reason for this approach is to create the perception of disagreement and disillusionment from the top on the wars as away to soften public resolve and support. This approach would give Obama the popular mandate that the Democrats want so badly in order to bring the two wars to a close and reverse the policies of the Bush administration. And bring back the focus to their bold domestic agenda and “fundamental” changes to America.

Instead, however, Obama just looks weak and confused.

Conservatism and Western Civilization: A Historical Tradition

If I were super smart, talented, and motivated I may be able to write something like this one day. But I am none of those things. At least not to the point to where I could produce and essay like this. So I’ll resign and just post some of it here.

At the site First Principles (thank you Mike for recommending it and adding it to our links) there is an amazing essay on conservatism and how it has shaped, defended, empowered — and may just prevent decline — our Western Civilization. The essay covers the intellectual, philosophical, political and historical basis conservatism has injected into our civilization and covers the many international conflicts, and the great Western leaders that arose from them. This is the type of reading you print out and keep.

The essay is too big to post here in its entirety. Go to Western Civilization, Our Tradition to read the entire essay. I’ve included two excerpts to get you started:

Conservatism is distinguished from other modern political movements in that it concerns memory more than desire; it is primarily defensive, not progressive. The conservative seeks to hold fast to that which is good—and experienced as such—whereas other political movements, tendencies, and ideologies reach for a posited good, one that is not yet possessed. Characteristically, the imagined goods of modern progressive or leftist ideologies are conceived to be “universal” values (such as liberty, equality, and fraternity), whereas the goods and values defended by conservatives are more readily understood as contingent particulars. There does not appear to be a single substance knowable as Tradition per se, but rather many historical traditions, great and small, each making a claim for allegiance and conservation on its own particular terms. As a result, while there may be a Socialist International or a Communist International—one may even speak of a Liberal International—there has never been a Conservative International.

There is, however, one “quasi-universal” that conservatives of many nations, and American conservatives among them, have understood themselves to be conserving:the West. Obviously, the very word indicates that this good or value is not truly universal: it excludes, at least, the East. On the other hand, insofar as the term denotes a civilization transcending in space any particular Western state, transcending in time the history of any particular Western nation, and transcending in intellectual scope or catholicity any particular Western philosophy or doctrine, “the West” stretches toward a kind of universality. To speak of the West is to speak of something cosmopolitan, and yet not deracinated. If it is not an eternal essence, then perhaps it is something sempiternal. The defense of the West is close to the heart of what it means to be a conservative in the modern world—yet the definition of the West and the identification of the threats to it is also a source of disagreement among conservatives of various sorts.

+++

That the West is approached by modern conservatives with solicitude for its vulnerabilities is an artifact of the time of troubles that was the twentieth century. Earlier and particularly nineteenth-century presumptions about the West were nearly always whiggish celebrations of the historically “inevitable” progress of Western European civilization to its rightful place in the imperial sun: “Wider still and wider shall thy bounds be set, / God, who made thee mighty, make thee mightier yet” was a British invocation, but it summed up a more general sense that the West was simply “the best”—and destined for indefinite global dominion. That confidence, however, was profoundly shaken by the civilizational self-immolation of the First World War. For many on the Left, the carnage of the Great War was evidence of the structural flaws of Western “bourgeois democracy,” requiring the remedy of revolution. For conservatives, however, the conflict powerfully tempered any disposition to celebrate our civilization’s achievements with a pronounced sense of challenge and threat.

Against whom or what is it, then, that the West finds itself in need of defense? Two general forms of threat may be identified. First, over the course of the twentieth century it was frequently contended that the West must be defended frominternal decay or decline. Conservative reflection on this theme was prompted in the first instance by an engagement with the thought of Oswald Spengler, whose book The Decline of the West was a publishing sensation in Germany and Europe immediately after the First World War. In a resonant, even poetic, though not altogether scientific manner, this prophet of pessimism argued that civilizations are organic wholes organized around a High Culture with a particular “Soul.” Civilizations throughout history have risen and fallen in a pattern of birth, growth, apex, decline, and death—and our Western civilization is no different.

[Snip]

Beyond the threat of internal decline, “the West” has also been understood to require defense against threats arising externally, in international conflict. By invoking loyalty to the West as a whole, one may make “one’s own” the political concerns of other peoples who are not fellow citizens of one’s nation-state. In other words, the West is a basis or rationale for “natural” alliance in time of war. Thus, the British during the First World War were eager for that conflict to be seen by their potential allies as one pitting the liberal and civilized traditions of the West against invading hordes from the East, “the Hun.” In this way, isolationist America and unenthusiastic Commonwealth countries could be brought into the conflict as allies in the common defense of (Western) civilization itself—rather than in defense of British imperial interests. The inclusion of the Soviet Union among the Allies of the Second World War tended to obstruct recourse to the language of the West, but even still, both Churchill and De Gaulle in their wartime speeches spoke of the defense of “liberal and Christian civilization,” a good short description of the meaning of the West in contrast with Nazi barbarism. With the Nazi defeat and the advent of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, the defense of the West could serve as the basis for the NATO alliance against the totalitarian barbarism of the Eastern Bloc.

It was in the context of the Cold War that the West became an especially important concept for a nascent American conservatism. Given that context, the term carried in the first instance both geostrategic and economic connotations—mirroring the fact that our Soviet Communist adversaries understood economics to be at the “base” of all political, cultural, and spiritual life. Thus, despite its cultural dissimilarities, Japan could be understood to stand among the “Western” nations, since it was a free-market democracy and a U.S. ally (having been reconstructed as such by the Americans after World War II), while Spain under Franco might be understood to stand outside the West, since it was not (yet) a NATO member, nor a democracy. During the Cold War, the world was more or less neatly divided between the Communist Eastern Bloc, the so-called Western alliance (NATO), and those nations which held themselves to be Non-Aligned.

Yet throughout the Cold War period, conservative thinkers worked to reach a deeper level of analysis of the manifold crises of the twentieth century. Many, following Eric Voegelin, concluded that Soviet communism was an extreme instance of “Gnostic revolt”—in effect, a characteristic heresy within the Western experience, rather than something arising from outside the West. If the “armed doctrine” threatening the West was itself a bastard child of the West’s own traditions, however, then the defense of the West began not on the tense military frontier dividing the two Germanies; rather, the defense of the West must begin with an effort to educate Western publics about the orthodox strains of the Western heritage. But what exactly were the “orthodox” traditions of the West?

Read More

About that pesky NY-23…

by Mike

Don’t think it represents something? Think again. The NY-23 has some meanings to both sides of the aisle that are extremely important.

No matter how you try and spin it, no matter how you try and slice it the sad and painful reality of this particular race is the Progressives rebuffed the Tea Party activists, 9.12 gatherers, Conservative talk radio, GOP leaders, and fiscal hawks best attempt to enter the political fray. What they won was one more vote towards an already dilapidated health care reform bill and whatever legislation they see fit to cram down before the 2010 mid-terms. Credit to Jason for being the pragmatic one and pounding that in my head.

If you read this blog with an frequency you already are aware that one of our themes is that conservative populism, left to its own devices, is too raw and unfocused to deal any real death blows. Nevertheless we are both extremely supportive of “civic nationalism” and political engagement by constituencies such as we have seen with the Tea Parties. But the actuality, as proven by the NY-23, is that the focus of the Tea Party ire should not be focused on the GOP establishment as I had even once thought. In fact, and to their credit, the Republican hierarchy in DC are displaying signs that they actually might just be getting it or have been getting it.

How does the NY-23 prove this?

I believe losses are the only true teaching moments to learn from. Activists organized a campaign, for better or worse, and ousted a Liberal Republican, who doesn’t even deserve being called a moderate, from the race. They obtained almost $3 million in donations to the Hoffman campaign within just a few weeks. Following repeated assaults by the NRCC and Dede Scozzafava’s endorsement of Bill Owens they still managed to garner 46 percent of the vote, losing by a margin of about 4,300 votes. All of this is testimony to their energy and dedication. Nevertheless, they still lost.

What they lacked is the coherent lessons from the past, which could have been provided by the RNC and the NRCC, as well as money and focused media attention for the right reasons. They lacked the political nuance necessary to push the campaign over the top and towards a resounding victory which could have sent an uncontested message to the Hill.

One of the problems that put the Republican leadership in this position was the fact that New York State GOP officials chose Scozzafava, despite knowing her background. This meant when Hoffman chose to put a “C” behind his name and when he campaigned against her Hoffman automatically became the enemy. Even though the NRCC showed poor judgment in supporting Scozzafava, she was still the Republican on the ticket and the wishes of the local GOP had to be observed and supported. Right or wrong this is what happened, their moves can be debated, but in the end they pulled the trigger on a bad choice.

Activists, still angry at the GOP establishment from the betrayals in the Bush years and pissed off at the Democratic overreach on an illusory mandate, reacted as one might expect. They have picked up the mantle of anti-establishment, fired off some volleys at the GOP, and for all practical purposes went “rogue.”

Republicans and Tea Partying like its 1993

Actually some evidence is now surfacing that might indicate their angst towards the Beltway Republicans may be misfounded. There is always the argument that the Right’s leadership is trying to distance itself away from the debacle in the 23rd, so you can take this for what it is worth.

In this report, provided by ABC, the news organization concentrates on RNC Chairman, Michael Steele’s comments supposedly rebuking prominent GOP members who supported Hoffman. By contrast I find Steele’s comments about primary systems to be more indicative of the RNC’s looking to eliminate this situation from happening again and letting voters choose.

ABC News-”It serves as an important lesson on how we manage an opportunity to win a seat,” Steele said. “And how not to mismanage by putting in a botched process.”

Steele noted that the Republican Party will have plenty of competitive primaries next year and suggested that is healthy for the party. “Republicans believe in an open vital primary process, we see it playing out in races across the country,” he said.

And this from the Washington Examiner’s interview with House Minority Leader, John Boehner.

Washington Examiner-At a meeting of Washington conservatives this morning, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, expressed pride over GOP success in last night’s election. But questions about NY-23 remain — so I asked him whether there was an effort to get New York Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, the GOP nominee in that race, to endorse Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman.

“There was a huge effort,” he replied.

When asked about rumors that the New York Republican Party picked Scozzafava because of the advice of Washington insiders who felt she would be a more electable candidate, Boehner rolled his eyes. “We told them to hold off on a decision, to work with us, but they went ahead and did it.”

So if she was a rotten egg, why spend money? “All the money spent on that race was anti-Owens money, not pro-Scozzafava money.”

This is not to say there isn’t any political posturing going on in the name of protecting your backside. These items simply threw up flags to me indicating that there might exist an understanding that the GOP hierarchy needs to be offering its hand to activists in an honest fashion. Realizing that the activists are a force to be reckoned with, but one that as of yet cannot operate solely on its own.

Finally this is the most interesting tidbit that sort of puts the icing on the cake. It is a little publicized press release from The Tarrance Group, a Republican research and strategic consulting group.

The conservative resurgence, including the Tea Party movement, is an energizing force for Republicans who live by fundamental fiscally conservative principles.

Republicans who draw a line in the sand against the growth of big government will find that a motivated majority of the electorate stand with them. In a national survey of voters conducted for
GOPAC almost exactly one year ago, forty-six percent (46%) of voters identified themselves as conservative on both fiscal and social issues, while another twenty-three percent (23%) said they were fiscal conservatives. While sixty-nine percent (69%) of the electorate are fiscally conservative and sixty-eight percent (68%) said government is part of the problem, Republicans must continue to earn voters’ trust, as another sixty-eight percent (68%) said the Republican party had not fought as strongly for less government as historically. The full analysis from November 2008 poll, for those who have not seen it, can be found here: http://www.tarrance.com/GOPAC%20Post-Elect%20Analysis.pdf

One year out from the 2010 Elections, it is foolish to hazard a guess on the number of seats that will be won or lost on each side. However, we know that today Republicans won, and regardless of what anyone might say, our principles and our Party are stronger for it.

In simplest terms, to effectively counterpunch in 2010 and solidify a Republican majority it is incumbent upon conservative activists to not shy away from Republican advances. And it is very important for the GOP to salvage itself from itself by keeping the NY-23 in mind. Third party opposition can cause all sorts of mayhem, it can be avoided by supplying voters with the best and the brightest the Repubs have to offer. Not some liberal who has friends on the election board. The future of our country is far to important to be left in the hands of corrupt children who require playground pay offs.