I love the smell of napalm and burning Bradyites early in the morning

I was on the road Monday when the decision was announced, but I gotta give an attaboy to the NRA-ILA for the victory for gun rights in Chicago.

Fairfax, Va. -- The National Rifle Association of America today praised the U.S. Supreme Court's historic decision in another landmark Second Amendment case. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment applies not just to Washington, D.C. and other federal enclaves, but protects the rights of all Americans throughout the country. The opinion in McDonald v. City of Chicago brings an end to the nearly 30 year-long handgun ban that the city has imposed on its law-abiding citizens.
"This is a landmark decision," said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. "The Second Amendment -- as every citizen's constitutional right -- is now a real part of American constitutional law. The NRA will work to ensure this constitutional victory is not transformed into a practical defeat by activist judges defiant city councils or cynical politicians who seek to pervert, reverse or nullify the Supreme Court's McDonald decision through Byzantine labyrinths of restrictions and regulations that render the Second Amendment inaccessible, unaffordable or otherwise impossible to experience in a practical, reasonable way."
As a party to the case, the NRA participated in oral arguments before the Court in March. The NRA persuasively argued that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment and that handgun bans, like those in the City of Chicago and the Village of Oak Park, are unconstitutional under any standard of judicial review. This same view was shared in friend of the court briefs by a bipartisan group of 309 members of Congress from both chambers, 38 state attorneys general, and hundreds of state legislators. Public opinion polls show that it is also shared by the overwhelming majority of the American people.
"This decision makes absolutely clear that the Second Amendment protects the God-given right of self-defense for all law-abiding Americans, period," said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. "Ironically, while crime in Chicago runs rampant and lawmakers there call on the National Guard for help, Mayor Daley has insisted on leaving the residents of his city defenseless. Today's opinion puts the law back on the side of the law-abiding. We will be watching closely to make sure that Chicago abides by both the letter and the spirit of the Supreme Court's decision." 

And what do it mean? Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox tell us.

Today marks a great moment in American history. This is a landmark decision. It is a vindication for the great majority of American citizens who have always believed the Second Amendment was an individual right and freedom worth defending.
The Supreme Court said what a majority of the American public believes. The people who wrote the Second Amendment said it was an individual right, and the Court has now confirmed what our founding fathers wrote and intended. The Second Amendment -- as every citizen’s constitutional right -- is now a real part of American Constitutional law.
But, Supreme Court decisions have to lead to actual consequences or the whole premise of American constitutional authority collapses. Individual freedom must mean you can actually experience it. An incorporated freedom has to be a real freedom.
The intent of the founding fathers -- and the Supreme Court -- was to provide access. Words must have meaning.
The Supreme Court has now said the Second Amendment is an individual freedom for all. And that must have meaning. This decision must provide relief to law-abiding citizens who are deprived of their Second Amendment rights.
We are practical guys. We don’t want to win on philosophy and lose on freedom. The end question is, can law-abiding men and women go out and buy and own a firearm? Today the Supreme Court said yes – anywhere they live!
This decision cannot lead to different measures of freedom, depending on what part of the country you live in. City by city, person by person, this decision must be more than a philosophical victory. An individual right is no right at all if individuals can’t access it. Proof of Heller and McDonald will be law abiding citizens, one by one, purchasing and owning firearms.
The NRA will work to ensure this constitutional victory is not transformed into a practical defeat by activist judges, defiant city councils, or cynical politicians who seek to pervert, reverse, or nullify the Supreme Court’s McDonald decision through Byzantine labyrinths of restrictions and regulations that render the Second Amendment inaccessible, unaffordable, or otherwise impossible to experience in a practical, reasonable way.
What good is a right without the gun? What good is the right if you can’t buy one? Or keep one in your home? Or protect your family with one?
Here’s a piece of paper – protect yourself. That’s no right at all!
Victory is when law abiding men and women can get up, go out, and buy and own a firearm. This is a monumental day. But NRA will not rest until every law-abiding American citizen is able to exercise the individual right to buy and own a firearm for self defense or any other lawful purpose. 

I love the smell of napalm and burning Bradyites early in the morning.

Good news, bad news and worse news from today's MSM

I've got some good news, so I'll share that first. From The Washington Post today:

BAGHDAD, Feb. 27 -- The American soldier stepped out of the Baghdad nightclub. In one hand, he clutched his weapon. In the other, a green can of Tuborg beer. He took a sip and walked over to two comrades, dressed as he was in camouflage and combat gear.

Inside the club Thursday night, U.S. soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division ogled young Iraqi women who appeared to be prostitutes gyrating to Arabic pop music. A singer crooned soulfully through scratchy speakers to the raucous, pulsating beat -- an action that Islamic extremists have deemed punishable by beheading.

Twenty minutes later, several drunk men coaxed an American soldier to dance. He awkwardly shuffled his feet, wearing night-vision equipment and a radio, joining the women and boisterous young men in an Arabic chain dance around tables covered with empty beer bottles.

Guess what? When American G.I.'s, Marines and sailors aren't fighting wars, they love to party. No big surprise. Been there, done that during the Vietnam War in Uncle Sam's Navy. But when G.I.'s in Baghdad can visit a local club and dance with the Iraqi women, something big has happened. No headlines have yet proclaimed it from the Obama News Media, but victory has broken out in Iraq. President Bush's "surge" worked and snatched victory from the jaws of defeat after six long years of blood, sweat and tears by our glorious fighting men and women.

Now the bad news. President Obama came down to my state to the biggest Marine base, Camp LeJeune, NC, yesterday and gave a big speech on the Iraq war. He declared it over and announced combat will officially end by his royal decree on a date he has set in stone.

"Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end," Obama said.

Of course, like everything Obama says, it depends on what the meaning of "is" is. And his "officials" explained the fine print of Obama's set-in-stone deadline for the Post reporter.

Obama pledged to "proceed cautiously" and to closely consult military commanders, but under his plan, roughly 100,000 troops would exit Iraq by mid-2010. Another 35,000 to 50,000 would remain to help provide security and training -- and, most importantly, counterterrorism operations and advisory missions, which military officials note may include combat.

So 100,000 will leave, but 50,000 will remain for duties that "may include combat." Got it?

Obama's "official end of combat in Iraq" date-setting reminds me a diary entry by a World War II veteran I interviewed in 2005 on the 60th anniversary of the Battle of Iwo Jima in the Pacific.

G.W. "Bill" Godwin, then 84, was a young Marine medic who went ashore with the Marine assault forces on Feb. 25, 1945, at the beginning of one of the worst battles of WWII. Some general announced three weeks later that the Battle of Iwo Jima was officially over. Never mind that Marines and soldiers continued to fight and die and kill Japanese defenders for weeks more. Godwin wrote in his diary about the day "victory" was officially declared on Iwo Jima:

March 17, 1945: "Today the island was secured (officially)."
March 20, 1945: "I wish to hell someone would tell the Nips that this island is secured. They don't seem to know it. Out of 13 of us who came ashore, only 5 are left."
(Two more of the original 13 were casualities before Goodwin's unit pulled out from Iwo Jima on March 27, leaving him one of only three escaping unhurt.)

But the saddest thing about Obama's speech to the Marines at LeJeune is the word he didn't use. He declared an official victory date in the future, but never used the word "victory." He also never mentioned the word "surge" which would have required him to also mention the name of President Bush, who approved the risky plan of General Petraeus, the military architect of the surge and the Iraq victory, when all the "experts" agreed it was time to cut and run from Iraq. And of course, Obama was the chief cheerleader of all the cut-and-run "experts" way back then.

The New York Times coverage of Obama's speech at LeJeune noted his choice of words.

Mr. Obama presented his plan at the same base where, in April 2003, with American forces nearing Baghdad, Mr. Bush declared that “we will accept nothing less than complete and final victory.”

Victory is now officially out of fashion. Welcome to Obama's world.

And now on to the worse news, the economy. The Washington Post reports today:

The prospects for an economic recovery by year's end dimmed yesterday, as government data showed that the economy contracted at the end of 2008 by the fastest pace in a quarter-century. The worse-than-expected data fueled doubts about whether the Obama administration had adequately sized up the challenges it faces in trying to pull the country out of recession.

Gross domestic product, a measure of the goods and services produced across the nation, shrank at an annualized rate of 6.2 percent in the last quarter of 2008, according to the Commerce Department, far worse than the initial estimate of 3.8 percent and the 5 percent most analysts were expecting. The downward revision means the economy began the year from an even weaker position than previously thought.

...The revised GDP figure helped stoke skepticism among economists who say the White House's projections for the nation's recovery are too rosy. Based on those projections, Obama said he would slash the deficit in half by the end of his term. In its budget outline, the administration predicted that the economy would shrink 1.2 percent this year and grow 3.2 percent next year. By contrast, the consensus among private forecasters is that the economy will shrink 1.9 percent this year and grow 2.1 percent next year.

There's an old saw that says if all the economists in the world were laid end to end, they still wouldn't reach a conclusion. So when The Post says the economists are in agreement that Obama's rosy projections about his so-called stimulus plan are too rosy, that means they stink.

Hunker down folks. It's gonna get worse before it gets better. Maybe a whole lot worse.

A quiet miracle occurs unreported in the Arab Middle East

If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound? Now we know definitively the answer to that old puzzler. Yes, it makes a sound, but if it's good news from Iraq, no one will hear it because the mainstream media will suddenly be stricken by nationwide blindness and deafness. Sir Charles Krauthammer has been paying attention as usual, and reports on the good news from Iraq despite the media blackout. They held an election and a peaceful one at that. And we won. Or more accurately, our troops won because it's been their blood, sweat and tears that brought this astonishing miracle to pass, the first peaceful democracy forming in the Arab Middle East.

Preoccupied as it was poring over Tom Daschle's tax returns, Washington hardly noticed a near-miracle abroad. Iraq held provincial elections. There was no Election Day violence. Security was handled by Iraqi forces with little U.S. involvement. A fabulous bazaar of 14,400 candidates representing 400 parties participated, yielding results highly favorable to both Iraq and the United States.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki went from leader of a small Islamic party to leader of the "State of Law Party," campaigning on security and secular nationalism. He won a smashing victory. His chief rival, a more sectarian and pro-Iranian Shiite religious party, was devastated. Another major Islamic party, the pro-Iranian Sadr faction, went from 11 percent of the vote to 3 percent, losing badly in its stronghold of Baghdad. The Islamic Fadhila party that had dominated Basra was almost wiped out.

When Mookie and his Al Sadr thugs lose, we win, the Iraqi people win and Iran loses. Of course, it's still possible to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and Obama can still pull it off.

This is not to say that these astonishing gains are irreversible. There loom three possible threats: (a) a coup from a rising and relatively clean military disgusted with the corruption of civilian politicians -- the familiar post-colonial pattern of the past half-century; (b) a strongman emerging from a democratic system (Maliki?) and then subverting it, following the Russian and Venezuelan models; or (c) the collapse of the current system because of a premature U.S. withdrawal that leads to a collapse of security.

Averting the first two is the job of Iraqis. Averting the third is the job of the U.S. Which is why President Obama's reaction to these remarkable elections, a perfunctory statement noting that they "should continue the process of Iraqis taking responsibility for their future," was shockingly detached and ungenerous.

When you become president of the United States you inherit its history, even the parts you would have done differently. Obama might argue that American sacrifices in Iraq were not worth what we achieved. But for the purposes of current and future policy, that is entirely moot. Despite Obama's opposition, America went on to create a small miracle in the heart of the Arab Middle East. President Obama is now the custodian of that miracle. It is his duty as leader of the nation that gave birth to this fledgling democracy to ensure that he does nothing to undermine it.

Read the whole thing and get the news you missed from the MSM (AKA Obama News Network).

Hooray! Georgia votes for Saxby Chambliss

Finally, some good news for us right-wing gun-nuts, good ol' Georgia voted for Saxby Chambliss.

Now if Norm Coleman can hold off Al "I'm a blooming idiot and proud of it" Franken, the GOP might be able to head off some of the nuttier attempts at leftwing legislation, as in gun-grabbers.

To paraphrase what one of the few Democrats with a lick of sense said, retired U.S. Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia, I may already have more guns than I need, but I don't have as many guns as I want.

Of course, Obama will very likely be the second coming of Jimmy Carter, if not worse, but at least Georgia voters have got smarter since they got burned so badly by the peanut farmer from Plains.

Election Letdown: Obama cultists can't cope with victory

After the victory party, now what?

Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

McCain and Palin have some fun at Saturday Night Live

John McCain and Sarah Palin do a tag-team match on Saturday Night Live.

And while he was live, John McCain reveals his new campaign strategy for the closing days.

Call me a foolish optimist, but I believe John McCain will laugh all the way to the White House.

And while we're SNL'ing, how about Ben Affleck doing Keith Olbermann, the nastiest commentator in the world. Enjoy.

CinC Choices: Win Iraq War or 'Cut and Run'

Military expert Barack Obama talks about our troops in Afghanistan "air raiding villages and killing civilians."


The differences between how John McCain or Barack Obama as Commander in Chief would handle the war in Iraq are quite clear. Both say they want to draw down forces in Iraq and increase forces in Afghanistan, but how and when reveals their stark differences in approach.

Michael Gordon, New York Times correspondent in Iraq, interviewed both candidates on their plans as Commander-in-Chief of the Iraq war.

They ... provided telling clues about how much flexibility the next commander in chief would grant to his generals, including Gen. David H. Petraeus, the former top American general in Iraq who has been named to lead the Central Command, which oversees operations in the Middle East and Afghanistan.

Mr. Obama, who noted that General Petraeus wanted “maximum flexibility” in setting withdrawal schedules, said he “pushed back” when he met with the commander in July by making the case for sending more forces to Afghanistan, which the Democratic candidate views as the main battleground against terrorists.

Mr. McCain, who argued that a favorable outcome in Iraq is vital for American strategy in the Middle East and its overall efforts against terrorists, repeatedly invoked General Petraeus’s counterinsurgency strategy and said he would be inclined to give General Petraeus considerable latitude in setting force levels in Iraq.

So Obama says he "pushed back" during his sole meeting with Gen. Petraeus, when the architect and leader of the successful surge that turned the war from defeat into victory asked for "maximum flexibility." Translation: Obama told Petraeus "It's my way or the highway."

McCain, a decorated war hero and Naval air wing commander, says he will give General Petraeus "considerable latitude" to finish victory.

At the heart of the dispute is Mr. Obama’s 16-month schedule for withdrawing American combat brigades, a timetable that is about twice as fast as that provided for in a draft American and Iraqi accord. Would that deadline spur the Iraqis to overcome their political differences and enable the United States to stabilize Iraq at far lower troop levels, as Mr. Obama asserts?

Or would it tie the hands of commanders and undermine political progress when the security gains in Iraq are still fragile, as Mr. McCain contends? How would Mr. McCain try to promote political progress and better governance in Iraq, when he insists that circumstances on the ground, not the calendar, should determine the pace of reductions?

“The danger with Obama’s rigid timetable is that it may not allow U.S. commanders to react to events on the ground,” said Toby Dodge, a specialist on Iraq at the University of London and a former adviser to General Petraeus.

Obama, who has zero military experience and zero executive experience, tells Gen. Petraeus the troops are leaving in 16 months. Period.

Mr. McCain has argued that reductions should be determined by political and military circumstances, a stance taken by Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who told reporters in June that he favored a “conditions-based approach” that would allow the United States to continuously assess and adjust to events on the ground.

Obama "military strategy" is that an American withdrawal of troops will "force" the Iraqi government to take political actions he demands.

In addition to using troop withdrawals to try to encourage change, Mr. Obama said he would end efforts to train the Iraqi military if Mr. Maliki’s Shiite-dominated government did not take adequate steps to integrate the largely Sunni members of the Awakening movements into Iraq’s security forces.

While McCain points to progress already made militarily and politically by Iraqis has been in response to our troops winning on the ground.

By contrast, Mr. McCain argued that the improved security had finally given the Iraqis the confidence to move forward politically and economically, improving their working relationship with the American military and Ryan C. Crocker, the American ambassador in Baghdad. Threats to cut off American training or deadlines for removing combat brigades, he argued, would only prompt Iraq to become more dependent on Iran or turn to militias for security.

“For a long time, people have said threaten them with this, threaten them with that,” Mr. McCain said. “Instead, Petraeus, Crocker and others established a relationship with the Iraqi government so that they did do de-Baathification, they did do an amnesty, they passed a budget. The United States government hasn’t passed a budget.”

Democrats in charge of Congress haven't passed a budget in peaceful America, while Iraqis have done so in the middle of a war. So which government is dragging it's feet and which one is moving along faster? Iraqis have put Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid's Congress to shame.

And a crying shame is what it would be if the next Commander-in-Chief makes our troops cut and run from a hard-fought victory in Iraq.