Politics Blog

One parent in NY thinks so, complained and won:

CNSNews.com) - A Christmas-themed event to raise money at a public elementary school in Warwick, N.Y., has been altered to accommodate a parent’s complaints that the program would illegally spotlight a “religious” figure - Santa Claus.

“Breakfast With Santa” has since been changed to “Winter Wonderland Breakfast,” and – in an effort to be inclusive of all beliefs – the bearded one will now be joined at the Dec. 9 event by Frosty the Snowman.

Organizers made the changes after one parent charged that she and others in the community were offended that the Parent Teacher Association at the Sanfordville Elementary School was sponsoring a program geared toward one religion.

Typical liberal, hiding under her husbands skirt:

That parent, who did not wish to have her name used, wrote a letter to the school board asserting that Santa represents Christmas – a Christian holiday – and by law, a public school is not allowed to promote religion.

Go Mikey!:

Mike Johnson, senior legal counsel for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, told Cybercast News Service the situation was “just absurd.”

“My general reaction is probably the same as 95 percent of Americans when they hear about something like this,” Johnson said. “It’s ridiculous that we have to think twice about whether it’s OK to celebrate Christmas in public.”

While acknowledging that Saint Nicholas, a Dutch bishop who had a reputation for giving gifts in secret, “clearly was the original figure that Santa is based upon,” he noted that “most people would recognize Santa Claus himself as a secular-type figure.”

“The underlying principle here is that the First Amendment does not guarantee any of us a right not to be offended,” Johnson said. “These radical leftist types are arguing that just because 95 percent of Americans, according to recent polling, celebrate Christmas, they ought not to have that right” since a person with a different view might object.

The parent wouldn’t give in:

“We have a beautiful background people can have a picture in front of,” Baratto said. “That wasn’t good enough. We changed the name, colors, the background,” but that did not satisfy the complaining parent. “She was not open to anything. We’ll have 300 or so kids who are disappointed.”

Let me say this again, I am Jewish and Christmas, Santa, Jesus, whatever, DOES NOT offend me. The idiot who did this, DOES offend me.

— ‘The Commish’ A.J. Sparxx

The AP is reporting that President Bush wants to “speed” things up in Iraq:

President Bush said Thursday the United States will speed a turnover of security responsibility to Iraqi forces but assured Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that Washington is not looking for a “graceful exit” from a war well into its fourth violent year.

You no more “speed” up cooking a cake than “speed” up training soldiers. It is what it is. More of that nuance that Republicans are no good at.

Unless maybe, you are using the “Baker Cook Book.”

— Oak Leaf

I just wanted to comment on a few front page items that popped today and throw out a few others, all in one thread.

If you ran across, “Data on U.S. military’s Iraqi operations leaked onto Internet,” IT WAS NOT ME!!!! Yes, I am traveling with my laptop, but the material on the laptop is solely for my civilian business. Here is what happened to the guy in question that should be a warning others:

Internal data such as information concerning U.S. military operations in Iraq have recently been leaked to the Internet from a privately owned personal computer of an Air Self-Defense Force member loaded with a file sharing software, ASDF investigations have shown.

The current Republican Majority Leader (soon to be Minority Leader) happens to have me in his e mail address book (well along with THOUSANDS OF OTHERS) and sent me an e mail entitled, “Democrats Reject Key 9/11 Panel Suggestion.” The e mail had the Washington Post article of the same name, with an interesting quote:

“I don’t think that suggestion is going anywhere,” said Rep. C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.), the chairman of the Appropriations defense subcommittee ………… “That is not going to be their party position.”

I sincerely hope that Republicans will make it their party position!!!

Now that we know that Hastings is out, “Chairman Hastings ? NOPE, Not on Nancy’s Watch,” I sincerely hope that Republicans do not drop the issue but now demand that Members of Congress are held to the same standard as those they govern in determining who has access to intelligence information. This is an important issue that will have traction with the public:

I would also hope that our liberal activist readers could join and demand that Members of Congress be required to obtain a full security clearance before sitting on a sensitive committee. I have no idea what the fallout would be, Republican or Democrat, but this is an issue where politics must be placed aside. The Duke Cunninghams of the world are not entitled to this information nor are the Alcee Hastings.

The Ace took my wind with “Iraq Study Group: Quagmire.” However he did not list the members of the Commission:

In addition to Mr. Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman, the group includes two Democrats who are veterans of the Clinton administration, Leon E. Panetta and William J. Perry, and a Clinton adviser, Vernon E. Jordan Jr. Charles S. Robb, former Democratic governor of Virginia, and Alan K. Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming, are also on the panel, along with Sandra Day O’Connor, a former Supreme Court justice who was nominated by President Reagan.

Other members includes Edwin Meese III, who served as attorney general under Mr. Reagan, and Lawrence S. Eagleburger, a former secretary of state under Mr. Bush’s father. Mr. Eagleburger replaced Robert M. Gates, who resigned when he was nominated to be the next secretary of defense.

If confirmed he will have to carry out whatever change of military strategy, if any, Mr. Bush embraces.

As a deployed reservist, I am able to look events in both SW Asia and CONUS from a “multi-lense” perspective. I see the new Secretary of Defense coming from the committee that is coming up with a muddled consensus policy. That is a repeat of Vietnam, where field decisions were made in Washington by politicians.

Why am I a November 8, 2006 soldier? Because I want to prevent a May 1, 1975 Army. Commissioned Officers in year groups 1980-1990, though not in Vietnam were “touched” by the ghost of Vietnam. Members of these groups “debate” which combat patch they will wear because they have served on multiple combat tours in multiple places.

The report by this Committee will be the template going forward, period. Does anyone think that the number of Americans supporting “Go Long or Go Big” will be growing? We tried to convince the public and we failed. The only growing consensus in the USA is “Go home” or worse there will be support for a middle road policy. If you embrace the “middle road” because “it is better than going home,” you will still failure in Iraq but end up with a May 1, 1975 Army. I have no choice but to stand with my fellow Infantryman, my fellow Soldiers and my brothers and sisters in the other Armed Services. Leadership lessons of history tell me that is the right choice at this juncture.

— Oak Leaf

The Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether global warming is real. Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick has her usual entertaining coverage of the case she calls Bush v. Gore’s Movie

— PoliPundit

I posted on this before, but last night “20/20″ ran a segment on this topic:

To test what types of people give more,“20/20″ went to two very different parts of the country, with contrasting populations: Sioux Falls, S.D. and San Francisco, Calif. The Salvation Army set up buckets at the busiest locations in each city — Macy’s in San Francisco and Wal-Mart in Sioux Falls. Which bucket collected more money?

Sioux Falls is rural and religious; half of the population goes to church every week. People in San Francisco make much more money, are predominantly liberal, and just 14 percent of people in San Francisco attend church every week. Liberals are said to care more about helping the poor; so did people in San Francisco give more?

It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election.

And it’s a myth created by whom? Greedy liberals themselves.
The Walmart in Sioux Falls collected twice as much money as the Macy’s in San Francisco.

The next time a liberal lectures you on “helping the poor,” mock them. Mercilessly.

— The Ace

Woman suing because her avocado dip didn’t taste “avocadoey”:

That’s the issue in a fraud lawsuit filed Wednesday against Kraft Foods, Inc., by a Los Angeles woman who claims the company’s avocado dip doesn’t qualify as guacamole.

“It just didn’t taste avocadoey,” said Brenda Lifsey, who used Kraft Dips Guacamole in a three-layer dip last year. “I looked at the ingredients and found there was almost no avocado in it.”

Don’t call it guacamole:

She is seeking unspecified damages and a Superior Court order barring Kraft from calling its dip guacamole. Her suit seeks class-action status.

And of course, the appeasement:

However, the company will relabel the product to make it clearer that the dip is guacamole-flavored, Regan said.

— ‘The Commish’ A.J. Sparxx

But wait, San Fran Nan says there ARE NO TERRORISTS IN IRAQ:

ABCNEWS has ’smoking-gun evidence’ that Iran is supplying Iraq terrorists with weapons:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 30, 2006 — U.S. officials say they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories. According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006.

This suggests, say the sources, that the material is going directly from Iranian factories to Shia militias, rather than taking a roundabout path through the black market. “There is no way this could be done without (Iranian) government approval,” says a senior official.

Moktada al-Sadr getting training from Hezbollah?

Evidence is mounting, too, that the most powerful militia in Iraq, Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi army, is receiving training support from the Iranian-backed terrorists of Hezbollah.

— ‘The Commish’ A.J. Sparxx

ACLU “allowing” public school to screen the movie “The Nativity Story”:

ACLU Virginia spokesman Kent Willis said the screenings were “perfectly acceptable” as long as the schools were not sponsoring the event, they were not mandatory, and the Christian group was not getting any special treatment other student organizations would be unable to get.

Real gems over there at the ACLU, you know ?

— ‘The Commish’ A.J. Sparxx

Now that Republicans will be in the minority next Congress, will they move further from their roots? Will a primary concern of regaining the majority result in a move to theLeft to gain that end? Will those concerns lead to greater growth in government size and spending? Or, will they realize the error of such tactics, and that it was exactly such moves that lead to their losses this cycle?

If history is an indicator the answer to the first three questions will be yes, the fourth no, and Republicans will continue to bind themselves within the growing box created by liberalism. If Republicans continue pandering to the Left, their actions will continue to move American policy further in that direction and produce ends they supposedly stand against. In fact, it has been Republican moves to accommodate liberalism, not action based upon the will of the American majority, that have caused government growth and moved national policies to the left. Over the years Republicans have strayed from conservatism and operated within - as well as expanded - the liberal paradigm.

If this trend continues, how can Republicans return to their roots and regain the confidence of the American people?

Whether they realize it or not, the overwhelming number of Americans support conservative principles and governance. They believe in Freedom and Liberty, in individual rights with corresponding responsibilities, and they remember that government flows from the individual, not the reverse; they believe government’s role is to protect opportunities to enjoy God given rights, not to control individual action or play the role of the Creator. They understand the true meaning of a government “of,” “by,” and “for the people.”

Congress, however, has strayed and fostered a liberal socialistic interpretation of the third phrase leading to further growth of government. The more government grows, the more it becomes a nebulous expanse of its own creation and power. Once that is allowed to occur it is perceived as an authority from which the people derive their rights; government (or those in control of government), not God, becomes supreme. Such governmental growth and control is part of the liberal agenda; but, at that point government no longer flows from the people, the people are no longer free, and they can no longer enjoy the Liberty that God granted to - and intended for - them

To prevent such an end, while in the minority Republicans must no longer fall for liberal talk of “bi-partisan” action. From a liberal that is merely rhetoric trying to pressure the opposition into concession to their desired ends. Talk of “bi-partisanship” by a liberal means they take everything and give nothing; demands to surrender personal independence for government growth, superiority, and dependence, while affording no concessions in return. If the liberal agenda were truly the will of the people - and the form of government created by the Constitution - they would not need to talk in such phrases now that they will be in the majority; incessant reference to “bi-partisanship” is indicative of an acknowledgment that the intentions and means are contrary to the American majority, and the Constitution. Republican silence and acquiescence to those tactics have been an implicit endorsement of the self serving scheme that is the liberal agenda.

At this point, rather than staying within the current box, conservatives and Republicans must move the mainstream debate “outside the box;” discussions should focus on returning to the original framework of limited government outlined in the Constitution, and the oppressive consequences of government expansion. Why must we only discuss, and work within, the structure that currently exists in lieu of shrinking the extent of that structure?

From this point forward it is critical that Republicans highlight the debate of reducing government’s size and scope, and the consequences of failing to do so; the latter being the continued trend toward a totalitarian, atheistic, oppressive government. If Republicans follow a clearly expressed conservative agenda of limited government such will be supported by theAmerican majority. The question is whether Republicans will have the character and political will follow that path.

– ‘The Commish’ A.J. Sparxx

I don’t know what to make of this:

The report recommends that Mr. Bush make it clear that he intends to start the withdrawal relatively soon, and people familiar with the debateover the final language said the implicit message was that the process should begin sometime next year.

The report leaves unstated whether the 15 combat brigades that are the bulk of American fighting forces in Iraq would be brought home, or simply pulled back to bases in Iraq or in neighboring countries. (A brigade typically consists of 3,000 to 5,000 troops.) From those bases, they would still be responsible for protecting a substantial number of American troops who would remain in Iraq, including 70,000 or more American trainers, logistics experts and members of a rapid reaction force.

Same story:

Even as word of the study group’s conclusions began to leak out, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said two or three battalions of American troops were being sent to Baghdad from elsewhere in Iraq to assist in shoring up security there. Another Pentagon official said the additional troops for Baghdad would be drawn from a brigade in Mosul equipped with fast-moving, armored Stryker vehicles.

Quite honestly these people, our political class, have fatigued me to the point that I don’t know what to think. The country just elected a bunch of Marxists who actively hate the ideas America was founded on and so it’s hard for me to care what James Baker and Vernon Jordon (yes of Lewinski fame) think about Iraq. I’m quickly taking the view of “bomb these people into 2006 or leave.”

More from Rich Lowry:

This Baker-Hamilton recommendation, if the New York Times report is accurate, is a disaster. It represents, as Cliff noted earlier, the establishment quitting on the war.

To say our political class is underwhelming is a gross understatement.

— The Ace