Ideology Loses

Charles Krauthammer - Swindle of the year

Good Krauthammer, worth the short read. My view of the basics of what is happening here:

1. The left doesn't REALLY see tax cuts as "stimulus" -- they only see federally controlled SPENDING as "stimulus", it is essentially a code word for paying off their cronies. Any effect on the economy of what they have called stimulus is just a side effect -- their disdain over tax cuts pretty much proves it.

2. The left has lost their way so badly that they ACTUALLY believe that Tax Cuts = Spending. At one time I think they realized it was just a stupid marketing ploy to make tax cuts sound less desirable, but now they have fallen in to believe their own lies and can't tell the difference.

3. At the end of the day, the ONLY thing Democrats care about is increased federal power and "punishment of their enemies" -- which they see as "Rich people that refuse to vote Democrat" in particular, and Republicans and "the dummy electorate" in general. Their hatred is consuming, because as Charles points out, even when their leader has obtained something that is politically (to help them in 2012) and economically (in their world view) wonderful beyond their wildest dreams, they just can't go for it because it doesn't attack the rich, and they see it as a "deal with their sworn enemy -- which ought to pretty much give the lie to what Democrats ACTUALLY think of "bi-partisanship".

Most of politics is simple theater, but has the left now gone so far that even their minions in the media can't understand what BO is doing?

Hence that news-conference attack on what the administration calls the "professional left" for its combination of sanctimony and myopia. It was Obama's Sister Souljah moment. It had a prickly, irritated sincerity - their ideological stupidity and inability to see the "long game" really do get under Obama's skin - but a decidedly calculated quality, too. Where, after all, does the left go? Stay home on Election Day 2012? Vote Republican?

Unless one is blind with rage against people that make over $250K, it is hard to imagine how BO's deal wasn't a huge victory politically and economically for Democrats, BUT, they don't see it. From a Republican view, the issue really is HOW different is avoiding a tax increase during a recession from government deficit spending? My view is VERY different, but the biggest problem is the "two years" -- that is added uncertainty, which is exactly the same problem as increasing troops in Afghanistan and then promising to pull them out in "two years" (now this coming summer). Humans react BOTH to what is and what will be -- in fact, "future sense" is a gigantic part of what makes us human.

What we need to do is to FIX SPENDING -- keeping a couple of bottles of revenue booze away from the Federal spendaholic is better in my mind than letting him get them, so he develops a thirst for even more, but "the deal" did absolutely nothing to deal with what we need to deal with ... SPENDING!!!

Reagan's War

"The Epic Story of His Forty-Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism", by Peter Schweizer.

One needs to have a strong interest in history, Reagan, the Cold War, or all of the above to really enjoy this book--fortunately, I do.

We live in a very unique part of history because of the fall of the Soviet Union and the release of it's client states has allowed those that are interested in truth vs ideology to get access to to the files of the once evil empire and to find out the facts behind the myth that the media and the Democrats often spew about the fall of communism. The simple version of that myth is: "Everyone knew that communism was failing, Reagan probably slowed the final demise by his bellicose rhetoric and huge arms buildup".

Like most of what you hear from the MSM or their friends the Democrats, it is verifiably false, and this book points to a good deal of that verification.

The book is chocked full of quotes from the left on the validity of the communist approach, constant derision of the "simple mindedness" of Reagan's concept that we could "win the Cold War", along with Reagan's quotes plus inside documentation from the USSR of how they played those attempting "detente" for suckers and used the opening to blow open the arms race in their favor, build huge underground facilites so their elite could survive a nuclear conflagration and the story of how they used the Carter years in particular to advance in Nicaragua, Grenada and a number of African countries before they moved into Afghanistan, and Carter, finally, got at least slightly wise. Again, all backed up with quotes from the archives of the USSR, Poland, East Germany and others.

In case anyone wants to claim that "they were trying to help their people, they just had bad luck -- or were hampered by the west, or excuse # 10,000 ---Walter Ulbricht, head of East Germany in the 1960's secretly wrote to Khrushchev in the early '60s:

"The experience of the last years have proven that it is not possible for a socialist country, such as the GDR to cary out peaceful competition with an imperialist country such as West Germany with open borders". 

One might think that Obama, Pelosi and others would find that quote worth a read! The point in this book however is that Reagan had figured the same thing out and was saying it from podiums around the nation -- and being called "old fashioned and simple minded" for doing so, while the elite behind the Iron Curtain KNEW that they were damaging their people by their system, but flat out didn't care!

There are a series of quotes relative to Reagan's "evil empire speech", for example, Anthony Lewis of the NYTimes said it was "simplistic and sectarian", but it is now documented that the folks in the gulag and in Solidarity and other similar group eventually found out about it and found it to be a gigantic source of strength -- an American president was FINALLY on their side!

One of the most effective weapons he enabled was a huge improvement in the Voice of America in technology, programming and broadcast power. As Reagan said: "The truth is mankind's best hope for a better world, that's why in times like these, few assets are more important than The Voice of America and Radio Liberty".  The Carter administration had allowed VoA to be used on occasion to broadcast SOVIET messages as an example of "good will". Imagine yourself trapped behind the Iron Curtain and hearing the radio station financed by the only reasonable adversary to your captors allowing YOUR CAPTORS to broadcast their propaganda -- as if you don't already hear enough of that!

Here is Andropov from the archives:

"The 1970's were the years of further growth of power and influence in the socialist commonwealth. We were able to achieve the military pairity with the West. This gave us an opportunity to deal with them on an equal basis. Our dynamic policy of detente led to substantial positive shifts in international relations."

Our enemy loved detente! But they HATED Reagan -- almost as much as the American media and the Democrats! In 1980, Carter himself sent Armand Hammer to the Soviet Embassy to offer assistance to the USSR if they could help his election prospects through the release of political prisoners or ams concessions. They considered the offer, but had hopes that Reagan would turn out to be like Nixon -- willing to bluster to gain support with the hawks, but anxious to find agreement to gain votes for that second term. It was a miscalculation that thankfully turned out to be fatal.

Those of us of my age had the wonderful privilege of living through a moment in history that our teachers, media elite and government had assured us would never happen. In fact, we had been raised to believe that socialism and communism were certainly very valid approaches to government, and it was highly questionable if Democracy and Capitalism were actually superior! I'll close with the words of Reagan, given to the Soviet elite students in Moscow on his final visit there:

"Even as we explore the the most advanced reaches of science, we are returning to age-old wisdom of our culture, a wisdom contained in the Book of Genesis in the Bible. In the beginning was the spirit, and it wa from this spirit that the material abundance of creation issued forth. But progress is not foreordained. The key is freedom--freedom of thought, freedom of information, freedom of communication". 

There will never be another Reagan, but Lord, PLEASE send us the best available SOON!

Palin's reckless views on obesity - CNN.com

Palin's reckless views on obesity - CNN.com

Why we don't all get along.

• The clearest meaning of this column is that Martin has a severe case of Palin Derangement Syndrome -- an irrational fear and loathing of all things Palin.
• If you read what Sarah said, and then read what Martin said, one wonders how one can really be as much in hatred of someone and still hold a position at a news outlet that some would like to recognize as something other that just an arm of the Democrat party. Apparently, CNN doesn't care.
•  Sarah happens to feel that Michelle and Barack Obama tend to see every problem as having a government solution. She said NOTHING relative to the severity of the obesity problem.
• It is MARTIN that is of the view that "Severe = need for massive government involvement". He certainly has a right to that view, but it absolutely isn't what America has traditionally been about, nor is there any proof whatsoever that every time the government dives into a problem it has vastly better results than other means.

In short, this column is nothing more than an excuse for simple name-calling:

• "It's clear that we can't go 24 hours without Sarah Palin saying something so stupid that it defies logic" (having a different view than Martin is "stupid")
• "the Kim Kardashian of politics"
• "Palin took dead aim" ( a warlike metaphor used to make Palin seem "warlike" ... she didn't say it, he did)"
• "Maybe someone should kick Sarah Palin" (man the Democrats get incensed if ANYTHING like this is said about their folks --- incitement to violence and all that)
• "latest broadside by Palin shows how reckless and ridiculous she is."
• "Any Republican with common sense should see that Sarah Palin poses an immediate threat to the future of this country. She proves that every time she opens her mouth."

I love the last one ... anyone that doesn't buy into the thinking that government is the answer to EVERYTHING, including what we weigh is "an immediate threat to the future of this country".

This is CNN -- not a blogger, not HuffPo. The "Tea Party" is "shrill"? Oh, give me a break!

The Roots of Obama's Rage

Solid effort by Dinesh D'souza, a naturalized American of Indian (as in Indian)  decent who I find to have a unique perspective on the value of America as an exceptional nation.

The thesis of the book is quite simple; By the proper reading of Obama's "Dreams FROM my Father", plus some extra research, it is clear that the core motivation of Obama is that of an anti-colonialist, the "colonialist"  role somewhat nonsensically assigned to America as a result of her ties to Europe, super power status, and such events as the "taking" of the Southwest from Mexico, the Philippines, Hawaii, and other activities seen as having "taken over the colonial mantle".

The following from BO's "Dreams":

When my tears were finally spent, I felt a calmness wash over me. I felt the circle finally close. I realized who I was, what I cared about, was no more just a matter of intellect or obligation, no longer a construct of words. I saw that my life in America -- the black life, the white life, the sense of abandonment I'd felt as a boy, the frustration and hope I'd witnessed in Chicago--all of this was connected with this small plot of earth an ocean away, connected by more than the accident of a name or the color of my skin. The pain that I felt was my fathers pain.

This quote follows rather long segment where BO talks of his father -- the "imaginary father", the "great man" that abandoned BO at age two ad visited him for a week when BO was 12. The real father went back to Africa, had a number of wives, sired a number of children, took care of none, drank heavily, crashed his car and lost his legs in a major drunken accident. Continued to drink and eventually died in another drunken crash. But both the imaginary and real father were staunchly "anti-colonial" -- as is BO in the books thesis.

Obama is a man on a mission, and he is obsessed with executing that mission. He is like the lead character in a movie who has come home to find his whole family wiped out. The incident brings forth an outpouring of grief and rage, but in time the emotions settle, leaving behind a more controlled anger combined with steely resolve. From that point, the man's course is set; the rest of his life is dedicated to a campaign of revenge. In Obama's case the villans are dead, sot he rage takes a different form and settles on a different target. Rather than focus on the specific people who wronged his family, Obama is on a systematic campaign against the colonial system that destroyed his fathers dreams. With a kind of suppressed fury, he is committed to keep going until he has brought that system down. And according to his father's anti colonial ideology, which Obama has internalized for himself, that system is the military and economic power of the United States of America.

Does Dinesh "prove" the thesis? No, of course not -- the inner motivations of characters are only known in novels, in the the real world, typically only even marginally to the person themselves.

I am struck however how often the MSM would engage in negative armchair psychology over Bush or Reagan though. W of course being motivated to attack Iraq because "Saddam tried to kill his father" ... or motivated to attack because "HW not finishing the job" in '91 cost the election. Or he was motivated to be president in order to "measure up" after a being a long term frat-boy disappointment to the family. Reagan was often just "nuts" ... "acting on the basis of some script of movie, motivated by some fantasy that never was or would be", "or just a puppet, driven by his handlers".

In short, the MSM often finds the motivations of the right to be "dark ... disturbing ... difficult to understand ... questionable". All the while, the motivations of Democrats are so OBVIOUS, they really don't need coverage at all -- doing "intelligent things for good", "peace", "children" ... "caring". The motivations of the left are amazingly clear to the left -- if only because the assumed motivations are simply projections of the goodness that the folks on the left believe they see in themselves.

The book is an easy, quick and very scary read. If you don't want to read "Dreams from My Father", which is a not very well written, hard to maintain interest, but very surprising and maybe even more scary if you can get through it book, this is an excellent alternative. As I have said before, as long as this guy is in the WH we are in GRAVE danger!

Of course, reading my excellent review of "Dreams", followed by "Rage", would also be a fine approach ;-)

End of World? 2012 CME?

I, Cringely » Blog Archive » Any Port in a Storm - Cringely on technology

We know the Mayan calendar ends in 2012, maybe this is the reason! ;-)

Seriously, a large Coronal Mass Ejection ala the 1859 edition talked about here would probably put the world essentially without power and communication for MANY months! That might not be "the end", but it would certainly wake a lot of folks up to technology dependence ... and maybe wake up just a small shred of the idea that "Man is not REALLY the Measure!"

CME’s come in various sizes and velocities. CME’s aren’t intrinsically aimed at the Earth and could just as easily dissipate into empty space. Many CME’s don’t even make it as far as the Earth. But if conditions are right, CME’s can do a lot of damage. A CME hit Quebec in 1989 causing a nine-hour blackout and $4.3 billion in damages to the Canadian power grid. The mother of all CME’s in 1859 took down every telegraph in the world, causing arcing, fires, and melted wires in the equipment. Imagine what something like that would do to your PC or cellphone!

Bush Derangement Forever

RealClearPolitics - WikiLeaks Shows Bush in Fantasy World

Since the Saudi leader thinks that "the Iraq war gave Iraq to Iran on a silver platter...", it shows Bush lives in a fantasy world? When exactly WAS Iraq delivered to Iran? In the future? Who is in a fantasy world? Cohen, Abdullah, myself, and the Man in the Moon can ALL have our opinions about the future -- until it gets here, all those opinions are precisely FANTASY.

Bush thinks the world is better off without Saddam -- and Cohen does not, ergo, Bush is "Peter Pan". I wonder if Cohen would feel the same way if he was an Iraqi today? I hear precious little pining away for the plastic shredders from that quarter at this point. Come to think of it, I wonder what the odds of "Cohen" surviving in ANY Muslim nation would be? Note though, it is BUSH who is "out of touch".

This is the world George Bush left us. It exists everywhere but in his book, where facts are either omitted or rearranged so that the war in Iraq seems the product of pure reason.

But wait, these Wikileaks date from 2004, and low and behold, Arabs are telling us to attack Iran! Does that mean that if we had Wikileaks from '01-'03 there would be no calls from the region to attack Saddam? Maybe so, but it seems unlikely given that as long as Slick Willie was in power there were PLENTY of calls for attacks of all sorts on Saddam, from leading Democrats and the MSM -- especially when some new "Presidential Emission" was being reported.

Bush left us a world with leaders that are very nearly all screwed up, disingenuous, venal, feckless, arrogant, two-faced, cowardly and borderline insane? Uh, no ... he found it that way AND he left it that way. So it has been and ever will be.

What is scary is that guys like Richard Cohen STILL don't seem to understand that, but they are CERTAIN that it is others whose view of the world is "fantasy".

Proper Leaking

The Fragile Community - NYTimes.com

It is interesting to see all the folks now concerned about the ability to maintain secrecy. Apparently, with BO in the WH, the threshold for what ought be kept secret is suddenly quite high. The Pentagon Papers, the Watergate Tapes, Clarence Thomas's movie rental list, the countries that were assisting the US in dealing with terrorist prisoners, the photos from Abu Ghraib, secret wiretapping of calls from US to known terrorist cell numbers in other countries, Jack Ryan's sealed divorce records (he was running against BO for Senate) ... the list is pretty much endless, apparently our "community" wasn't "fragile" then.

Seems pretty much like leaking ought to simply be gated on the political party of the president -- Republican, leak everything! National secrets, information that can instantly cause soldiers or others to lose their lives -- no limit as long as there is any chance of making life harder for whatever Republican cad managed to steal the WH.

Democrat President? Each and every leak ought to be reviewed for who is being injured -- "big business"? Hammer them. A republican or possibly even a less than perfectly liberal Democrat? (say Lieberman), go ahead and make their life difficult! If there is any chance however that a leak might damage America's stature and thus make life difficult for a Democrat president however, REMEMBER "our community is fragile".

I suppose there is some level of truth here -- when you have a president as incompetent as BO, there really isn't any room for added difficulty, so our community is indeed very fragile.

My opinion? BO sat in the pew at Jeremiah Wright's "God da*n America" Church for 20 years ... he probably gave the guy the information! We put the weasel in CHARGE of the hen house and now we are surprised to see chickens dying???

Exceptional Epistemic Closure

The "American Exceptionalism" Smear And Epistemic Closure | The New Republic

Beware of liberals bearing big words -- translation; "having a closed mind" (or at least a closed information flow). It is an area where they know of what they speak!

So, what is the problem? Well, the now infamous BO statement on "American Exceptionalism" (or the lack thereof) is supposedly "out of context". Tsk, Tsk. Naturally Dan Quayle misspelling "potato", Bush saying "misunderestimated" or "heck of a job Brownie", or even "British intelligence says ..." ... or "Bring Em On" ... or whatever has NEVER been "taken out of context" or repeated to death. Liberals, and the MSM certainly would NEVER do that!

We are supposed to be able to read the rest of the paragraph and decide that "anyone with an open mind" (as assured by Mr Chait) would see that BO really is "very nearly" arguing FOR American Exceptionalism -- he just started with a misdirection to his point for some odd reason. To NOT see that, and to continue to repeat his own words "out of context" is either "closed minded" or "dishonest". Take your pick.

So what IS this "clear Exceptionalism" to the illustrious BO? Lots of sacrifice in WWII? Largest economy? Lots of current military capability? "Core set of values in our constitution"? We have laws? We have democracy? ... "free speech"? ... oh wait, he SAYS that although "imperfect", they ARE "exceptional". Really? Nobody else has any of these things? What if China surpasses our economy and our military, will we be no longer be "exceptional" at that point??

UNALIENABLE individual liberty. Limited Government. THAT is what makes the US exceptional! Nobody else has those -- but they ARE NOT things that BO likes about America and would like to maintain.

Last I checked, BO was also a "progressive" which means that there isn't much of anything in our Constitution or body of law that he would not be perfectly happy to CHANGE!

Hugging Soldiers

Rees Lloyd -- Why no Salute by Obama at Medal of Honor Ceremony?

Naturally, the MSM has no problem with this -- to discuss it would be "petty". We can all remember what their standards for "petty" during the Bush administration were, can we not? Any example of ANYTHING relative to words being mixed, something seen as awkward, something that could somehow be taken as a slight or insult to any group -- all had to be covered in the worst possible light -- just take "Heck of a job Brownie" for example. Take a sentence uttered at one meeting out of context and make it somehow into a stinging rebuke of an Administration for a natural disaster at New Orleans where the local and state governments set 3rd world standards for competency.

"Rules for Radicals" would be proud. The military is one of the key institutions that needs to be subverted to destroy a nation, so that it can be rebuilt in a new corrupted form as was done by Hitler in Germany and Stalin in the USSR. The love of country and honor of military tradition has to be subverted to allegiance to a specific leader and rigid ideology.

Appears that Rees Lloyd has it completely understood.

Why? Is it naught but petty carping of poor President Obama? I think not. He is the “Commander-in-Chief” who has in his power the lives of those who serve in defense of the country, which he himself did not deign to do. It is pointing out that this man, this professional politician, repeatedly evidences contempt for America, for America’s traditions, and for Americans who respect those traditions.

We need to work hard so that a LARGE majority of Americans "Get's it" prior to 2012. The future of our nation depends on it.

Ten Books That Screwed Up The World

and 4 others that didn't help, by Benjamin Wiker

This is a book that I HIGHLY recommend as "cliff notes" on some very important thought errors that entered Western civilization (mostly quite recently) that anyone who thinks deeply needs to understand and learn how to deal with. The ten books are:

1. The Manifesto of the Communist Party (Marx/Engels) 
2. Utilitarianism (Mill) 
3. The Descent of Man (Darwin)
4. Beyond Good and Evil (Nietzsche)
5. The State and Revolution (Lenin) 
6. The Pivot of Civilization (Sanger)
7. Mein Kampf (Hitler) 
8. The Future of an Illusion (Freud) 
9. Coming of Age in Samoa (Mead)
10. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (Kinsey)

and the 4 that didn't help:

1. The Prince (Machiavelli)
2. Discourse on Method ( Descartes)
3. Leviathan (Hobbes) 
4. Discourse on the the Origins and Foundations of Inequality Among Men (Rousseau) 

I'll dispense with anything like the "cliff notes on the cliff notes", but rather share what I see to be the clear overall message gained from all the books that Wiker ( and I ) see as "in error".

The core error is "there is no God". While we know that nobody is going to be able to prove in this life that there IS a God, the primary effect of throwing him out is to make man into god -- with somewhat variable, but uniformly disastrous results.

If man is god, we need "a new creation myth". For Hobbes it is "every man has a right to everything ...". Since there is no god, there is no morality beyond "if it feels good, do it", which leads to a state of perpetual war with everyone, or a life that is now famously "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short".

While our education system loves telling the impressionable young minds that "The Bible is just a Myth", what they don't say is that the Hobbesian, Lockean, Darwinian, Meadan, Freudian, etc views of the past and future are DEFINITELY myths. We even know for certain who made up those particular myths. Are any of the more recently created myths "better"? More realistic? Helpful to life?

Now Rousseau and Mead of course have a different rather idyllic view of our "basic nature" as being non-competitive, free love hippy sorts -- sharing everyone and everything with complete ease until some guy got jealous and wanted to keep one of the best females all for his own -- after which civilization got created and things went downhill ever since.  Man is wonderful, civilization is evil.

The bottom line is that all these books either start from creating the myth from pure imagination, or build on a previous error to make determinations about the problems with our present and predict some joyous better future that will approach "heaven on earth" if their nostrums are followed. Two of the visions; Marx and Hitler, pretty much got implemented, but the resemblance was to the place with the brimstone rather than Heaven.

Lot's of Kinsey's vision has come true as well -- lots of abortion, AIDs, child molestation, sexually transmitted disease and generally broken lives. In many of the cases. Kinsey being the most extreme, there is somehow the idea that "natural is good" -- as if once the higher functions of the spirit and the search for God and the eternal has been put behind us, the way to nirvana is through sex driven by all the morality found in the brain stem. The basic philosophy of utilitarianism -- which is essentially socialism, is "philosophy for pigs" ... if the most people enjoy it, then it must be good. Get more folks to enjoy more of it and see if we can avoid pain. End of story.

Nietzsche dumped god, crapped all over utilitarianism, and pretty much decided on on the philosophy of "no pain, no gain" -- we need to get better, but better in the "natural way", so like Darwin and Sanger, he wanted solid competition for "the best race", leadership of"the best of the best" -- meaning greatest will to power in that best race, and wala -- we get Hitler. Maybe not exactly what the "natural selection crowd" thought of as the ultimate goal of evolution, but one never really knows where a random process that arose randomly will end up.

The bottom line would seem to be that Pogo had it right. "We have met the enemy and he is us."

Thus, we would be very very wise to accept the reality of an all powerful God sending a Savior to die for us, or at least make it as close to reality as our faith will allow. "Myth or Truth"?, there are no purely human created world views that have any hope at all of being anything but myth, that is a certainty. Is the Christian world view divine? It is at least plausible opposed to any of the above.

If it isn't there were a set of disciples that died as martyrs for what they knew to be a lie.  There is a GIANT gulf between that and a terrorist dying for what he wants to believe to be the truth -- he has no real evidence for or against his belief.  If Christ really didn't rise from the dead, St Peter  ... and all the other disciples  save John died horrible deaths for what they would have known was a lie.

Does that "prove Christianity"? Unfortunately, no -- God said "by faith", and he meant it.  However I think 100's of millions of dead due to the failed utopia ideas of man might at least give us a bit of pause as to what is BEST?

The book is actually pretty short, and it is PACKED with information -- his style is a bit "chippy" for my taste in a book of this sort, but some may find it entertaining. In any case, the book has merit -- go for it!

WikiLeaks: I See Change

Obama administration is weak in the face of WikiLeaks

Remember the courageous "whistle blowers" that fingered the countries where terrorists were being interrogated? Remember the heroic announcements of the "top secret" cell phone and other snooping for calls/messages to certain terrorist numbers? (a very light perusal of the "Christmas Tree Bomber" story seems to show it is still happening)

"Leaking" used to be a very courageous and supremely positive activity, worthy of lots of NY Times coverage and accolades on how those leaking top secret information were doing our nation a tremendous favor.

What happened? Why when Climate-Gate information was "obtained illegally", the NY Times wouldn't even cover the story at all? Pretty easy to understand -- it was damaging to the Climate Scam industry, an industry much like the racial shakedown industry deserves 100% MSM protection.

I personally think that it is important for there to be laws on protection of information, including national secrets, BUT, either there is a policy that says that outlets NEVER cover information obtained illegally, OR they cover it no matter whose ox is getting gored.

This selective umbrage is really ridiculous.

The European Canary is Dying

RealClearPolitics - Europe's Ominous Reckoning

Miners used to take a canary into the coal mine in hopes that if the canary croaked from poisonous gases, they would be able to escape before they followed suit.

We were long lambasted by the left in this country to "follow Europe", and much to our peril, we have followed significantly. Now, the European "canary" is choking and sputtering, while BO is working hard to lead us farther into the noxious mine of unsupportable entitlements plus massive taxes and regulation to restrict our ability to breath at all. WILL WE HEED THE OBVIOUS WARNING!!!

"... easy money, unsustainable social spending and big budget deficits." HELLOOOOO !!!!!

So now the reckoning. In Ireland, the burst housing bubble left a massive budget deficit and lifted unemployment to 14 percent. Most European economies suffer from the ill effects of some combination of easy money, unsustainable social spending and big budget deficits. Countries are interconnected, so there are spillover effects. European banks -- led by British, German, French and Belgian banks -- have $500 billion in loans and investments in Ireland, reports the Financial Times. Large losses could snowball into a broader banking crisis.

Europe's challenge is no longer just economic. It's also social and political. Cherished values and ideals are under assault. The euro, intended to nurture unity, has bred discord, as countries assign blame and argue over sharing costs. The social contract is being rewritten, with government benefits and protections being cut. In Ireland, the governing coalition seems doomed; one minority party has withdrawn its support.

Desperately Helping BO

What Obama Can Learn From Chris Christie - Newsweek

It is almost enough to make one feel sorry for the MSM. Their disdain for Christie, Reagan, and Republicans in general boils to the surface from time to time, and yet ... and yet, they see where their precious BO is failing, and they want to help him so much they will even try to give him "combat lessons".

I really like this one:

But in the weeks and months ahead, Republicans will undoubtedly indulge in a little hypocrisy—by calling for tax cuts estimated to add $700 billion to the deficit over 10 years, for example, then refusing to raise the debt ceiling. The president shouldn’t be afraid to isolate, ridicule, and conquer.

Isn't it just A LITTLE bit similar to be pushing for $3 TRILLION in debt while calling the Republicans pushing for the extra $700 Billion for "the rich" (>$250K income) "hypocrites"? Does ANYONE not recognize the cheer leading from the MSM on "the president shouldn't be afraid"??? The MSM is obviously MORE than anxious to engage in great gobs of what they hope is hidden hypocrisy relative to taking on Trillions in debt to hopefully buy some more votes, along with any abuse they can possibly heap on the Republicans for attempts to get the runaway train of government at least under a tiny bit of control!!

Our lack of "truth in labeling" for our MSM is one of the things that messes up our ability to govern ourselves. As unbelieveable as it seems, I'm convinced that broad swaths of people still don't see the bulk of our MSM as far more biased than Fox.

Thanks for the Good Life

The Good Life is Found in Jesus Christ - Ken Connor - Townhall Conservative

They also understood that the chief end of man was to worship God and enjoy Him forever. Contentment was to be found in Christ, not in their circumstances.

Excellent little column, the short answer to what once made America exceptional. We were a people that was humble in the right way -- before God; not before the State, nor the Monarch, nor other nations, nor non-Christian religion. People had the right to PURSUE happiness, but the vast majority of the nation understood that happiness was to be found only in Jesus Christ.

The state was just not going to force a state church between you and God. The idea that once people were free of the tyranny of a state church that a significant number would forget about God entirely, or choose what the founders would have clearly recognized as pagan religions would somehow achieve equivalent standing with Christianity and Judaism was beyond their imagination.

I wish it were beyond ours.

Why So Compartmentalized?

The Real Threat to America - NYTimes.com

Back during the Bush administration, the fish rotted from the head, and every piece if even imaginary invasion of privacy was a clear example of "the radical loss of freedom and rights due to fear mongering intended for Bush to hold power ... maybe forever". Isn't it interesting that "Hope and Grope", and "Bend Over: Here Comes Change" are nowhere to be found as the indignities of the TSA roll out. It is all completely fire-walled in TSA, not a hint of blame rolls up to the office of the President. Cool

Think a bit more deeply about what we are experiencing however and what is even included in this article:

What is not in doubt is an old rule: Give a bureaucrat a big stick and a big budget, allow said bureaucrat to trade in the limitless currency of human anxiety, and the masses will soon be intimidated by the Department of Fear.

I agree -- with the NY Times no less. Why do they believe that this "old rule" is isolated? Give a bureaucrat a big stick to deal with Corporate America ... and ??? Of course the NYT doesn't like Corporate America. How about give a bureaucrat a big stick to deal with health care in America ... and??? Guess what, just what the Tea Party says -- power is STILL going to corrupt!!!

Why exactly do folks on the left believe that what has happened at the TSA hasn't and isn't happening a the IRS, Czar dejour, and will happen in every case where we allow the government to bloat??

There is NO REASON AT ALL ... in fact, since more people travel than get sick, there is MORE scrutiny by the travelling public!! It is enough for the NYT to take an anti-government position (all be it carefully compartmentalized).