Hold at all costs.

Three remote hills 60 miles north of Seoul. Tom, Dick and Harry. Five rifle companies, four American and one Greek, about 700 in total held the line against a full division of CCF (Communist Chinese Forces) supported with artillery.

A division is 13 to 15 thousand soldiers. Those were twenty to one odds.

Outpost Harry was on the hill in the foreground. The other hill, "Star Hill" was held by the Chinese forces.

More below, including a video from the men who fought there and survived to tell us about what happened to them 59 years ago this week. more...

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 09:25 AM | Comments (223)
Post contains 363 words, total size 3 kb.

Drew posted about Senator Mitch McConnell's speech on the First Amendment at the American Enterprise Institute here.

I know lots of people think McConnell is among the Rinoeist of the RINOs but no one can deny he's outstanding on freedom of speech (remember McConnell was the lead plaintiff in the case that sought to overturn McCain-Feingold).

If you missed the speech, it was fantastic, and now the AEI has made video of it available online. (Embedded below the fold.) If you want a clear, succinct explanation of all the ways speech is under attack these days, I recommend it. It's somewhat alarming.

I would imagine the thought has crossed a lot of liberal minds, "Hold on there. I was never against freedom of speech. Being a Democrat was never about curtailing basic freedoms." Well, if you're a liberal, watch it. Mitch McConnell is neither a conservative firebrand nor a bitter partisan. This is not a polemic; it's more of a simple recitation of fact. more...

Posted by: rdbrewer at 07:08 AM | Comments (315)
Post contains 192 words, total size 3 kb.

That last thread was getting a little gamey, so here's a brand new zero content one, featuring Captain Zero himself:
more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 06:48 AM | Comments (66)
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

USDA-certified 100% content-free.

Posted by: andy at 04:02 AM | Comments (253)
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.

I know you all are aware of sequestration and the looming defense cuts but I think this is the first article I've seen that actually talks about the effect of the cuts downstream from those cuts. The Disaster That Is Sequestration.

the sequester will result in the loss of about a million jobs in 2013 and 2014 and America's GDP will decline by half a percent. Moreover, of these million lost jobs, it can safely be asserted that at least half will come from the non-defense sector. In other words, the sequester is not just a defense problem that should agitate only hawks. It is a national problem, and it demands immediate relief.

In addition to its impact on the government's budget, the sequester will also trigger the WARN Act, which requires employers to give a minimum of sixty days notice to private and public sector employees whose jobs are being targeted for possible termination. Those politicians seeking re-election to national office should take note that Nov. 2, 60 days before Jan. 2, when the sequester comes into force, is just four days before election day.

Posted by: CDR M at 05:56 PM | Comments (542)
Post contains 867 words, total size 8 kb.

Not a fan.

There is broad support for the idea that we should figure out a way to help kids who are undocumented through no fault of their own, but there is also broad consensus that it should be done in a way that does not encourage illegal immigration in the future. This is a difficult balance to strike, one that this new policy, imposed by executive order, will make harder to achieve in the long run.

TodayÂ’s announcement will be welcome news for many of these kids desperate for an answer, but it is a short term answer to a long term problem. And by once again ignoring the Constitution and going around Congress, this short term policy will make it harder to find a balanced and responsible long term one.

On Brett Baier, Stephen Hayes advanced these facts: Rubio's about to release a book next week and will be all over the media, and Rubio's been working with Congressmen on some sort of a measure to deal with the children of illegals. Further, Obama has actually instructed his party to not deal with Rubio on the matter.

His conclusion is that Obama did this for fear that Rubio could actually put together some kind of a deal, and he couldn't have that.

So he violated his oath to defend the Constitution. Same shit, different day.

Posted by: Ace at 03:10 PM | Comments (441)
Post contains 239 words, total size 1 kb.

Gotta get attention when you're in the ratings basement, and also physically ugly, much resembling a shot-out toad with portion control issues.

Oh, No: Obama's latest gaffe is going to be a painful one.

At the Sarah Jessica Parker/Anna Wintour fundraiser:

The intimate dinner banked about $2 million, with 50 people paying $40,000 each. Â…

Speaking in a dimly lighted, art-filled room, Obama told supporters they would play a critical role in an election that would determine a vision for the nationÂ’s future.

“You’re the tie-breaker,” he said. “You’re the ultimate arbiter of which direction this country goes.”

That's going to be a problem.

Some truths cannot be uttered. Like this one. Yes, soft-headed people are unduly swayed by Pretty People and rock stars.

It's true.

But no one wants to be confronted with his own celebrity worship.

No one wants to admit he actually takes political counsel from Matthew Brodderick or Bon Jovi.

Yes, the people who allow themselves to be so swayed are kind of dumb.

But you know what you shouldn't say to such people? That they're kind of dumb.

Which Obama just did.

So, people are bitter clingers who cling to their guns and their religion and are racist.

In addition, they are sheep who can be controlled in the voting booth by the mindthoughts of B-list celebrities like Sarah Jessica Parker. (B-list? I think she's fallen; she was B-list. I think she's C+ now. She won't be starring in any further movies, except maybe a low-budget independent affair with "comeback potential;" this much I know.)

Congratulations, President Obama. You just immunized sheep-like people against the very sheep-like behavior you were counting on.

You really shouldn't inform the people you're manipulating that you're manipulating them.

False Alarm? A reader tells me the "you're the arbiter/you make the choice" line is part of Obama's stump speech -- and not anything new spoken only to his Celebrity Buddies.

Posted by: Ace at 01:53 PM | Comments (238)
Post contains 382 words, total size 3 kb.

Tipping point. Even Eleanor Clift, who could never find Democratic spin absurd enough for her to discard, hits the panic button.

Nine of the 12 people gathered in Denver on Tuesday voted for Obama in Â’08, but only three lean toward him at this point. They are a cross-section of America, working in real estate, health care, IT, and sales, and theyÂ’re torn between a president whose performance they say has been underwhelming and who doesnÂ’t deserve reelection, and a challenger they know very little about beyond the fact that heÂ’s a rich and successful businessman.

Read the whole thing to get a sense of this group. And to remind you: They're not conservatives; if they were, they wouldn't be independents. For example, they credit Obama with "reining in the credit card companies."

The sort of thing O'Reilly likes, "lookin' out for the folks." That's part of why O'Reilly is popular, because he believes in things that people who don't really know all that much believe, too.

This seems to confirm Larry Sabato's analysis that most independents are down on Obama, but Romney hasn't closed the deal with them yet. On the plus side, they seem to know almost nothing of Romney, apart from the fact that he's rich, and also that he was successful in business, and also he made a lot of money. (Yes, I know, that's all the same thing; that seems to be all they know.)

Which makes this a critical period for Romney. Such people know precious little about him, and seem receptive to him (in as much as they have doubts about Obama), but they're not there yet.

That said, let's get to the Obama-knocking bits.

Whether it’s a failure of policy or of communications is debatable, but the sense of disillusionment with Obama’s performance is real. “He set up expectations that began 46 months ago, and they only grew over time,” says Hart. He singled out Jeffrey, a 31-year-old Web designer and home remodeler, as the voter Obama most needs and might not get. Jeffrey voted for Obama last time.

“The whole platform was hope—I don’t feel any more hope today,” he said. Pressed by Hart as to which candidate he was leaning toward, Jeffrey said the tenor of the campaign turned him off, that he felt like he was in the middle of a weird argument between a husband and wife, and all he wanted to do was leave the room. “I don’t even know if I’m going to vote this time,” he said glumly.

...

Asked how each [candidate] would perform if they were lost in the forest with nine friends, the group concluded Romney would use his super-duper expensive phone to call for help, with Donald Trump and wife Ann Romney topping the call list, while Obama would give a pep talk and then retreat to the sidelines. ThereÂ’s the campaign in a microcosm.

For Obama, this was a devastating departure from how voters responded to a similar question four years ago, when they said then candidate Obama would work with you, reason with you, and bring out the best in you. This time, says Hart, there was “no sense of leadership.” These are hard-nosed assessments five months out from the election, and the Obama campaign ignores them at its peril.

One of the most frustrating thing about the politically unaware is their unchanging belief that Something must be done! (all attempts to panic the public into agreeing that Something Must Be Done! are directed at this cohort), but they have little idea of what, specifically, should be done. Something. You know, something. Something must be done, why are you not getting this?

One thing many conservatives never acknowledge is that, ultimately, a successful candidate must agree with this cohort that Something Must Be Done. They cannot be argued out of this position; they've held it all their lives. It's not merely a belief, it's an article of faith.

It's the single thing they know about politics -- Something must be done.

Ultimately the battle is convincing these "folks" (as O'Reilly calls them) that what you're proposing counts as "something."

I never understand calls that the "government shouldn't be involved in this" or the "government should do nothing." Oh, I understand the ideology under it; but the people saying these things don't seem to realize that the swing voters have spoken, and, you know, it's the same thing they've been saying for 50 years: Something must be done.

If you believe in laissez-faire economics, you shouldn't say the government should not be involved in the private sector, as a matter of politics. You should say, as Romney does, that the government should "unleash the private sector."

See, that's something. He's saying he's going to do Something. Something must be done, and that something is "unleashing the private sector."

Just something to keep in mind. The difference we're quibbling about, in some of these ideological disputes, is whether we're going to employ an active verb or a passive verb in describing policy.

Newt Knew This! Newt was a master of this. He was always proposing to do something, and not just do something, mind you, but do something fundamentally transformative.

Because, Something Must Be Done.

They Know Who They're Voting For: Frank Luntz always makes this point: This sort of person likes saying they haven't made up their minds yet. They think it's a good thing to delay decision-making; only partisans make snap decisions, after all.

That's a bit of ego in this cohort -- they're not partisans. They do not make decisions based only only on partisanship or ideology. They make decisions based upon "facts" (but the fact is, they know fewer facts than partisans on either side of the aisle).

Now, Luntz gets frustrated, because in his focus-groups, these sorts of people swear up and down on the Bible that they haven't made any decisions, but when you keep asking them, it becomes clear they have made decisions on almost all the factors which will produce their ultimate decision.

Like, in 2008, they might say "Obama would be better for the economy, he has better leadership skills, he's smarter than McCain, he understands ordinary people's problems better than McCain."

And then you ask, "So you're voting for Obama, then?" And they say, "Oh no, I haven't decided yet. I'm waiting for all the facts."

What facts? You think Obama is superior in every important way. What exactly are you waiting for, to admit your preference?

In other words, they have decided -- they just think it makes them seem like smarter, more informed voters to claim they're still deciding, so they won't admit that. As they're actually not very well informed voters -- and I think they know this -- this pretense becomes very important to them. They need some pretense to excuse away their complete disinterest in reading the news.

So they basically start insisting they want the candidates themselves to catch them up to speed, ignoring the fact that policies are spelled out on their campaign websites, and ignoring the fact that these positions are easily and readily discoverable, just by googling and reading.

But they don't want to do any of that, so they just keep saying they'll make their decision when a candidate "gives them the facts," which he already did (well, facts and claims and arguments and themes and spin, at least).

All of this is readily discoverable, but they just keep claiming they need someone to explain the facts to them, before they can decide.

Luntz has this problem with focus groups of independents every time, and notes it every time.

So I would be even more optimistic about this finding than their actual replies indicate.

That said, they still insist that Something Must Be Done and you contradict them at your very great peril.

Suggestion for Romney: Do a series of three one-hour videos explaining basic economics, and your plan. Release it with much fanfare. Make sure it's pretty difficult to contradict.

Here's my thinking: This cohort you're trying to convince will not watch it. They don't follow the news, and they sure as hell aren't going to watch a three hour video on basic economic policy.

But they will hear you did this, and this might help satisfy their insistence that you "explain the facts to them."

They don't really want the facts explained to them, of course. That's already been done a million times. They just want you to take time out to personally explain the facts to them.

So do so.

Again, they ain't watchin' it, but they'll at least be aware that one candidate has done what they demand he do.

Get the people who did Ryan's videos involved. They seem to know what the hell they're doing.

Posted by: Ace at 12:37 PM | Comments (366)
Post contains 1497 words, total size 9 kb.

Uh-huh.

Reich-Wingers Helen Thomas and Sam Donaldson would never interrupt a white president.

The Daily Caller defends the question.

Neil Munro, White House Correspondent: “I always go to the White House prepared with questions for our president. I timed the question believing the president was closing his remarks, because naturally I have no intention of interrupting the President of the United States. I know he rarely takes questions before walking away from the podium. When I asked the question as he finished his speech, he turned his back on the many reporters, and walked away while I and at least one other reporter asked questions.”

Tucker Carlson, Editor-in-Chief: “I don’t remember Diane Sawyer scolding her colleague Sam Donaldson for heckling President Reagan. And she shouldn’t have. A reporter’s job is to ask questions and get answers. Our job is to find out what the federal government is up to. Politicians often don’t want to tell us. A good reporter gets the story. We’re proud of Neil Munro.”

Poison: An argument that Obama's power-grab short-circuits any kind of real solution.

Posted by: Ace at 11:58 AM | Comments (355)
Post contains 203 words, total size 2 kb.

Video here, but in this video you can't hear the question, only Obama's reaction (which isn't particularly bad, he's just a telling the guy it's not time for questions).

This account notes the question.

During the address, a man who appeared to be a reporter shouted a question at the president, asking, “Mr President, why do you favor foreign workers over Americans?”

The president stopped his remarks to respond, asking the man to let him finish and saying, “Excuse me sir, it’s not time for questions … not while I’m speaking.”

But the exchange didn’t stop there. Obama later returned to the reporter’s question, saying sternly, “In response to you sir, and next time I ask you to wait until I’m finished, this is the right thing to do.” The reporter interrupted yet again, prompting the president to say, “I didn’t ask for an argument. Here is the reason…”

He went on to explain that he believes it’s not okay to treat the specified young illegals as expendable and that it “makes no sense to expel talented young people” who are essentially Americans.

It's a potent question, but the bigger question isn't about policy. It's about the Constitution and its system of ordered liberty and defined powers.

Obama has once again decided that what America needs -- or what his re-election campaign needs -- is a system of government in which Congress is merely an advisory body and all executive and legislative power resides in the Executive.

He has decided, in short, that what we need is a Tyrant.

Steve King says he'll bring suit:

“I will tell you that — I’m not without experience on this — I’m prepared to bring a suit and seek a court order to stop implementation of this policy,” King said

“I have done it once in the past successfully when then-Governor Tom Vilsack thought he could legislate by executive order — and the case of King vs. Vilsack is in the books. And that individual, by the way, is now the Secretary of Agriculture. I wonder if he’s not counseling the president on his legal proceedings.”

Huckabee followed up, asking King: “You plan to sue this administration for implementing something that you believe should have required legislative process and approval?”

“That is correct,” King replied.

The real remedy is impeachment -- if not of Obama (that might complicate the election process) than of the lesser executive officials carrying out his policy. Obama will be a millionaire, no matter what happens here; but bureaucrats need their jobs, and their pensions.

That said, that remedy is unavailable, because of course the Democrat-controlled Senate would vote against impeachment.

Posted by: Ace at 10:50 AM | Comments (41)
Post contains 470 words, total size 3 kb.