The Unreported Good News in Iraq

Read this article today at Commentary Magazine by way of Instapundit. The glaring lack of exposure of the significant positive developments in Iraq by our MSM is a perfect example of their obvious left-leaning political bias. They are happy to report deaths of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians, but when the Surge works and the most violent regions of Iraq are stabilizing? Headlines are chalk full of stories about Don Imus, real estate, etc...

Personally, I am interested in strategic news that actually impacts my family and my country, and a stable Iraq that is no longer a haven for terrorists fit that.

Here are some key excerpts from the article. It is worth reading in it's entirety:

[t]he US military is to hand over security control of the former Sunni insurgent bastion of Anbar province to Iraqi forces in the next 10 days, a US military spokesman announced on Monday . . . Anbar would be the tenth of Iraq’s 18 provinces to be handed back to Iraqi forces by the US-led coalition amid a push to transfer security control of the entire country back to Baghdad. Anbar province in western Iraq, the country’s largest, was the epicentre of a brutal Sunni Arab-led fight against the US military after the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003. In the early years of the insurgency, US forces fought raging battles in the province, especially in the capital Ramadi and the nearby city of Fallujah.

The security environment in Iraq continues to improve, with all major violence indicators reduced between 40 to 80% from pre-surge levels. Total security incidents have fallen to their lowest level in over four years.

Overall, the communal struggle for power and resources is becoming less violent. Many Iraqis are now settling their differences through debate and the political process rather than open conflict. Other factors that have contributed to a reduction in violence include the revitalization of sectors of the Iraqi economy and local reconciliation measures.

It goes on and on, but the picture is clear. The left is not only not concerned about Iraq, they are petrified of success because it would validate a Bush policy that they have disagreed with from the start, and put the Democratic party in a bad light in an election year.

Is the Smart Money on Hillary as McCain's VP?

While the prospect of having Hillary anywhere near the White House frightens me to no end, would it be a good choice for John McCain to ask her to run alongside him as his V.P.? Understand that I am only speaking in terms of political expediency here; if it were up to me, neither of them would be running the free world. But reality is what it is, and this election year is not ideal for a principled Christian conservative like me. Joseph Farah at WorldNetDaily makes a compelling argument here.

If you consider what Hillary accomplished in the popular vote, and just how divided Democratic voters apparently are over Obama and Mrs. Clinton, it makes sense for McCain to go after those people who deep down really want to vote for Hillary. Wouldn't a McCain/Hillary ticket guarantee the bigger states won by her, including California and New York?

Also consider just how alike all 3 of them are in terms of legislative record:

They aren't that far apart politically. In fact, McCain, Obama and Hillary have co-sponsored 86 pieces of legislation in the U.S. Senate since 2005. They agree on the border. They agree on amnesty. They agree on global warming. They agree on more than they disagree.

Actually, this makes pairing Hillary with either Obama or McCain somewhat logical, does it not? Maybe Hillary really is unstoppable politically.

Of course, McCain making Hillary his running mate would go nowhere in winning over the conservative base. But hasn't he already proven, by virtue of the fact that he got the GOP nomination, that he really doesn't need the far right to win the White House?

California Marriage Amendment Qualifies for November Ballot – The People Will Decide

This was welcome news from ProtectMarriage.com.

"Secretary of State Debra Bowen today certified the eighth initiative for the November 4, 2008, General Election ballot. The measure would amend California’s Constitution to define marriage as a union 'between a man and a woman.'"

This initiative actually started before 4 California Supreme Court justices decided to speak for special interests and legislate from the bench instead of interpreting existing laws as they are appointed to do.

Californians have already made their will known in 2000 when they voted 61% to keep marriage defined as "between one man and one woman", and they have not changed their minds, apparently.

“'The response from the people of this state has been unprecedented in support of marriage’s legacy, by responding with an all-out volunteer signature campaign,' said Ron Prentice, CEO of the California Family Council and Chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com coalition sponsoring the amendment. 'We’re so grateful to the over 1.1 million voters who signed the marriage petition in time for the November election...'"

By amending the State Constitution, and I am confident this initiative will pass, we will go a long way to protect this institution that is so utterly important to the survival of our society. This is not a trivial thing at all; Redefining marriage has been tried before in other countries with negative results.

It is also naive to think that this amendment would mean the end of this battle, as those who wish to define marriage for themselves and their personal interests will not stop here. The special interests who want to destroy marriage have proven themselves to be powerful and influential and they will not rest. Nor should those of us in this country who love marriage and want to keep it as it is.

Remember, if you live in a state other then California and are concerned about this issue, stay alert and be informed about this as it is only a matter of time before a similar decision goes before YOUR state.

McCain Welcomes Obama With Fresh Criticism

Not surprisingly, Barack Obama claimed the nomination of his party this evening, and he did it with his usual flair. No doubt the man is eloquent and able to whip any crowd into a frenzy, but I still have NO EARTHLY IDEA what he would do as President, besides raise our taxes and "do lunch" with the likes of Ahmadinejad.

What was the response of the "Presumptive Nominee" to the GOP, John McCain?

He went on the attack immediately, which is exactly what he needs to do to compensate for the lack of enthusiasm conservatives have for his campaign. It would be foolish of McCain to think he can out speak his opponent; he must go after Obama's record (what there is of it) and anything in Barack's past that can undermine the confidence people have in him to lead on important issues like the war in Iraq.

A couple excerpts from McCain's response to the Illinois Senator clinching the nomination:

"Americans ought to be concerned about the judgment of a presidential candidate who says he's ready to talk, in person and without conditions, with tyrants from Havana to Pyongyang, but hasn't traveled to Iraq to meet with General (David) Petraeus, and see for himself the progress he threatens to reverse,"

McCain has already set the direction of the debate to Iraq, and Obama's intention to pull troops out immediately if elected. He simultaneously highlights the fact that HE has actually been on the ground there and spoken to those who have the best view of what is happening, the troops; while pointsing out how Obama hasn't even set foot in Iraq. McCain's war record is already well known so there really is no comparison between the 2 candidates on this issue, unless you are a big fan of the "Cut and Run" strategerie...

"They've seen me put our country before any president _ before any party _ before any special interest _ before my own interest. They might think me an imperfect servant of our country, which I surely am. But I am her servant first, last and always."

McCain has embraced his own "imperfections" as a Senator and a Presidential candidate, which may just muzzle those who were planning on pointing out just how imperfect his voting record has been as Senator as seen through the eyes of staunch conservatives. I believe this to be a good move, not to mention his lack of apology for being historically bi-partisan. This paints him as the guy you may not agree with on every issue, but at the end of the day, you can trust him and he sticks to his guns. It also impresses independents.

Good start for McCain by coming out strong and not letting Obama catch his breathe before the next fight begins. The question is, can he beat Obama in the fall, after being out spent and out-gunned in the charisma department?