Striking Constrast in These Brief Bulletins from LBN News Alerts---

First, a PROFILE IN JELLO
 

LBN-PRESIDENTIAL BACK ROOM:   ***Senator Barack Obama said he might "refine" his Iraq policies after meeting with military commanders there later this summer. But hours later he held a second news conference to emphasize his commitment to the withdrawing of all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.  

And then, a PROFILE IN COURAGE

CONDOLEEZZA RICE SAYS SHE'S 'PROUD' OF DECISION TO INVADE IRAQ": Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she's "proud" of the U.S. decision to wage the Iraq war and insisted that the world is not more dangerous than it was when George W. Bush took office. "We're now beginning to see that perhaps it's not so popular to be a suicide bomber. We're beginning to see that perhaps people are questioning whether Osama Bin Laden ought to really be the face of Islam," Rice, 53, said in an interview to be broadcast this weekend on Bloomberg Television's "Conversations with Judy Woodruff.

Let’s leave aside for a moment General Weasley Clark’s increasingly embarrassing attempts to defend his “Face the Nation” claim that “his hero” John McCain is actually unqualified for the presidency. 

When asked by a half-dozen interviewers to specify one area in which his candidate, Barack Obama, is actually MORE qualified than McCain, the Weasley One always returns to the same word – “judgment.” Obama’s qualified, in other words, because he displayed better judgment than McCain on the issue of the Iraq War. 

But there’s an obvious follow-up to this argument that General Clark hasn’t yet faced.. 

He suggests that “judgment” is more important than military experience, or political background or anything else, and that Barack deserves support because he opposed the war that McCain favored.

Okay, Weasel Man, then the unavoidable question is ---

Why did you support HILLARY CLINTON for the Democratic nomination?

If judgment is the key issue, and the main measure of judgment involves the decision on going to war in Iraq, then how could you support Hillary over Barack?

By the standard you use today – supporting the war showed horrible judgment, and opposing it showed wisdom and courage --- wasn’t Hillary every bit as “wrong” as McCain in her support of the President’s decision to go to war?

But you supported her. Why? Her superior military experience? Her unalloyed heroism in dodging that Bosnian sniper fire?

And one more question, Weasley, while we’re at it---

You say you back Barack over McCain because of his superior qualifications as evidenced by his judgment on the war.

But on what basis did you back Hillary over McCain—given that they showed the same judgment on the war?

The real answer is obvious: the Weasel Man wants to get a place on the ticket as a candidate for Vice President and Hillary looked like his best bet. He shifted his allegiance to Obama in time to make that candidate’s short list.

He might even have preserved his chances had he simply and immediately acknowledged that he “misspoke” on Face the Nation in belittling McCain’s military service (23 years in uniform, including eight years after he returned from ‘Nam).

Yup, the Weasley One might have saved his shot for the Vice Presidency by a timely, open-hearted apology and correction. But that kind of sincere, direct acknowledgement of an obvious mistake (see “Jindal, Bobby”) requires a bit of class, smarts and grace, qualities which General Clark in no way possesses.

Even by the low standards of slippery and silly Democrats, the ol’ Weasler is an outright embarrassment.

The campaign of 2008 has already witnessed the dramatic rise of the Religious Left, with Barack Obama and other liberals claiming scriptural authority for their big government versions of compassion. In this context, “How Would God Vote?”, the explosive new book by David Klinghoffer, provides an invaluable response. The subtitle says “Why the Bible Commands You to be a Conservative” and the book digs deep into scriptural text to emphasize that the Almighty demands individual commitment, rather than asking human beings to satisfy their obligations to their nieghbors through impersonal government policy. The Bible also makes clear God’s hatred for certain ideas and values – most of them associated with contemporary liberalism. Scriptural support for man-woman marriage, and opposition to "follow your heart" morality, are obvious. More unexpectedly, Klinghoffer sees an aggressive foreign policy as un-Biblical, making the important point that the Judeo-Chritisan tradition quite naturally emphasizes domestic policy above international concerns. As former literary editor of National Review, and author of previous acclaimed volumes on Abraham and Jesus ("The Discovery of God," "Why the Jews Rejected Jesus"), David Klinghoffer is perfectly situated as both a veteran conservative and respected religious scholar to make this important contribution to public discourse. Some GOP partisans may object to his view of religious approaches to immigration or foreign policy, but they’ll still feel refreshed and stimulated by this entertaining, important, occasionally inspiring and perfectly timed book.

The logic of the Supreme Court decision on gun rights is simple and unassailable. Yes, the Second Amendment establishes an individual’s right “to keep and bear arms,” the court decided. And this right means nothing, if it doesn’t guarantee the individual’s ability to possess a firearm in his own home for the purposes of self-defense. The Washington D.C. handgun ban made it impossible for a private citizen to own a hand-gun at home, and regulated the storage of rifles in such a way that they could never help with self-defense. It therefore took away the individual’s right “to keep and bear arms.” Senator Obama’s position—that he supports gun bans like Washington’s, but also believes there’s a constitutional right for private gun ownership – has been praised by the media as “nuanced” but counts as almost laughably contradictory. If there is a Second Amendment right to firearms, but it doesn’t protect a right for law-abiding citizens to keep guns in their own homes for self defense, then what, exactly does it guarantee? Don’t expect Obama to provide a meaningful answer to that question.  

Daniel Dennett, philosophy professor at Tufts University (and an entertaining guest on my radio show), suggested a few years ago that his fellow-atheists should begin calling themselves “Brights”—communicating the idea that they were, very obviously, smarter and more enlightened than religious believers. 

But now, one of the most surprising results of the new U.S. Religious Landscape Survey (an analysis of some 35,000 Americans by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life) suggests that atheists (and agnostics) may not be so bright after all.  

The authors of the report expressed surprise that even those who failed to affiliate with a specific religion maintained a strong belief in God. “Like the overwhelming majority of Americans, 70 percent of the unaffiliated said they believed in God,” noted the Pew Forum analysis. Amazingly, “one out of every five people who identified themselves as atheist and more than half of those who identified as agnostic” also expressed their faith in the Supreme Being. 

If more than 50% of agnostics, and 20% of self-described atheists, say that they are believers after all, it indicates one of two things – 

1-     Either these non-believers and doubters are very badly confused, perhaps even schizophrenic, or, more likely-

2-     They don’t know what they’re saying when they describe themselves. 

Either way, the Pew Survey proves that the common characterization of non-believers as sophisticated, intelligent and well-educated (especially in comparison to those of us who count as purportedly brain-dead and knuckle-dragging people of faith) badly needs revision or rejection.  

The prestigious British weekly The Economist recently ran an editorial commentary speculating on the direction of a potential Obama administration. After pointing out that the Democratic candidate relied more and more on centrist, Clintonite advisers, The Economist still warned about the inflated expectations of “change” surrounding Obama’s campaign.  

“The ambition of Obama’s team is exciting,” the editorial declared, “but in office it could be dangerous…. The lynchpin of his campaign has been a faith, almost messianic, in his personal excellence. If that fades, the whole operation could collapse in frustration and disillusionment.”  

The Obama candidacy, in other words, highlights the risks in building a cause around a charismatic individual, rather than issues or principles. The longer the candidate avoids concrete commitments on issues or declarations of principle, the greater those risks become.

As standard-bearer of the Democratic Party, Barack Obama has ended the white-male monopoly on presidential nominations while extending recent domination by an even smaller, more elite minority — holders of Yale and Harvard degrees.

Among the 12 nominees of the two major parties in the past 20 years, Obama (Harvard Law, '91) becomes the 10th to have graduated from one of the nation's two oldest, most prestigious major universities. All winners since 1988 have held a degree from Yale (George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush) while their opponents featured a mix of more Yalies (Bush Sr., John Kerry) and Harvard Johnnies (Michael Dukakis, Al Gore). In that 20-year span, the only major party nominees without a credential from Yale, Harvard or both (as with George W.), have been war heroes Bob Dole (Washburn Municipal University in Kansas) and John McCain (U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md.). This year, even the principal runners-up in each party bore the requisite credentials: Mitt Romney holds degrees from Harvard's law and business schools, while Hillary Clinton graduated from Yale Law (where she was my classmate).

A front page story in USA TODAY highlighted the alleged collapse of “The American Dream” while revealing the twisted thinking behind contemporary liberalism. While acknowledging that “living standards have improved dramatically” and that “on the stuff front people are doing better than ever,” reporter David Lynch focused on national anger over the disproportionate prosperity of the super rich. He wrote that “from 1993 to 2006, those families captured about half the nation’s overall growth.” His language is revealing – speaking about wealthy people “capturing” their share of growth, or elsewhere, saying they “received” their portion of “total growth.” He seems to suggest that growth is the abstract product of society at large, rather than the result of millions of individuals. Successful Americans didn’t “capture” their share of growth, they created that share of growth –and using government to give the benefits of that wealth creation to others remains the core desire of redistributionist Democrats. It’s destructive to moan about your own success just because someone else is doing even better—especially when that someone else contributes entrepreneurial energy and business building to all participants in the economy at large.

Democrats in Congress display their special knack for corruption with their destructive assault on doctor-owned hospitals. Three times in the last year, the House or Senate passed bills banning referrals of Medicare or Medicaid patients to hospitals in which doctors own significant stock. This would effectively shut-down smaller, specialized alternatives to often overcrowded metropolitan hospitals in a misguided attempt to control costs. But Democrat Senators Herb Kohl and Patty Murray want to make exceptions to the ban for medical facilities in their own states—specifically exempting doctor-owned hospitals in Wisconsin and Washington. In other words, Senators grab new power to crack down on hospitals they say they don’t like – but then inspire gratitude, and probably future contributions, from constituents they’ve specially shielded from the general destruction. This is arrogant manipulation of the most transparent sort.

The Democratic Party has pursued a national goal of securing voting rights for felons and convicts, with the assumption that this population will vote overwhelmingly Democratic. In Rhode Island, this principle has reached a ridiculous extreme, with the enfranchisement of two murderers who killed a total of four people. William Sarmento and John A. Sarro were found “not guilty by reason of insanity” but they’ve been confined for twenty years in a psychiatric center in Cranston. Nevertheless, the Board of Elections restored their vote because the finding of insanity applied only temporarily, even though periodic evaluations have kept the killers in long-term custody. In other words, murderers judged incapable of making basic decisions of normal life or living without supervision were nonetheless entrusted with life-or-death decisions about national leadership. Giving the ballot to homicidal maniacs is, tragically, insane.

The wretched Adam Sandler comedy “You Don’t Mess With the Zohan” hardly deserves its $40 million opening weekend success. The PG-13 rating is an outrage – in view of a dozen cringe-inducing scenes suggesting sex acts between Sandler’s commando-turned-hairdresser character and lonely old ladies. There’s even a scene of the nude backside of obese, 68-year-old Lainie Kazan making love with Sandler – in front of her middle aged on-screen son. It’s also sad that Hollywood either misses or distorts one of the great stories of our time. For sixty years, Israeli counter-terror agents have served with devastating effectiveness to protect their country, but the only Hollywood treatments of these heroes have been “Munich,” showing Israelis as more morally compromised and ruthless than Palestinians, and now “Zohan,” with the counter-terror operatives shown as loathsome and ridiculous.

Germany recently unveiled a memorial to what the press called “the Nazis’ long-ignored gay victims.” Across the road from Berlin’s monument to Jewish Holocaust victims, the new shrine features a pavilion-sized concrete slab with a window through which visitors view a video of two men kissing. This commemoration follows a longstanding, misleading attempt to depict homosexuals as prime targets of Hitler. In fact, even historical material released with the memorial noted only “an estimated 10,000 to 15,000 gay men deported to concentration camps” –and by no means all of them were killed. While homosexuals surely outnumbered the less-than-one-percent of the German population that was Jewish, Jewish victims of Nazi death camps outnumbered estimated gay victims by more than 500 to 1. Persecution of any group deserves condemnation and remembrance, but it’s wrong to exaggerate the extent of victimization for politically correct P.R. purposes.