David Online

Don’t look to read this news story in the New York Times or see it on the mainstream media stations. Good news from Iraq is bad news for cut and run Democrats and their pals at the New York Times who believe politics and bashing Bush come before national security.

“US military losses in Iraq for September stood at 70 on Sunday, the lowest monthly figure since July last year, according to an AFP tally based on Pentagon figures.

The figure also marks the fourth consecutive drop in the monthly death toll following a high of 121 in May. June saw 93 deaths, July 82 and August 79. The monthly toll in July 2006 was 53.

Two US soldiers were killed on Saturday in separate incidents, pushing the overall toll of American losses since the March 2003 invasion to 3,801.

A surge in US troop numbers saw an extra 28,500 personnel deployed from mid-February, mainly in Baghdad and the neighbouring province of Anbar, although commanders said most were not in combat positions until May.

US commanders say the strategy is starting to work and that levels of violence are dropping, allowing for a possible drawdown of the 160,000 or so troops now deployed.”

“The trend is certainly in the right direction,” US military spokesman Rear Admiral Mark Fox told a press conference in Baghdad.

“The surge unquestionably is what has been the catalyst that has created the opportunity to have more forces operating in more places at the same time and to deny Al-Qaeda and the extremists safe-haven and to take away sanctuaries.”

Democrats who place winning elections before winning wars win neither.

“New Mexico’s Gov. Bill Richardson is running for president, and his position on Iraq can be summed up in 20 words: get out, vamoose, flee, scram, skedaddle, don’t look back, bolt, beat it, go AWOL, quit, escape, run for your lives! He even says he wants to leave equipment behind, the better to bug out as fast as possible.

Some might see this as cowardly, because–well, it is cowardly. But CNN reports Richardson has found one enemy before which he will not shrink:

Richardson said if elected president he would decline the position of Honorary Chairman of the Boy Scouts of America because of that organization’s policy barring participation by openly gay males, he said at a Democratic presidential debate Wednesday night.

When asked if he would accept the position, Richardson said, “No, I wouldn’t, because I think as president I would commit myself, number one, that I will be a leader that prevents discrimination on the basis of race, gender and sexual orientation.”

And after all, what’s the point of protecting America from al Qaeda if you’re not going to protect America from the Boy Scouts?”

Richardson may not like fighting global terrorism but he has no problem taking on the Boy Scouts of America.

Special thanks to James Tranto of Opinion Journal.

Asked about what he could do about “inner-city kids partaking in violence” at the MTV/MySpace Forum yesterday, Democratic candidate John Edwards offered an apocalyptic prediction for young black males:

“We cannot build enough prisons to solve this problem. And the idea that we can keep incarcerating and keep incarcerating — pretty soon we’re not going to have a young African-American male population in America. They’re all going to be in prison or dead. One of the two.”

What a deplorably racist comment from a leading presidential candidate. Does John Edwards believe that African-American fathers and mothers are incapable of imparting moral standards to their children?

According to Justice Deapartment figures, there are 193,000 black men age 18 to 24 in prison. At the same time, there are 532,000 black men enrolled in college.

The Edwards campaign released a statement saying: “John Edwards was making the point that this president refuses to accept: The odds of young African-American males either dying or being incarcerated is terribly high. Studies show that one in three black men can expect to go to jail in their lifetimes. Unlike George Bush, who just wants to stick his head in the sand, as president, John Edwards will address the issue head-on so that all Americans — whether African-American or not — can live a better life and the American dream.”

Granted there is highly disproportionate number of young blacks in prison, but don’t be stupid about it and don’t release generic campaign statements that could apply to anything from beautiful hair salon secrets to young black male incarceration to a chicken in every pot. “As president, John Edwards will address the issue head-on so that all Americans…can live a better life and the American dream.” Duh…

A relaxed and confident Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, seeking to tighten her grip on her sizeable share of the prospective black vote, spoke on a range of issues before a receptive audience Friday at the annual legislative conference of the Congressional Black Caucus.

“I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time, so that when that young person turns 18 if they have finished high school they will be able to access it to go to college or maybe they will be able to make that down payment on their first home,” she said.

Maybe when the little tykes graduate from the third grade, we can give them $10,000! I wonder if Hillary would consider making this retro-active as I could use an extra five grand about now.

Aside from the sheer stupidity of this idea, I am even more incensed by her insult to the intelligence of the average American. And bringing forth this idea before the Congressional Black Caucus is even more offensive. How about stay in school, get a job, work hard, don’t have children before you’re married, and then buy your own house. Too hard, I guess.

At last week’s Democratic presidential debate in New Hampshire, moderator Tim Russert asked John Edwards, Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton whether they’d be comfortable having the story — called “King & King” — read to their children in school. “King & King” is a fairy tale about a prince whose mother pressures him to find a princess but who ends up falling in love with and marrying the brother of one of the with the prospective brides.

Edwards gave the first and most definitive answer — a resounding and instant “yes, absolutely” — although he added that it “might be a little tough” for second-graders.

“I don’t want to make that decision on behalf of my children,” he said. “I want my children to be able to make that decision on behalf of themselves, and I want them to be exposed to all the information, even in — did you say second grade? Second grade might be a little tough, but even in second grade to be exposed to all those possibilities, because I don’t want to impose my view. Nobody made me God.”

Apparently nobody made John Edwards a parent either. He doesn’t want his children to be influenced by his personal views. No, he wants his 7 and 9 year olds to make their own decisions. Unless Edwards’ two kids are different from everybody’s else’s kids, they can’t even decide whether they like strawberry ice cream better than chocolate. And yet John Edwards wants them to decide their views on homosexual relationships on their own…with input from their second grade teacher, of course.

Obama agreed with Edwards and revealed that his wife has already spoken to his 6- and 9-year-old daughters about same-sex marriage.

Clinton said she respects the viewpoints of Obama and Edwards, but she sidestepped the question of whether she’d be comfortable having a storybook like “King & King” read to her own child at that age.

The degree to which ultra-liberal Democrats like Edwards and Obama have become so out of step with the average American is remarkable only in their blindness to see it.

Just before Democratic rival Hillary Clinton rolled out her massive universal health care program, “Hillary Care version Two”,  former ambulance chaser John Edwards was making another outrageous claim; as president he would cut off health care coverage for himself, Congress, and every other government official until his health care plan was passed into law.

Speaking before the Laborers Leadership Convention last Monday, Edwards said,

“To show Congress just how serious I am, on the first day of my administration, I will submit legislation that ends health care coverage for the president, all members of Congress, and all political appointees in both branches of government on July 20, 2009 – unless we have passed universal health care reform.”  

One of Edwards’ handlers needs to set the Breck Girl down and explain that even if by some weird quirk of fate he was elected president, he does not have the constitutional authority to cancel the health insurance for Congress, political appointees - or anyone else for that matter.

“Talk about déjà vu.  Pressed by questions about a scandal tarred fundraiser, a candidate named Clinton decides to return hundreds of thousands of dollars. The politician’s operation promises to conduct criminal background checks on big fundraisers in the future. And it leaks its decisions at night, after a busy day, in hopes of burying the news and minimizing the damage.”

That particular Clinton was of course the former president, Bill Clinton, and the the tainted money came from such “honorable” folks like John Huang, Charlie Trie, and Johnny Chung.

Now comes Hillary Clinton, who last week  returned over $860,000 in campaign contributions from Chinese con man Norman Hsu. After learning of a Los Angeles Times report that the FBI was investigating Hsu, who has been a fugitive from justice for the past 15 years, Clinton personally ordered her campaign to return all the money he had raised.

Hillary now leads her fellow Democratic candidates in giving back more campaign contributions than the total campaign contributions raised by Kucinich, Gravel, Dodd, and Richardson combined.

“Few American political families in modern times have proved as adept at raising money – or as practiced in the art of giving it back if it comes with too much baggage.” Or maybe it’s just that the Chinese Cash Cow doesn’t fall far from one Clinton to the other.

Pop singer Barry Manilow. refusing to make a guest appearance on the The View, said, “I strongly disagree with [Elizabeth Hasselbeck's conservative] views. I think she’s dangerous and offensive. I will not be on the same stage as her.“ Whether Mr. Manilow finds those conservative fans who attend his concerts and buy his albums also dangerous and offensive, he did not say.   

With the exception of the intelligent and beautiful Elizabeth Hasselbeck, The View could pass for the Democratic National Committee. Inherent in Manilow’s refusal to face Hasselbeck is the same problem so many other liberals and Democrats are afflicted with – the inability to articulate a cognent and coherent argument against a conservative viewpoint. Manilow may also have felt the odds of 5 liberals against 1 conservative to be an unfair disadvantage.

Barry Manilow is not alone in his fear of facing a conservative’s questioning. Every single leading Democratic presidential candidate backed out of a Fox hosted debate in Utah; fearful of what moderator Britt Hume might ask and question.

Out on the campaign trail, Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Hillary Clinton has promised to save Social Security. There’s a novel idea for you! Has there ever been a Democrat running for president who hasn’t promised to “fix” Social Security?

What makes Hillary’s plan truly novel though is she promises not to cut benefits, raise the retirement age, or to privatize Social Security. Rejecting all three of those solutions, the only course left is a massive tax hike – the standard Democratic solution to every problem.

If you believe today you only pay 7.65% in Social Security and Medicare taxes combined and your employer matches your contribution, consequently, a Hillary tax increase wouldn’t be too bad, think again. Your employer doesn’t pay anything towards your Social Security taxes. Having your employer deduct half of your Social Security taxes before you even see your paycheck is a government sleight of hand to hide how much we really pay. Uncle Sam figures if workers really knew how much Social Security cost them, they’d be outraged.

Don’t believe you alone pay the whole 15.3% Social Security tax and Medicare? Then explain why the Social Security and Medicare tax on the self-employed is 15.3%.