RED SOUNDING

Which Candidate Holds the SEED?

Philip Eveland — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:58:57 GMT

An interesting parable highlights America's decision in November to elect the next Chief Executive:

A successful Christian business man was growing old and knew it was time to choose a successor to take over the business.

Instead of choosing one of his directors or his children, he decided to do something different. He called all the young executives in his company together.

He said, "It is time for me to step down and choose the next CEO. I have decided to choose one of you."

The young executives were shocked, but the boss continued.

"I am going to give each one of you a SEED today - one very special SEED. I want you to plant the seed, water it, and come back here one year from today with what you have grown from the seed I have given you. I will then judge the plants that you bring, and the one I choose will be the next CEO."

One man, named Jim, was there that day and he, like the others, received a seed. He went home and excitedly told his wife the story.

She helped him get a pot, soil and compost and he planted the seed. Everyday, he would water it and watch to see if it had grown. After about three weeks, some of the other executives began to talk about their seeds and the plants that were beginning to grow. Jim kept checking his seed, but nothing ever grew. Three weeks, four weeks, five weeks went by, still nothing. By now, others were talking about their plants, but Jim didn't have a plant and he felt like a failure.

Six months went by - still nothing in Jim's pot. He just knew he had killed his seed. Everyone else had trees and tall plants, but he had nothing. Jim didn't say anything to his colleagues, however. He just kept watering and fertilizing the soil - he very much wanted the seed to grow.

A year finally went by and all the young executives of the company brought their plants to the CEO for inspection. Jim told his wife that he wasn't going to take an empty pot. But she asked him to be honest about what happened. Jim felt sick to his stomach; it was going to be the most embarrassing moment of his life, but he knew his wife was right. He took his empty pot to the board room.

When Jim arrived, he was amazed at the variety of plants grown by the other executives. They were beautiful - in all shapes and sizes. Jim put his empty pot on the floor and many of his colleagues laughed, a few felt sorry for him.

When the CEO arrived, he surveyed the room and greeted his young executives. Jim just tried to hide in the back.

"My, what great plants, trees, and flowers you have grown," said The CEO. "Today one of you will be appointed the next CEO!"

All of a sudden, the CEO spotted Jim at the back of the room with his empty pot. He ordered the financial director to bring him to the front.

Jim was terrified. He thought, "The CEO knows I'm a failure! Maybe he will have me fired!"

When Jim got to the front, the CEO asked him what had happened to his seed - Jim told him the story.

The CEO asked everyone to sit down except Jim. He looked at Jim, and then announced to the young executives, "Behold your next Chief Executive! His name is Jim!"

Jim couldn't believe it. Jim couldn't even grow his seed. How could he be the new CEO the others said?

Then the CEO said, "One year ago today, I gave everyone in this room a seed. I told you to take the seed, plant it, water it, and bring it back to me today. But I gave you all boiled seeds; they were dead - it was not possible for them to grow. All of you, except Jim, have brought me trees and plants and flowers. When you found that the seed would not grow, you substituted another seed for the one I gave you. Jim was the only one with the courage and honesty to bring me a pot with my seed in it. Therefore, he is the one who will be the new Chief Executive!"

Consider that, then watch this:

IBD on NYT and McCain and Obama

Philip Eveland — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:14:50 GMT

A great editorial from Investors Business Daily reminds readers that the establishment media wants Obama in the White House, and will cover for his consistently inconsistent foreign policy.

Obama's views on Iraq and Afghanistan have ranged from the inconsistent to the incoherent. He'd have us believe he supported defeat in Iraq because he wanted victory in Afghanistan. Yet his subcommittee has held no hearings on Afghanistan, and when he was part of a congressional delegation that visited Iraq in 2006, he passed on the opportunity to continue on to Afghanistan.

On May 24, 2007, Obama in fact voted to cut off all funding for all our military efforts in Afghanistan (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181). His support for a surge there seems predicated on stopping alleged U.S. atrocities.

Three months after he voted to cut Afghan funding, Obama said on Aug. 14, 2007: "We've got to get the job done there, and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure there." Shades of John Kerry and John Murtha.

Obama was asked by ABC's Terry Moran recently: "If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?" Obama replied: "No, because keep in mind that . . . ." An incredulous Moran asked, "You wouldn't?"

Obama continued: "Keep in mind . . . these kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult. Hindsight is 20/20. But I think that, what I'm absolutely convinced of, is that at that time we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with."

Huh? Knowing we would win, he'd still oppose the surge and suffer defeat in Iraq just because he just didn't like George Bush?

Max Boot on Nouri al Maliki

Philip Eveland — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:17:12 GMT

Military historian Max Boot in a Washington Post column today examined Nouri al-Maliki's history as Iraqi prime minister. Of note, Maliki was opposed to the US invasion, opposed the troop "surge," and severely overestimated the Iraqi army's capabilities. Thus, Boot puts Maliki's recent overtures vis-a-vis a US troop withdrawal timeline in context.

Exercise and Your Brain

Philip Eveland — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:41:12 GMT

Dennis Prager interviewed John J. Ratey, MD, a Harvard University clinical psychiatrist, and discussed the doctor's new book about exercise and its affect on the brain [listen].

Establishment Media's Love Affair With Junior Senator

Philip Eveland — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:51:37 GMT

Great video. (h/t Hotair)

This is all very reminiscent of TIME Magazine journalist Nina Burleigh's comment after flying on Air Force One with President Bill Clinton: "I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs." [Source]

He Thinks He's President Already!

Philip Eveland — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:51:37 GMT

Apparently, all the love he's getting from his adoring apostles in the media is going to his head. CNN's Anderson Cooper asked David Gergen and Gloria Borger about Sen. Barack Obama's presumptuous behavior in Iraq. (h/t Hotair, with transcript)

Remember, also, that Obama has his own presidential seal, and one of his senior aides talks like Obama already is the president.

Max Boot on Obama and the Surge

Philip Eveland — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:26:09 GMT

A great analysis of the situation in Iraq by military historian Max Boot.

Recent experience in Iraq should make even Democrats who opposed the war a little more humble in their assessments. They should admit that they were wrong about the surge, applaud its success, and vow not to do anything to undermine the ongoing progress. Lanny Davis, Bill Clinton's former special counsel, makes precisely those points in the Washington Times today. However, as Congressman Pete Hoekstra notes in the Washington Post, the mainstream Democratic response has been to disparage the surge, deny its success, and stick with irresponsible calls for an immediate pullout.

However, it appears Sen. Barack Obama cannot admit that he was wrong about the surge, and even told ABC News' Terry Moran yesterday that he's still opposed to the surge. Meanwhile, his campaign has erased from the official website any traces of the junior senator's previous opposition and criticism of the surge effort [source, source]. His truly is a campaign of change!

UPDATE: Funny!

Pat Condell on Islamofascism

Philip Eveland — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 02:11:20 GMT

Great stuff! (h/t LGF)

Condell refers to a few obscure issues. Here's a previous post on the issue of the Candian Human Rights Commission and its abuse of powers: Another Ezra Levant Update Part Two. Also, Condell referred to an undercover news report. Here's part one of the BBC report, "Undercover Mosque," which exposed the abject hatred being preached in so-called "mainstream" Mosques in London:

NYT Refused to Print McCain Rebuttal

Philip Eveland — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 01:19:04 GMT

Powerline Blog posted Sen. John McCain's unpublished editorial rebuttal of an earlier editorial by Sen. Barack Obama. Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit has assembled a host of related items.

McCain Calls Out the Don't Drill Democrats

Philip Eveland — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 01:19:04 GMT

The McCain campaign finally highlighted the fact that Democrats really don't care how high gas prices go. In fact, their committment to radical environmentalists' desires for even higher gas prices dictates that they must never support increasing domestic oil supplies. Here's the ad, followed by an interesting Jay Leno joke that really hits the nail on the head:

Obama's Changing Iraq Policy

Philip Eveland — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 01:19:04 GMT

Paul Mirengoff of Powerline Blog examined Sen. Barack Obama's consistently inconsistent Iraq policy:

Before the war, Obama opposed military action in Iraq. It was in his political interest to do so. As Obama’s Senate campaign manager has acknowledged, to win the Democratic race for the Senate nomination, Obama needed to become the darling of the left.

In his autobiography, Obama wrote that, as he watched footage of the toppling of Saddam’s statue in Baghdad, he “began to suspect” he had been wrong about the war. Yet Obama managed to keep these suspicions to himself until he captured the Democratic Senate nomination.

Immediately thereafter, in April 2004, Obama said of Iraq, “we’ve got to make sure that we secure and execute the rebuilding and reconstruction process effectively and properly, and I don’t think we should have an artificial deadline when to do that.” At the time, Obama’s friend and financial backer, the corrupt Tony Rezko, was seeking multimillion-dollar contracts to build and operate a power plant in Iraq.

In July 2004, Obama went so far as to say, “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.” By September 2004, Obama was declaring that to pull out of Iraq “would make things worse” and that therefore he “would be willing to send more soldiers to Iraq if it is part of a strategy that the president and military leaders believe will stabilize the country.”

In 2005, however, Obama’s position evolved again. He argued that instead of sending more soldiers to Iraq, we should reduce, but not fully withdraw, our troop presence. By 2006, with the war increasingly unpopular and a possible presidential run in his future, Obama argued in favor of a phased full-scale withdrawal. In September 2007, Obama insisted that the withdrawal begin immediately.

We’ve seen further “refinement” in 2008 as Obama prepared to face the entire electorate. Thus, Obama promised to keep a “strike force” in Iraq even after our “withdrawal,” though he repudiated that pledge (and denied having made it) when it drew criticism. Meanwhile, Samantha Power, a top Obama foreign policy adviser, offered assurances that his promise to withdraw in 16 months was subject to change based on the situation on the ground.

A Surge in Afghanistan

Philip Eveland — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 01:19:05 GMT

Both presumptive presidential candidates support a "surge" in Afghanistan. As I noted in an earlier post, some scholars don't agree that an increase in troop numbers is the answer to increasing violence. Today, another writer, Ann Marlow, weighed in on the subject, and argued that a surge may not be the answer.

Afghanistan's problems are not the same as Iraq's. Its people aren't recovering from a brutal, all-controlling tyranny, but from decades of chaos and centuries of bad government. Afghanistan, unlike Iraq, is largely illiterate and has a relatively undeveloped civil society. Afghan society still centers around the family and, for men, the mosque. Its society and traditions are still largely intact, in contrast to Iraq's fractured, urbanized and half-modernized population.

VDH on Tet Offensive

Philip Eveland — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 08:17:17 GMT

Noted classicist Victor Davis Hanson spoke at Hillsdale College on September 10, 2007, about the lessons of the Tet Offensive, which Hanson calls a "psychological victory" that altered the course of the Vietnam War. Hanson made comparisons to the current situation in Iraq. He argued, as he's done in several of this books, that there are certain factors that make Westerners great warriors, yet parodoxically prone to eschew war. This is Hanson at his best, and this lecture highlights why he's one of today's most respected military historians. [Source]

News Awareness IQ Test

Philip Eveland — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:04:17 GMT

Take the Pew Research news awareness quiz here. (h/t LGF)

Leftist Hypocrisy

Philip Eveland — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 01:40:08 GMT

A great video from Americans for Prosperity highlights the sheer hypocrisy of the limosine liberals who attended the Al Gore global warming gathering this past week in Washington, D.C. For more photos, see their blog.

UPDATE: 7/22/2008

Al Gore defended his 10,000 square foot home, which he shares with his wife, Tipper. It's "green," though, so I guess it's okay. Watch. (h/t Instapundit)

Here's the video of Global Warming Messiah Al Gore's speech on July 17 where he lectured Americans about using more "green" energy, while his Lincoln SUV and 2 Towncars sat outside with the air conditioner running for an hour!

Messiah Gaffes on Video

Philip Eveland — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 00:16:54 GMT

NPR Blurs Distinctions

Philip Eveland — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 22:24:52 GMT

NPR's Morning Edition yesterday attempted to analyze the terrorism policies of Sens. Obama and McCain, but completely overlooked the key difference in order to portray them as indistinct. Listen.

The producers of this segment cited Michael Sheehan, a counterterrorism expert who says after examining each candidate's policies, he couldn't find much difference between McCain's and Obama's counterterrorism programs. However, both Sheehan and NPR completely overlooked the most glaring difference: McCain acknowledges that Iraq is the central front in the war against Islamofascism, and Obama says it isn't now and never was the central front. They can't both be right.

Let us take a look at what our enemy, Osama bin Laden, said in December 2004 about the importance of Iraq [source]:

LADEN: "I now address my speech to the whole of the Islamic nation: Listen and understand. The issue is big and the misfortune is momentous. The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04)

The second in command, Ayman Zawahiri, echoed bin Laden [source].

Thus, it appears there is a major difference between the two candidates, but for those in the tank for Obama this warranted absolutely no attention. The reason for overlooking the difference was openly admitted by the producers themselves: "Given that McCain consistently polls better than Obama on the question of how to fight terrorism, it is in McCain's interest to highlight the policy differences he has with Obama." Apparently, it's thus in NPR's interest to whitewash those differences.

Of note, Sheehan made note of Saddam Hussein's ties to international terrorists during a 1999 hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs [source].

The Poor in America

Philip Eveland — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 15:29:30 GMT

Incredible.

I've written before about how Leftist ideas in America produce more poverty and greater dependence on government programs. Here's a perfect example:

People tell Nunez her daughter could get more money in public assistance if she had a child.

"A lot of people have told me, 'Why don't your daughter have a kid?'"

They both reject that as a plan.

After all, her friends are only doing what the government would like them to do. But at least they got that final part right, though they likely don't have much say in the matter.

(h/t Instapundit)

Maliki and Obama

Philip Eveland — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:06:05 GMT

Iraqi president Nouri al-Maliki said during an interview with a German news magazine that presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama's time-table for withdrawing US forces from Iraq "corresponds" with the wishes of the Iraqi government (h/t Hotair). The establishement media will likely (assuredly) be highlighting this news over the next week, as they follow the junior senator around the Middle East and Asia. In fact, Der Speigel has since altered the translation of Maliki's comments, indicating there's something amiss at the anti-Bush magazine.

What you will not hear from the establishment media, though, is the fact that the much improved situation in Iraq where such discussions about withdrawals are occurring would never have existed had Obama and his Democrat colleagues gotten what they wanted in 2007 -- that is, an unconditional and immediate withdrawal of all combat troops. Remember, in early 2007 Obama said a surge of troops would not reduce violence, but would increase it. He also said the war had been lost, and has continued, until very recently, to call for an "end" to the war, rather than a victory for US forces.

UPDATE: 7/20/2008

Newsbusters has a few posts about the media's love affair with Sen. Barack Obama, particularly this one which highlights how the establishment media jumped all over Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's apparent agreement with Obama's plan for withdrawing US troops. In fact, the German magazine Der Speigel, which interviewed Maliki has since revised their original article, and now says they mis-translated the PM. Also, an Iraqi spokesman has stated the article was incorrect when it implied Maliki supports Obama's plan for withdrawal.

Another Newsbusters post [here] focused on another media personality treating Obama with kid gloves.

Science versus Hype

Philip Eveland — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 14:46:41 GMT

A new scientific paper published by the American Physical Society, the country's largest organization of physicists, contradicts Al Gore's hyperbole regarding man-made global warming (MMGW). However, the organization has not changed its position vis-a-vis MMGW. (h/t Hotair)