... after he reversed his position on Iraq policy, that is.  Could this be Election '08's version of 'I reversed my position on Iraq before I was for reversing that position on Iraq'?

In what is turning out to be an almost daily event, Barack Obama announced today that he may have an upcoming policy revision on another major national issue.

Early on Thursday, Obama made statements that left the door open for major alterations in his plans for Iraq in the unfortunate event he happens to become president.

This from Politico.com based on statements from earlier in the day:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Thursday backed off his firm promise to withdraw combat forces from Iraq immediately and instead said he could “refine” his plan after his trip to Baghdad later this month.

Earlier, a top Obama adviser had said that the senator is not “wedded” to a specific timeline.

Obama told reporters in Fargo, N.D., that he is “going to do a thorough assessment."

"When I go to Iraq and I have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies," he said, according to CBS News. “I have been consistent, throughout this process, that I believe the war in Iraq was a mistake.”

Obama later said at a second news conference he still intends to stick to the timeline.

It was in that 'second news conference' of the day that Obama had to try to wiggle out of the pickle he was creating for himself with his inconsistencies.  One of the more telling moments of the later news conference came in this exchange between the Democratic nominee and reporters:

Obama: ... I would be a poor Commander-in-Chief if I did not take facts on the ground into account. Alright?

Reporter: You just said that when you use the phrase "refine policy" that it did not refer to the 16-month timetable. Does that mean you can tell us today that you will not change the 16-month timetable?

Obama: (Laughs, Scratches his head, thinks a few seconds) - Here's what I will tell you. I will bring our troops out at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades per month. And at that pace, we will have our combat troops out in 16 months.

So, how does Obama and his supporters reconcile a 16-month timetable being a "done deal" with his self-admission that he is working blind, having no idea of what is currently going on in Iraq until he is able to meet the military leadership over there on the ground - once he actually gets around to making the trip?

By sticking to his latest news conference position of saying "we will have our combat troops out in 16 months", is he not admitting to being a potential "poor Commander-in-Chief" from his words just two sentences previously stated, admonishing any decision-making before taking "facts on the ground into account"?

As more and more time passes and Obama has more and more position changes, I'm almost feeling sorry for his supporters having to figure out what the talking-point is for the current hour.  Karl Rove puts it well when he simply says that Obama is a candidate that is "unanchored and untethered".  Some "leadership", huh?

Given that we're about to celebrate our Country's birthday, it's fitting to note that a great number of Democrats, in fact half of Obama's supporters, don't support the Constitution "as-is". 

So often conservatives get laughed at when we suggest that Democrats/liberals want to change the Constitution.  Well, now Rasmussen has polling evidence to back up that belief.

Democrats favor minor revisions to the Constitution far more than Republican voters—51% of Barack Obama’s party say that either minor (41%) or major (10%) changes are needed. Just 23% of Republicans see the need for even minor changes. Overall, 76% of Republicans say the document is fine as is. Forty-seven percent (47%) of Democrats agree.

So when we talk about liberal activist judges, re-writing the Constitution from the bench - and the Democrats who support them - now you know where we're coming from.  In other words, liberal judicial activism is more likely to result in changes to how the Constitution is applied by virtue of the fact that most liberals/Democrats support such changes to begin with.

Well, it seems now that Obama's doing a little backpedaling on the gay marriage thing.  After having tripped up the other day by trying to woo evangelicals with talk about faith-based programs at the same time it came out that he sent a letter opposing the marriage amendment in California, his spokesperson is in full spin-mode.  From the NY Times:  

Mr. Obama made his position public in a letter he sent last week to the Alice B. Toklas L.G.B.T. Democratic Club, a San Francisco gay rights group.

“I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states,” wrote Mr. Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

Well, that's pretty clear.  We can disagree, but at least we know where he stands, right?  Uh-huh.  Read on.

But his campaign said that Mr. Obama’s opposition to the initiative, which will appear on the state’s November ballot, did not signal a change in position. He remains opposed to same-sex marriage, but supports civil unions and domestic partnerships.

Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for the campaign, said that Mr. Obama took the stance because “as we have seen in some states, enshrining a definition of marriage into the constitution can allow states to roll back the civil rights and benefits that are provided in domestic partnerships and civil unions.”

So he's opposed to same-sex marriage, but opposes making keeping it against the law.  Opposing a state being able to keep it's current definition of marriage from being redefined by a one vote court majority.

Perhaps then Obama, or his spokesman, would be so kind as to provide some proposed text of a traditional marriage law that wouldn't "roll back civil rights", whatever that means.

The truth is that he wants to play that cagey liberal game of being for something without having to admit your for it.  Meaning he'll say he's "for" gay civil unions/domestic partnerships which have all the same rights and benefits of marriage...so long as we don't call it a "marriage" yet and upset some of those "bitter" middle class voters who's votes he'll need in a few swing states in the American heartland. 

He's hoping that they don't catch on before Election Day.

Just when you thought the Left-leaning block of the U.S. Supreme Court could not get any more flawed in their decision-making process... The New York Times is reporting that part of their major argument in their majority opinion against the Louisiana death sentence was based on a factual error:

When the Supreme Court ruled last week that the death penalty for raping a child was unconstitutional, the majority noted that a child rapist could face the ultimate penalty in only six states — not in any of the 30 other states that have the death penalty, and not under the jurisdiction of the federal government either.

This inventory of jurisdictions was a central part of the court’s analysis, the foundation for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s conclusion in his majority opinion that capital punishment for child rape was contrary to the “evolving standards of decency” by which the court judges how the death penalty is applied.

It turns out that Justice Kennedy’s confident assertion about the absence of federal law was wrong.

A military law blog pointed out over the weekend that Congress, in fact, revised the sex crimes section of the Uniform Code of Military Justice in 2006 to add child rape to the military death penalty. The revisions were in the National Defense Authorization Act that year. President Bush signed that bill into law and then, last September, carried the changes forward by issuing Executive Order 13447, which put the provisions into the 2008 edition of the Manual for Courts-Martial.

It's hard enough when you try to engage in the political battle against the Left on an even playing field.  But, now we see that those on the left, even as high as our Supreme Court justices, don't mind using erroneous data to further their agenda. 

As far as this decision's outcome... As they say, "Garbage in, Garbage out."

This is just too good to be true.  From Dave Brody:

Barack Obama may be talking up his Christian faith like he's doing today in Ohio and trying his best to appeal to Evangelicals with a “new kind of politics”, but he’s got a problem. Many of his positions are the same liberal positions that have turned off Evangelicals for years.

Obama delivered another speech about faith Tuesday. He’s done a few of these concerning his faith and how it shapes his public policy. But Sunday his campaign and the Democratic Party were handing out pro-gay rights flyers at the Pride Festival in St. Louis. How is that going to play in the heartland?

I'll tell you how, "not good".  Check these out:

Note how they managed to work the rainbow flag into the Obama logo in place of the American flag.

But more important, check out the details.  He's for overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, overruling the military on allowing open homosexuals by repealing "don't ask, don't tell", wants federal funding for drug needle exchanges, oposes constitutional amendments that define marriage as "one man and one woman", (which have passed in 30 states with an average 70% of the vote), and wants anti-discrimination laws that not only cover "sexual preference" but "gender identity".

Not enough for you?  Take a look at the "Pride" section of Obama's website.  "Change we can believe in" allright.

And keep in mind that overturning the Defense of Marriage Act means each state could then be forced to recognize a gay marriage performed in another state, in effect allowing one state to redefine marriage for the entire country. 

And now his wife's out there saying basically the same thing:

Speaking to the Democratic National Committee's Gay and Lesbian Leadership Committee last Thursday in New York City, Michelle Obama said her husband supports "a world where federal laws don't discriminate against same-sex relationships, including equal treatment for any relationship recognized under state law."

"That is why he supports robust civil unions," she said. "That is why he has said the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide for themselves how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples -- whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union or a civil marriage."

Of course he's NOT in favor of them deciding whether or not they want to define marriage as it's been defined since before the birth of the country...  And pay no mind that doing what she suggests puts people of faith, to say nothing of religious institutions at risk of lawsuits for continuing to run their lives and businesses in accordance with their faith.

This kind of stuff doesn't play in the heartland.  He can make all the moves he wants towards evangelical voters but, in the end, they vote on the basis of issues which are rooted in their faith.  And the list outlined above - plus his pro-abortion stance - will trump anything else he can say or do.

That's what the latest Rasmussen poll would seem to indicate anyway.  It shows that public approval of the Court has gone up to 35% from 26% just last week.  The most high profile ruling in the meantime?  The first Second Amendment precedent in over 70 years...which just so happened to find an individual right to gun ownership.

Seems as though some Americans were actually paying attention.

Earlier today we saw a notable sign that North Korea is falling in line regarding their nuclear program, with the demolition of a 60-foot tall nuclear reactor cooling tower at the Yongbyon complex.  The achievements of the six-party talks are becoming more and more apparent by the day.

After this highly-visable action by North Korea, President Bush moved quickly to lift many of the trade sanctions against the country.  President Bush also will remove North Korea from the list of nations that sponsor terror.

It's hard to believe that we are less than seven years removed from President Bush's 2002 State of the Union address, where he lumped the nations of North Korea, Iran, and Iraq into the 'Axis of Evil'.  In the present situation - with North Korea's removal now from the state sponsors of terrorism list - Iran now stands alone from that former 'axis' today!

Iran was once a nation that was comfortably buffered on both the east and the west by two countries that were also highly antagonistic towards the U.S. - Afghanistan and Iraq.  But, due to the Bush Doctrine, Iran now finds itself a country that is geographically and ideologically isolated.  To put it in simple terms, it's clear where we can find the present location of the bull's eye.

We, as Americans, should all celebrate our foreign policy success.  The sad fact is that, in this day of partisanship and the politics of personal hate from the left, that will not happen. 

But, to those who can recognize what has taken place on the foreign policy stage during Bush's time as President, it's obvious that our President has been playing some great 'chess' - And Iran would do well to realize, as well, it is now 'checkmate'.

 Hooray for the Supreme Court!

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Americans can keep guns at home for self-defense, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday in the justices' first-ever pronouncement on the meaning of gun rights under the Second Amendment.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most federal firearms restrictions intact.

To make it even better, the court majority went so far as to directly affirm a write to own handguns!  My, my.  they must be having little hissy-fits over at Handgun Control, Inc.. 

THIS is the type of thing that makes judicial appointments important folks.  Imagine the mischief the libs would start in our court system if Kennedy had got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning and voted with the liberals instead.  We would have had a 5-4, first time ever precedent on the Second Amendment that basically strikes it from the Constitution.

Scalia wrote the decision, and it caries his trademark common sense.

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.

Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."

But liberals, take heart.  The good Mayor of DC plans to implement a system of handgun registraton.

District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty responded with a plan to require residents of the nation's capital to register their handguns. "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," Fenty said.

"More handgun violence"??  Does this guy actually live in DC?  Is he insane enough to think that this decision means more criminals will have handguns??  Incredible.

***

More: Michelle Malkin - SCOTUS Blog - Red State - Hot Air

Now that the general election campaign is in full swing, we are beginning to see some telling traits come to light, which are defining the Obama political machine.  In just over the last few days we’ve learned of several unique actions that can be chalked up to nothing but ‘Politics as usual’. 

The most shocking has been the revelation illustrating to what lengths the Obama campaign will go, and likely has gone throughout his run, to craft the Obama image.  Politico.com broke the news of two female Muslim supporters of the nominee being barred from sitting behind Obama on Monday at a campaign rally.  The volunteers that prevented the two women from appearing behind Obama’s podium did not want the women who donned their traditional headscarves to appear in any campaign images behind their candidate in photographs or on television.

It’s been pretty clear that the Obama image has been a highly crafted and closely managed one.  But, events such as this coming to light, are very troubling - events which clearly show the lengths they will go to in trading decency and respect for people in exchange for that desired image.  If this is how calculating and dismissive Obama and his camp will go with his supporters to further his political prospects, I’d hate to see how far he would go with those in opposition to his views.

Another notable action by Obama ’08 this week is yesterdays announcement that Senator Obama will be the first modern presidential candidate to refuse general election public financing.   In making the decision, Obama will refuse the $84 million from the federal government.  But, he will in turn not be limited by the program to spending $84 million. 

Obama has built much of his image as being a ‘new kind of candidate’ on the strength of his major statements in support of the public financing system in the election process - (See a retrospective from Politico.com right here highlighting the evolution of Obama’s views on public financing).  Any reasoning he states for his complete 180-degree turn, at this point, rings completely shallow.  This shallowness in his decision is based on two major favorable facets of the race Obama finds himself in – Yes, both reasons given are actually in efforts to further two advantages Obama already has!

The first is in relation to just how much success he has enjoyed with his private fundraising - through April of this year, Obama had raised an incredible $266 million.  With this being his reality at this point, why stick to his guns?  Why place the limits on himself under these advantages, when those restrictions and rules could just be for “the other guy”... You know, "other people".

Another one of his excuses he tries to use is his need to counter the political tactics that are surely to come from the GOP and the John McCain camp in the general election.  It is no secret to anyone, if there has ever been any national candidate who has stressed his desire to keep a race issue-based and has wanted to limit “special-interest” ads (whether he should have any say in that matter, being another issue entirely), that candidate would be Obama’s opponent, Senator John McCain.  Obama could not have faced an opponent, even if he chose one himself, who could dispel his claims for needing to refuse public financing, better than Senator John McCain.

As this general election campaign is starting to shape up in earnest, so are the efforts to reimage and retool the democrat politician by the name of Senator Barack Obama – an empty suit bringing us empty words.

On the Trail:

* McCain Backs Tax Overhaul - CNN 

* Obama Sees Possible Win Without Ohio, Florida - MSNBC

* Obama, McCain Squabble Over Townhall Faceoffs - Reuters

* Obama to Eventually Visit Iraq, Afghanistan Before Election - Yahoo

* McCain, Obama Differ on Approach to Judicial Nominees - Cybercast News

* Obama Discusses Duties of Fatherhood - The Washington Post

News:

* SCOTUS Eases Immigration Rules for Foreigners Overstaying Visas - Yahoo

* Bush Wins British Backing Over Iran Sanctions - Reuters 

* Abstinance Funding Up in the Air... Again - OneNewsNow

* 'Meet the Press' Moderator Tim Russert Remembered - Fox News

Opinion:

* Parker: On Reagan's Berlin Wall speech anniversary, Message for today's GOP - Townhall.com

* Tate: Top 10 Reasons to Blame Democrats for Oil Prices - American Thinker