Texas Conservative

Jon Henke presents a time saving tip for the New York Times ...

Publish the editorials on the corrections page !

---

Thomas Sowell takes on the media idiots ...

During the recent election campaign, it has been a liberal mantra that they "support the troops" while opposing the war in Iraq. Just what does supporting the troops mean -- other than just a throwaway line to escape the political consequences of a long history of being anti-military?

It certainly does not mean making the slightest effort to understand the pressures and dangers of combat, so as to avoid the obscenity of sitting in peace and comfort while second-guessing at leisure some life-and-death decisions that had to be made in a split second by men 10,000 miles away.

The latest example is the now widely-publicized incident in which an American Marine in Iraq shot and killed a wounded terrorist in Fallujah. Chris Matthews on Hardball spoke of "what may be the illegal killing of a wounded, unarmed insurgent" -- the politically correct media term for a terrorist -- and asked: "Is there ever a justification for shooting an unarmed enemy?"

The unreality of this question is breath-taking, both logically and historically. How do you know that someone is unarmed, when finding out can cost you your life? A hand grenade is easily concealed and can kill you just as dead as if you were shot by a machine gun or hit by a nuclear missile.

....Why any such terrorists should be captured alive in the first place is a real question. Maybe they have information that could be useful. But every terrorist our troops try to capture alive increases the risk of death for American combat troops.

Their information better be damned important for that.

It is more than enough to ask a man to put his life on the line for his country, without needlessly increasing those risks by trying to be nobler than thou or playing to the international gallery. The very fact that this Marine in Fallujah has been taken out of combat and is under investigation can only have an inhibiting effect on other troops.

The inhibitions under which American troops have already had to fight have needlessly jeopardized their safety while we tiptoe around the delicate sensibilities of the media, European critics and "the Arab street."

The Times of London refers to a Marine "killing an unarmed man in cold blood." If that was his purpose he could have opened fire when he entered the room, instead of waiting until he saw an Iraqi terrorist faking being dead -- for what purpose the Marine had no way of knowing.

It seems astonishing that the media highbrows seem to place more value on the life of a terrorist, bent on killing as many "infidels" as possible, over that of an American soldier.

Read the whole thing.

---

Watch as the mainstream media circus begins over the shooting of a terrorist in Fallujah by a US marine.



(Courtesy of Cox and Forkum)

---

Well it's been two weeks to the day since the election, and I have almost recovered from my post election blogging burnout.

Sorry for the dearth of posts ... I just could not find anything I wanted to say for a while.

In the meantime, my wife and I took a relaxing trip to the west coast to visit relatives, and to attend my neice's two year birthday party.

The weather was very agreeable for Santa Cruz this time of year, and the trip was refreshing.

For your viewing pleasure, I present ... sea otters just off of the beach at Capitola !



Expect light blogging for a while, as I get my wind back, and as always, thanks for stopping by !

---

(Courtesy of Cox and Forkum)

---

Choose wisely America ...

(Image courtesy of Cox and Forkum)

---

Over at the American Digest, a Democrat voting Republican for the first time posts a photo-essay listing 50 reason to vote for Bush.

Go check out this very moving piece ...

---

I received by e-mail a photo of the elusive "undecided" voter.

This voter was actually photographed in the act of voting !

---

(Courtesy of Neal Boortz)

---

A reader of No Left Turns writes that Kerry would be much more likely to need to reinstate the draft than would Bush ...

Hasn’t anyone considered that Kerry would need a draft a lot more than Bush? Bush is very popular among current military personnel (he stands to get 75% to 80% of the military vote), and the various branches are currently meeting recruitment goals. In contrast, Kerry is reviled by about 95% of those who served directly with him because he pissed all over them with false accusations of atrocities merely to promote his own political ambitions. Who the hell would volunteer to serve under such a commander in chief?

In fact, this is very much in line with what I learned today from talking with a student who has friends in the armed forces. It is no secret that the men and women of the military find Kerry despicable, and apparently there are many who say that if he is elected they will not reenlist. Assuming he would be unable to make up for these losses with French and German soldiers, it is at least as reasonable to suppose that Kerry would reinstate the draft as it is to suggest that the president might.

---

(Courtesy of Cox and Forkum)

---

Victor Davis Hanson reminds us of the historical perspective on the current electoral race ...

Had Lincoln lost the 1864 vote, a victorious General McClellan would have settled for an American continent divided, with slavery intact. Without Woodrow Wilson's reelection in 1916 — opposed by the isolationists — Western Europe would have lost millions only to be trampled by Prussian militarism. Franklin Roosevelt's interventionism saved liberal democracy. And without the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan and his unpopular agenda for remaking the military, the Soviet Union might still be subsidizing global murder.

This election marks a similar crossroads in our history. We are presented with two radically different candidates with profound disagreements about how to conduct a historic worldwide war. We should remember that all our victorious past presidents were, at the moments of their crises, deeply unpopular precisely because they chose the difficult, long-term sacrifice for victory over the expedient and convenient pleas for accommodation (if not outright capitulation). We are faced with just such an option today: a choice between a president whose call for patience and sacrifice promises victory, and a pessimist stirring the people with the assurances that we should not have fought, and now cannot win, the present war in Iraq.

(Emphasis added)

Are you still undecided ... ??

(Hat Tip to Bunker Mulligan)

---