No, I’m not kidding:

Clinton and her busload of traveling press moved from there to the popular local Mexican restaurant Lindo Michoacan, where a “roundtable” that was actually square passed a microphone around to tell her people’s concerns about the mortgage crisis and foreclosures. She took notes and munched on tortilla chips.

In broken English, one woman told Clinton how she wasn’t making money as a broker anymore.

“I have no income at all,” she said. “So how will I survive?”

Choking up with emotion, the woman said, “In my neighborhood, there are brand-new homes, but the value is nothing. I’m glad you are here so I can tell you, because you’re going to be the president, I know.”

A man shouted through an opening in the wall that his wife was illegal.

“No woman is illegal,” Clinton said, to cheers.

Pretty straightforward – if you’re a woman, then you’re not illegal…doesn’t matter if you just crossed the border yesterday, I guess. Unless, of course, Hillary was just trolling for votes – while Hillary is expressing doubts about caucuses, what I understand about the Democratic caucus out here in Nevada is that IDs won’t be checked…so, come one, come all…even if you’re illegal and especially if you’re a female illegal, ’cause Hillary has just given you a dispensation from the laws of the United States of America.

And some do wonder why I approach November with great serenity…

(As an aside – for the poor broker who can’t make money these days: cry me a river. Did you lower your brokerage fees when the price of homes in Las Vegas was skyrocketing? Bet you loved that time – well, now its a buyer’s market, and you’ll just have to tough it out. I’m taking it in the shorts on home equity, myself – but, on the flip side, it is helping first time home buyers who can finally afford a home now that the prices have come down to Earth.)

By pointing out the obvious:

Giuliani said it’s no feat to make changes for the sake of change.

“Change is either good or bad. So I think people have to focus a little bit more carefully on, what is it that we’re promising, and what are we trying to do. Now, if the change is in the direction of lower taxes, less spending, giving parents choice over education, energy independence, these are things that are going to make a brighter future and a better America. But just the word ‘change’ doesn’t connote good or bad. You’ve got to get one step beyond that and start looking at the changes,” he said.

When the Democrats say they want “change”, it is very much like the “new direction” they campaigned on in 2006 – sounds nice, but it doesn’t actually mean anything. For someone like Giuliani, the Democrats talking about “change” has to sound a bit ridiculous – none of the top three Democratic contenders has ever had to make a decision to change anything – Giuliani has, and knows its not a magic incantation which just makes everything all right.

Take, for instance, one of the major changes the Democrats all say they want – universal health care. Fine and dandy – lets have it; but lets also have the details. And lets not tax them too highly – certainly not as highly as they plan on taxing us. We’ll start small: Hillary, John, Barack – under your universal health care plan, if there are ten people who need a colonoscopy today, and only 5 colonscopies can be done today, who decides who goes first, and who has to wait for later? If they can’t answer a simple question like that – and they can’t – then all their talk of “change” is just so much poll-tested fluff designed to sucker the credulous (ie, liberals) into voting for them.

I still haven’t settled on a candiate for 2008 (though with the caucuses just 9 days away, crunch time is coming), but in Giuliani, Thompson, Romney, McCain and Huckabee, we have candidates who have far more experience in the practical difficulties of “change” than the three leading Democrats. In simple terms of knowledge and experience, the Republican field far outclasses the Democratic field – and I think that as November approaches, this will become decisive in voters’ minds.

And Andrew Sullivan reader had this to say about the New Hampshire results:

Watched the NH returns with some friends last night, and something quite unexpected happened when the AP called it for Clinton — inexplicable ANGER. I was surrounded by people in their early 30’s, registered Democrats, receptive to the Clintons in the 90’s, and I swear I thought someone was going to throw their wine glass at the tube during her ‘victory’ speech.

Just an oddity, or an indicator of just how little the left will like it if Hillary is the nominee? Could be a very interesting couple months coming up…

HAT TIP: Instapundit via NRO’s The Corner

In all the hullabaloo over the primaries, this story might have got missed by some:

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) – The U.S. military has video and audio recordings of Iranian boats that threatened to blow up U.S. Navy vessels in the Strait of Hormuz and plans to release them, the top Navy commander in the Mideast said Tuesday. President Bush described the confrontation as a “provocative act.”

Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff disputed Iranian claims that the incident early Sunday was a routine encounter, saying Iran’s “provocative” actions were “deadly serious” to the U.S. military.

“It was a dangerous situation,” Bush told reporters at the White House. “They should not have done it, pure and simple. I don’t know what their thinking was, but I’m telling you what my thinking was. I think it was a provocative act.”

The confrontation was an unusual flare-up of U.S.-Iranian tensions in the Persian Gulf as Bush begins his first visit to the Mideast. In the tour, Bush is to visit Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arab allies, in part to coordinate in confronting Iran.

Many Arab countries fear the Iranian-American rivalry could erupt into a military confrontation that would put them in the crossfire and hurt vital Gulf oil traffic.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said that its high-speed boats never threatened the U.S. vessels during the encounter, insisting it only asked them to identify themselves, then let them continue into the Gulf. A Guards commander defended his force’s right to identify ships in the sensitive waterway.

Cosgriff, the commander of U.S. 5th Fleet, which patrols the Gulf and is based in nearby Bahrain, said the American vessels had already been identified by Iranian authorities earlier in the day before the confrontation occurred.

With the Cole incident at the back of all naval minds, such an event is highly disturbing. What seems like a mere harassing exercise could swiftly lead to one or more of these motorboats making a suicide run towards a US ship. One thing to keep in mind – US naval warships are designed to fight other naval warships, not motorboats. Our ships have limited capability of thwarting a close-in attack from a small, fast moving target. Some people have expressed dismay over the lack of violent reaction on the part of the Navy during the incident, but my bet is that our ships are ready for a missile attack, an aerial attack, a submarine attack…for all manner of attack, but for some reason no one has considered what to do when a motor boat comes at you in open, though restricted (the Straight is narrow, and has a lot of navigation hazards), waters.

Prudence would seem to dictate that we adopt a policy of firing on any identified Iranian surface craft which approaches within a set distance of a US ship – in other words, we figure out how far out we need a small, fast target to be in order to ensure its destruction, and then don’t let any such craft to come closer than that. On the other hand, the Iranian government might not be unified in its determination to challenge the United States – could be that part of the Iranian leadership realises that full scale war with the US is national suicide, and so they work to keep the aggressive elements of the Iranian government in check…but a shooting incident which the hard-core anti-Americans could exploit? That might tip the balance and convince even semi-moderate Iranians that they must fight. So, we have to tread with care here – and I’m glad that this is precisely what President Bush is doing. War there might be with Iran, but it should only start at a time and place of our choosing.

The larger picture must be kept in mind – and central to that larger picture is the huge strides of success being made in Iraq at the moment. Iraq is the central front in the War on Terrorism, and we must allow nothing to divert us from completing that mission – any threat to that mission must be dealt with severely, but before we go tangling with the Iranians, lets be sure we have all our forces ready for all contingencies. Don’t let the Iranians provoke us into a hasty strike.

Your son, my lord, has paid a soldier’s debt:
He only lived but till he was a man;
The which no sooner had his prowess confirm’d
In the unshrinking station where he fought,
But like a man he died.

Military blogger Andrew Olmstead was killed recently in Iraq. Per his wishes, a last post has been placed on his blog and I wished to share it with our readers.

Per the command by Mr. Olmstead in his post, no political comments will be permitted on this thread.

Just bizarre:

Madrid, Jan. 3, 2008 (CWNews.com) – Spanish government leaders have asked the country’s Catholic bishops to apologize for the massive pro-family rally held in Madrid on December 30, Vatican Radio reports.

Leaders of the Socialist governing party have charged that the Church intervened in partisan political affairs with the rally, which drew nearly 2 million participants. (The government is reporting that only 160,000 took part in the demonstration.) The government has asked the bishops’ conference for an apology.

Although 40 bishops took part in the pro-family event, and the hierarchy gave clear support to the event, the rally was organized primarily by lay Catholic activists. The organizers have consistently argued that the rally was not intended as a partisan political event, but as a public expression of support for the traditional family founded on Christian marriage.

This is what the secular left wants – the Church to be removed from the public square. They’ll kindly allow us to practise our faith, as long as we don’t disturb their worldview by demonstrating publically what we stand for. If we’ll just keep it off the streets, all will be well – until they arrest our priests and pastors for “hate speech” because they teach Christian morality in the pulpit.

Literally:

Like any Soldier, Pfc. Alexander Cesario always makes sure he has all his essential equipment before he goes outside the wire. For Cesario, that means his weapon, radio, and night vision goggles, as well as one special, personal item – an American flag his father brought home from Vietnam.

Cesario, a Somerville, N.J., native serving as a forward observer with Company A., Special Troops Battalion, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, has carried his father’s flag with him on every mission since being deployed to Iraq a year ago.

The flag was first acquired by Cesario’s father, Adam, 61, when he was a young paratrooper serving in Vietnam. The elder Cesario never let a day go by without unfurling the flag, no matter where he was or what he was doing.

“(My dad) flew that flag every day, even if he had to put it up on a radio antenna,” Cesario said.

At one point, a mission went wrong and Cesario’s father was cut off from the rest of his platoon. For three days, he had to hack it out of the jungle alone, with the Vietcong in hot pursuit. But even on the run, he still managed to raise the flag each day.

“He didn’t stop moving at all for those three days, except to fly that flag,” Cesario said.

When Cesario’s father returned from the war, he put the flag into safekeeping. He was so protective of it that even family members were rarely allowed to handle it.

“It was like his prized possession,” Cesario said.

Nothing could make the elder Cesario part with the flag until Alexander, 19, was deployed to Iraq this year. After he began patrolling the streets of Baghdad, Cesario decided he wanted to carry on his father’s tradition. After some arm-twisting, he convinced his dad to mail him the flag.

The flag arrived with step-by-step instructions on how to take care of it, Cesario said. He recalled the final step with a laugh: “If you lose it, don’t bother coming home.”

To allow such a priceless possession to go in harms way – that shows the truest possible love of country. In reading this, I was moved to the depths of my soul; and also made grateful to God that he allows us here in the United States to have such men as the elder and younger Cesario, ever willing to put all the have on the line for us.

A very small, yet hopeful sign:

Amman, Dec. 28, 2007 (CWNews.com) – The leader of an Islamic group calling for inter-religious dialogue has responded positively to a papal invitation for talks with the Holy See, Vatican Radio reports.

Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad bin Talal, the president of the Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought in Jordan, has indicated that he would like to meet with Pope Benedict XVI early in the new year. The Jordanian prince has been the most prominent figure associated the “Common Word” initiative, in which 138 Islamic leaders signed a public statement, issued in October, calling for broader dialogue between Christians and Muslims. More recently the Common Word participants joined in a Christmas greeting to the world’s Christians, renewing their call for dialogue and cooperation.

Pope Benedict replied to the Common Word initiative in November, with his own invitation for members of the Islamic group to join in talks at the Vatican. Prince Ghazi was responding to this papal invitation.

In his reply — which was conveyed in a letter to the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone — Prince Ghazi said that he hoped to meet with the Pope in February or March 2008.

I’ve linked to that public statement in the quote – and I do recommend that everyone read it. As I said shortly after it came out, it is a brisk and forthright attempt to bridge the gap between Islam and Christianity (and thus bridge the gap between Islam and the West). At that time, I also deplored the wet-noodle response a few weak-kneed Christians made to it; grovelling is not what is needed, or desired. But the Vatican holding a conference – at which I hope that other Christian leaders also attend – is a far better response. To get together and talk can often be an exercise in futility – but it some times can break logjams.

Just as there is a tiny element in Christianity which has forgotten what its all about, so there is a tiny element in Islam which is entirely off the Islamic ranch. Tiny, but still quite large in raw numbers (even if only 1% of Islam is radicalised, that is approximately 10 million people) – and, unfortunately, backed for varied reasons (some base, some just foolish) by politicians and rich people in the Arab/Moslem world. The ultimate key to victory in the War on Terrorism is for the Arab/Moslem world to be transformed into a free society which makes room for the religious dissident and seeks the betterment of the Arab people, rather than the revival of an archaic Caliphate. In this transformation, there is a role for everyone to play – including, not least, religious leaders on both sides who can come together and issue statements which will tend to isolate the Islamo-fascists and bring them into disrepute among the Arab population.

In this war of ideas, we must use our armed might, our economic might and our diplomatic might – but we also must make use of well-disposed people in the Moslem and Christian worlds who are willing, often at great personal risk, to come together past the divide. Small results will come from this conference – initially; but with good will and God’s grace, much will be accomplished over time.

The title of this entry shamelessly stolen from Mark Steyn over at NRO’s The Corner – but its just too appropriate:

Gordon Brown should mark the 60th anniversary of the NHS this year by turning its birthday on July 5 into an extra annual bank holiday, a leading Labour thinktank will urge today.

The Fabian Society will say the prime minister has long dreamed of establishing a “British day” to celebrate nationhood. The most appropriate date would be on the anniversary of the health service – an institution which appeals equally to people in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

An essay by Rachael Jolley and Sunder Katwala, the society’s general secretary, points out that England and Wales have eight public holidays, compared with at least 10 in most EU countries. Scotland has nine and Northern Ireland 10.

In 2006, before Brown became prime minister, he told a Fabian conference: “What is the British equivalent of the US fourth of July, or even the French 14th of July? … What is our equivalent for a national celebration of who we are and what we stand for?” He said he had in mind giving the country a new public holiday.

There’s just something extraordinarily Euro-socialist in that – another paid day off, and to celebrate dependency upon a bloated, ineffecient government bureaucracy. It’d be like having AFDC Day here in the United States. One wonders – is what the Brits stand for really socialised health care? Long waiting lists, poor quality of care, routinely going over budget? Thus another page is written in the very final chapter of the Story of Britain.

When the CIA was founded in 1947, a large portion of the initial personnel were recruited from the World War Two-era Office of Strategic Services (OSS). An unfortunate fact of life about the OSS is that it was heavily staffed with communists and fellow travellers. The reason for this? Simple – we were fighting on the side of communist Russia in WWII, and a communist OSS operative would (a) likely never voluntarily surrender to the Nazis and (b) would never turn traitor for the Nazis. Of course, these communists were not at all adverse to working for communist Russia once the United States and Russia came into a post-WWII collision course.

Essentially, CIA was founded with a built in series of moles who were highly placed – and not only able to provide secrets to the communists and deceive American policy-makers, but they were also able to continually recruit and advance like-minded individuals in the CIA over the years. It should be kept in mind that when CIA was founded and the FBI suggested background checks on employees of the new agency, CIA said they would take care of it themselves. As far as I know, there has never been an indepedent audit of CIA personnel – and given the number of moles which have emerged in the CIA over the past 60 years, it seems very likely that a certain percentage of CIA employees continue to give their loyalty to persons, nations and movements other than the United States of America.

Robert Novak notes a growing dismay – partially bi-partisan – over the way the CIA is behaving as a policy-making rather than advisory-and-executive organization on matters of intelligence. The recent NIE on Iraq – while a multi-agency product – is heavily CIA in content and was clearly designed to influence policy rather than offer dispassionate advice. I believe this and other outrages and failures of the CIA is attributable to a continuing fifth collumn (as it were) in the CIA – and it is good to understand that once a spy, always a spy; once a foreign entity recruits you, you can’t un-recruit yourself save by turning yourself in to the authorities, with all its risk of long-term incarceration. It doesn’t matter that the USSR which originally penetrated the CIA is no more – the Republic of Russia retains its spies, who are traitors whether they are working for the USSR or the Republic of Russia. Russian policy vis a vis Iran is to thwart US action against Iran’s nuclear program – and its just too neat a coincidence that just as crunch time is coming on Iran’s nukes, a NIE comes out saying, in effect, “no worries”.

Of course, I could be wrong – the recent NIE could be the absolute truth of the matter. But I don’t know – and I don’t know because there is no reason for anyone to place any reliance on information which comes from – or is influenced by – the CIA. Too many traitors have been proven to be there for us to have anything other but very strong doubts. The only way to break this particular logjam is to just abolish the organization.

It is certain that most of the employees of the CIA are dedicated Americans who want what is best for the nation – and we can re-hire them at a successor agency, but only after an exhaustive background check not just on themselves, but on who hired them and promoted them over the years. America needs a central intelligence agency, but we can’t afford to retain the CIA – better to amalgamate the Defense Intelligence Agency with people from State (for foreign political intelligence) and Treasury (for foreign economic intelligence) into a new intelligence group, with the pick of the litter from the defunt CIA to fill out the organization.

The need for good intelligence for both the Executive and Legislative branch is too important for us to have any doubts – we must be certain that our lawmakers and Administration are working on the best data available, presented without any agenda, and without any leaking to the MSM (no intel agency should ever release any info to the press – such releases of info should only come via the Executive or the relevant intel committees in the House and Senate). Abolish the CIA – start over from scratch; and start to build America the sort of intelligence agency its needed, but sadly lacked, for the past 6 decades.