BO's Homage to Bush

RealClearPolitics - Obama's Deeds Vindicate Bush

When things go right, it is sometimes parents who eventually see their young rebels realize that delaying gratification, working hard, taking responsibility and faith in God is worth way more than feeling good today, shirking work and responsibility, and believing that "it's all about me".

I suspect that George Bush is fairly unsurprised to find BO following nearly all of his policies in the WoT already, and being quickly being forced to follow even the ones he has been most recalcitrant on (Gitmo). Sadly, my guess is that Dick Cheney is right and BO's "half measures" are very likely to earn us a nuke going off in a major city courtesy of Pakistan, N Korea, or even Iran.

 The media loved to "out" Bush policies on renditions, interrogations, Gitmo, Predator Strikes, etc because "the made Bush look bad". All the while, they apparently forgot that America had elected Bush, and when it in fact RE-elected him, the primary  target that "looked bad" was AMERICA -- not so much because of what Bush had or hadn't done, but because it was exposed as a country so divided that it could not at a signifiicant level put national interests ahead of petty politics.

Enter BO. I think Charles is right that the fact that BO adopts the same policies is positive in that it ULTIMATELY will forge national consencus on what ought to have been obvious all along:

The genius of democracy is that the rotation of power forces the
opposition to come to its senses when it takes over. When the new guys,
brought to power by popular will, then adopt the policies of the old
guys, a national consensus is forged and a new legitimacy established.

That's happening before our eyes. The Bush policies in the war on
terror won't have to await vindication by historians. Obama is doing it
day by day. His denials mean nothing. Look at his deeds.

Charles is hoping that the costs of BO's windowdressing of policy will be low to nil.  I hope he is right, but I tend to agree with Cheney -- even 90% measures leave us 10% exposed, and in the world that we live in, that is unfortunatly 10% too much!

Blame Others (BO)

Obama Blames Bush

One of the core elements of the left is "Blame Others" -- I guess I just realized how truly appropriate the current WH denizen is for them.

While insisting "we need to focus on the future," President Obama
devoted much of his speech on terrorist detainees today to denouncing
the policies of President Bush's administration. He faulted everyone in
Washington for "pointing fingers at one another," yet pointed his own
finger frequently, and critically, at the Bush administration. Obama
said America's problems won't be solved "unless we solve them
together"--in a divisive and partisan speech certain to alienate
Republicans and conservatives.

If any president has gone to such
lengths to attack his White House predecessor as Obama did today, I
don't recall it. True, presidents have blamed the prior administration
for problems they inherit, but I can't think of a president who did so
as aggressively and with such moral preening as Obama.

In Business Leadership, announcing a specific date to do something when you have no clue as to how to accomplish it is considered "incompetence". Since BO is of course a Democrat, and the MSM loves Democrats, he is brilliant, everything that goes wrong must be someone else's fault, in this case, Bush. 

Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress are demanding a plan
before they appropriate funds for closing Guantanamo. Obama said he's
still working on that, four months after he announced the prison would
be closed.

Nor did he say how he would overcome the objections of Congress (and
public opinion) to bringing some terrorists to the United States for
trial. And he didn't explain how he would get foreign countries to
accept some 50 Gitmo prisoners after his initial efforts to persuade
them failed.

Obama attacked the Bush administration for having set up the prison at
Guantanamo in the first place to house terrorists seized after 9/11.
But he didn't present an alternative. He didn't say what he would have
done with those prisoners had he been president at the time.

This is what is great about being a Democrat and having the MSM on your side. You can claim to be "above the fray", call previous administration anything you want while REMAINING above the fray, and have nobody in the MSM asking the question -- OK, if Bush/Cheney were wrong, what would YOU have done? Had the detainees over to the WH for tea and had your girls ask them questions? It may be great for BO, the problem for AMERICA is that other than a few marginalized Republicans or Conservative Commentators, the hard questions just don't get asked at all. Suppose Dick Cheney will get a Nobel after someone nukes and American city with a big pat on the back for being right when the BO administration was wrong like Gore did for his Globale Warming efforts? Nah, me either.

Gitmo, Classic Democrat

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Senate: don’t release Gitmo detainees into U.S. « - Blogs from CNN.com

Did you hear any doubts from the Democrats as they declared Military Tribunals and Gitmo to be "deplorable", "hurting the US", a "concentration camp". Democrats, rarely in doubt, but only because they never have a clue.

So Gitmo must be closed. The prisoners can't be released, and they can't be held in the US. But wait, sending prisoners to "other countries" was ALSO a terrible thing.

So do they shoot them?  Being a Democrat means never having to answer the hard questions -- see Nancy Pelosi!!

Joe Reveals Secret Bunker

Biden Reveals Location of Secret VP Bunker - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com


Gotta love that Biden. If you like "open government", just have Joe around. Of course, what he says can never be assumed to have any relationship with reality, but that rarely bothers lefties!

BO's Debt

RealClearPolitics - Obama's Dangerous Debt

During Republican years, the MSM used to come unglued about deficits -- and they LOVED to look at "10 year projected costs" -- for perscription drugs, for the Iraq war, for any tax cut, etc, etc. Suddenly, one has to dig to find such an article. What is up with that?

Let's see. From 2010 to 2019, Obama projects annual deficits totaling $7.1 trillion; that's atop the $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009. By 2019, the ratio of publicly held federal debt to gross domestic product (GDP, or the economy) would reach 70 percent, up from 41 percent in 2008. That would be the highest since 1950 (80 percent). The Congressional Budget Office, using less optimistic economic forecasts, raises these estimates. The 2010-19 deficits would total $9.3 trillion; the debt-to-GDP ratio in 2019 would be 82 percent.

Remember what was going on in 1950? We had just come through another long economic winter of Democrat control. Samuelson doesn't even get into BOs rosy economic projections -- I think he will be pretty lucky to not break the old 80% record.

One reason Obama is so popular is that he has promised almost everyone lower taxes and higher spending. Beyond the undeserving who make more than $250,000, 95 percent of "working families" receive a tax cut. Obama would double federal spending for basic research in "key agencies." He wants to build high-speed rail networks that would require continuous subsidy. Obama can do all this and more by borrowing.

Boy the MSM just used to HATE the idea that Reagan would "spend and borrow" -- and then they would turn around and castegate him for not spending enough on the stuff they wanted spending on. As Samuelson points out, "Beyond the undeserving who make more than $250K" -- wanna bet that those "undeserving" will be figuring out good ways to avoid income?? They didn't get to $250K by being chumps!! The fact is that the Democrats have been set on killing the "golden goose" of the "wealthy" that have been paying all the taxes the past few years -- it is a brilliant strategy. Run huge deficits, slow down the economy so you don't have that going for you and THEN try to hammer those with the most options on how hard they want to work, where they want to work and **IF** they will be doing any investment in the US!!

He ends with the obvious. Anyone that doesn't understand that McCain trying to do this would be boiled in oil and run out of town by now is living somewhere not in this universe:

The wonder is that these issues have been so ignored. Imagine hypothetically that a President McCain had submitted a budget plan identical to Obama's. There would almost certainly have been a loud outcry: "McCain's Mortgaging Our Future." Obama should be held to no less exacting a standard.

ISS Atlantis Solar Transit

Thierry Legault - Transit of ISS and Atlantis in front of the Sun

Not much else to say, go look at the pics.

Maureen Wants A Smackdown

Op-Ed Columnist - Cheney, Master of Pain - NYTimes.com

Being 6'4" and on upper side of 1/8th of a ton and at least in history capable of benching well over 300lbs, I always find it interesting when the gals think it is time to "get tough". There is ALWAYS "collateral damage", and there is ALWAYS the decent chance that there is someone tougher in the room. The most important point is to make the current aggressors believe that there are really much better ways to spend the next few minutes than taking a high risk of becoming permanently disabled, incarcerated or dead. Spending some time in football line or just "friendly" locker room fisticuffs tend to make the points at which the relatively larger sorts decide to "get busy" very rare. It keeps more beds free in the hospital and property intact.

Poor Maureen feels really bad that her girl Nancy hemmed and hawed and looked like a ditz on national TV, and Dick Cheney is still alive. My god, the horror of one of the political people you like being the subject of comedian fodder! There is something that has NEVER happened to any Republican politician!! Clearly somebody ought to be hung out to dry, so let's go dig into this at ALL COSTS!! Republicans have NEVER had to hold their fire at any sort of cheap shots at their folks!

So if Nancy has oversight RESPONSIBILITY and she didn't cover it, then what does that mean? Are women exempt from responsibility in general, or is it just Democrat women that Maureen likes? Does Maureen running around and cherry picking some other set of folks that think "torture" (even with a fuzzy caterpillar) is really horrible somehow absolve Queen Nancy from having to take that nasty RESPONSIBILITY when it could make a difference? Now both Nancy and Maureen are in that  comfy Monday AM QB chair. It would be nice if at least Nancy figured out that being able to make the call on Monday AM really doesn't cut it.

A Republican caught in a similar firestorm would of course be forced to resign. Nancy will likely ride this out just fine and it will be "old news" before anyone knows it. OR, is it possible that the Democrats will be so stupid as to descend into a slugfest of political violence trying to FINALLY do the damage to the evil Bush - Cheney team even as their resident Stench-In-Chief BO is forced to realize that the costs of doing things the feminine "let's be nice" way costs soliders lives and in probably way too short a time thousands of civilian lives. He is backpedaling on point after point of Gitmo, Military Tribunals, even putting out more pictures of bad days past for no other reason that yesterday's witch hunts at the cost of today's young american lives. How many other Democrats signed off on what when? Are they ready to listen to Maureen and decide that the collateral damage is worth it?

Maureen wants to "bring it on". Time to bust the joint down. You go girl!

It's What You DON'T Print that Counts!!

Power Line - Killing A Story: How It's Done

The article is a bit long and detailed, but it is one of those cases where the media would like the obvious to stay hidden, so it has to be that way.

The bottom line is that ACORN is essentially just a wing of the Democrat party illegally drawing it's funds from federal funds, and the NY Times is just anther Democrat mouthpiece.

For anyone that pays much of any attention, this is all pretty obvious -- but for those that like to know the sordid detail, it is worth a read.

How Did Hitler Happen?

19 arrested at Notre Dame protest against Obama - CNN.com

The linked article covers protesters being arrested for attempting to protest BO's commencement address at Notre Dame to be held today. The CNN headline is on some sort of "super marathon" being held in Nambia this weekend. This is the headline in a sidebar. If one takes the time to go read it, it one can discover that these potesters are pro-life and that even the Bishop that precides over Notre Dame will not be attending graduation because he disagrees with HONORING an opponent of church teaching at a Catholic school.

Think of the difference we saw when ANYONE was protesting Bush in ANY setting, foreign or domestic! Any tiny number of protesters were a headline, and their message was blared from the headlines. "100's Protest Bush War". "Not in Our Name! Protestors Say" ... etc, etc. But of course, the MSM agreed with the protestors, not the President, in this case the the agreement is reversed, so their is little concern even if the protesters are arrested.

I happen to be reading a book on "Understanding Hitler", and while it is a very academic book, one of the points it makes is that the idea that "It was just Hitler" that caused the Holocaust is certainly not the case. Rabid anti-semitism was well known in Germany, and indeed Henry Ford was a huge anti-Semite, and was much respected by Hitler.

The left loved to call Bush "Hitler". Am I calling BO "Hitler"? There are certainly more parallels to Hitler with BO than there were with Bush; the adoring crowds, the idea of BO as "saviour", "father figure", "diety", the BO "rainbow O" symbol, the press boot licking, etc, etc ... but no, it isn't "Hitler" that is the problem, it is FACISM! When the popular culture and media starts to push "unity" and even in minor ways, criminalize those that disagree, that is the road to Fascism. The left folks will say; "but protesters were arrested protesting against Bush as well"!

Very seldom were there arrests for "protest" (if at all) -- the anti-Bush folks tended to be blocking traffic, destroying property, in areas where people had to go through security to be at given that the President was going to be there (this proest was on Saturday, BO isn't there until today), etc. Whenever the protesters were NOT treated in the very best way possible, the charges were made against the Bush administration and local authorities that they were "suppressing free speech", "afraid to allow the message to get out", etc ... none of those charges are raised here.

So how did Hitler happen? Slowly ... "no crisis was wasted". Key groups were demonized and made to be scapegoats -- Jews, Communists, Gypsies, etc for Hitler; Business, Wall Street, the Rich, the Religious Right, etc for BO. All that was seen as good, or marketed by the Government controlled cabal of Business, Media, and "popular groups" (unions, ACORN, etc) was attributed to Hitler (BO) ... the bad was due to the evil scapegoats.

Can "it" happen here? Absolutely, most minds are so clouded they don't even know "right from left". It was known for thousands of years -- and it was known by our founders. Since the 30's, the Ameican brain is so scrambled that 90%+ of us no longer understand this simple fact.

RIGHT is liberty, freedom from state control -- the "far right" is ANARCHY!!!

LEFT is Tyranny, greater and greater state control -- the "far left" is TOTALITARIANISM!!!

BOTH Communism and Fascism are ON THE LEFT ... as is Socialism. Our nation has been drifting left for 200 years, only the rate of drift (or fall) has varied -- we are FAR from Anarchy. There is essentially no danger on the right unless we would turn our direction and travel that way for a good long while. Our danger on the left, of falling into near total loss of individical freedom is severe and acute, and one could argue that we may already have fallen so far so American can no longer be recovered.

Our Founding Fathers wanted to create a "Center RIGHT Democracy" -- they considered the odds of a drift to Anarchy to be very low, where the odds of Government taking the rights of the individual States, Communities and individuals away was very high.

Our Founding Fathers were so very right!!!

BO Security at Expense of Liberty

RealClearPolitics - Obama Offers Security at the Expense of Liberty

In this world, ALL security is false, so trading our liberty for supposed BO securitity is a grevious mistake.

Our would-be soft despots are offering Americans money and the promise of security against economic distress. The vastly increased cost of government will nonetheless nearly leave half of households free from the burden of paying federal income tax and eligible for occasional rebates. As CNN reporter Susan oesgen said to a tea party protester, "Don't you realize that you're eligible for a $400 tax cut?"

In other words, take the money and shut up. Which brings
to mind Tocqueville's warning: "Every measure which establishes legal charity on a permanent basis and gives to it an administrative form creates thereby a class unproductive and idle, living at the expense of the class which is industrious
and given to work."

The Nancy Crabwalk

Dana Milbank - Pelosi's Fancy Footwork About Waterboarding - washingtonpost.com

See, the MSM reported it! Now they can claim they are unbiased and ignore the story completely and talk about how the idiotic Republicans ought to get over it!

Pelosi, Thy Name is Slug

RealClearPolitics - Why Pelosi's Hypocrisy Matters

So what happened? The reason Pelosi raised no objection to waterboarding at the time, the reason the American people (who by 2004 knew what was going on) strongly re-elected the man who ordered these interrogations, is not because she and the rest of the American people suffered a years-long moral psychosis from which they have just now awoken. It is because at that time they were aware of the existing conditions -- our blindness to al-Qaeda's plans, the urgency of the threat, the magnitude of the suffering that might be caused by a second 9/11, the likelihood that the interrogation would extract intelligence that President Obama's own director of national intelligence now tells us was indeed "high-value information" -- and concluded that on balance it was a reasonable response to a terrible threat. 

And they were right.

You can believe that Pelosi and the whole American public underwent a radical transformation from moral normality to complicity with war criminality back to normality. Or you can believe that their personalities and moral compasses have remained steady throughout the years, but changes in circumstances (threat, knowledge, imminence) alter the moral calculus attached to any interrogation technique.
You don't need a psychiatrist to tell you which of these theories is utterly fantastical.

Does anyone really doubt that the above is true? OF COURSE Queen Nancy signed up for "whatever it takes" to get the information that the nation so sorely needed as we were caught flat footed with our pants down on 9-11. The difference between a worm like Nancy and a real human being with a shred of character and a wisp of spine is that the humans admit that they "did what was necessary" and they sure as hell aren't going to go try to prosecute those that did what they approved!

That we allow slime like Nancy to infest our Capitol is a big shining sign to N Korea, Iran, and every little piece of Al Quaeda camel dung in a cave somewhere to say "come and get us, we handed the keys to the no-ops." Sadly, when the domestic US terror victims start stacking up, Nancy the slug will be the first pointing a slimy antenna at others.

Git mo BO

Obama to resurrect military commissions for terror suspects - CNN.com

Oh gee, BO is going to do military commissions just like Bush!!! ... only of course, his are "Mo betta", cuz they are "BOized", so I'm SURE the media is going to be much happier.

It also seems pretty clear that he has no agreed way to close Gitmo. Guess which US state is interested in having the "New Gitmo"? ... same state that wants the spent nuke fuel ... nada, none, ZIP!!! Now there is something shocking! There are really bad/dangerous people at Gitmo that we can't release, BO has promised that Gitmo is going to be closed, but he has no place to put those people.

Can't they just put a couple pens in the basement of the White House? How about Hollywood?? They were big on the "we hate Gitmo" bandwagon. I'm certain they would be more than willing to maybe have some of the worst offenders as "extended houseguests" ... I bet Alex Baldwin has extra space in his house!

Pay and Performance

Pilots' low pay, long commutes probed in air crash - Yahoo! News

BO and the Fascists are hot on the trail of deciding what level of pay it is that everyone is worth. As near as I can understand their algorithm is that if you are smart enough to contribute to the Democratic party (Unions in general, Finance Industry, lawyers), then you deserve a high salary. Naturally, as with any good Democrat, this higher income will be "tax free" -- if you get in any trouble with the IRS, just contact BO, and he will appoint you to a cabinet position.

The old tired idea of "pay for performance", or "higher pay for higher capability / education / etc" has been replaced by "pay for votes", or as they like to say in Chicago, "pay to play". In a nation where only politics is important, why would people persist in some tired discredited capitalist ideas of income having something to do with some hard to compute concept called "value"?

Consider the difference between the pilots who crashed in Buffalo killing all aboard and "Sully" Sullenberger who dead sticked the Airbus into the Hudson for no loss of life. The horribly greedy Sully is reported to make about $140K a year, and moonlights as a consultant to make up for salary and pension losses down from at one time being able to focus on flying full time and make over $200K. Clearly, he erroneously believes that capability and experience are worthy of higher salaries, and he must think that he has some use for all those "riches". Why, if his wife works, he deserves to be punished with some BO tax increases for the "rich" just to show him how stupid it is to be making such "exorbitant sums"!!

The 49 year old captain on the Buffalo plane earned a way more respectable $55K a year, while his 24 year old co-pilot was earning a fairly spartan $24K and living with her folks because she couldn't afford a place of her own. Heil BO! Those are the kinds of "sustainable salaries" that Americans ought to be dreaming of!! The way I see it, "a pilot is a pilot", so what's the difference? I'm sure all those passengers aboard that Buffalo plane were much happier to have those low cost pilots right up to the point at which they had, shall we say, "higher considerations".

Put Sully behind those controls and they would have never been aware the plane had a pilot -- he would have never let his approach speed get low in the first place, absolutely nothing would have happened. But hey, salary is "immaterial" -- there is no difference in the kinds of people you attract with lower salaries than higher, other than the lower ones are BETTER PEOPLE!! -- many more of them vote Democrat, and that is all that counts!

Relative to wealth, two groups vote high percentage Democrat -- the really rich, because they can afford to, and the really poor (when they get out and vote) ... because they have given up hope. If you aren't really rich, it is a great time to pick up some hope for the next life, because your future in this one is a bit less bright than Colgan Air flight 3407 when the stick-shaker activated.

Deer In Waterboard Headlights?

Pelosi accuses CIA of misleading her on use of waterboarding - CNN.com

Gee Nancy, rule number 1 of holes -- when you are in one, stop digging. So you are going to accuse the CIA, the OBAMA CIA of of lying? Isn't that taking on pretty big quarry?

Well, BO shows no qualms about throwing folks under the bus, and I'm sure there is room under there for Nancy as well. Gee, that would be an awful shame.

BO Cares for Troops?

Obama's latest effort to conceal evidence of Bush era crimes - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

BO has a solid track record of flip flopping every which way, and the new photos are no exception. Will he flip again? Only the pollsters know for sure I imagine. There is a relatively interesting aspect to this though.

While it is hard to understand what BO might actually believe (if anything), there is an outside chance here that he realizes that these photos can do nothing positive for the US efforts in the former WoT, now "Overseas Contingency Action". It seems that he MUST realize that at some level, because were he not to, there is very little reason for this flip -- he had previously declared that he would "release it all".

While I fully expect that the MSM and his lefty buddies will convince him that the opportunity to throw some more dirt on the horrible Bush-Cheney administration is WAY worth how many American lives it costs (hell, most of the soldiers vote Republican anyway!), the fact that he apparently had at least a short term neural firing that led to the thought "Gee, OTHER than making my lefty buddies happy, what possible good could releasing a new bunch of shocking photos that the perps have been prosecuted for do?".

One would like to think that even a failed community organizer, were he to have a few more of those thoughts, and eventually develop some sort of character beyond "poll says" MIGHT have some minimal prospect for leadership.

As I often say, I'm the eternal optimist ... most likely this tiny spark of sense will be as short lived as the idea that there was no need to go back and prosecute people over the enhanced interrogation method memos.

Enterprise Destroyed By Death Star

Very disappointing explosion -- I'd think the antimatter annihilation would result in at least 1/4 the planet being destroyed. Also ... aside from the somewhat odd parking place for a starship, one would have thought there would have been at least a momentary "shield bubble" before they were overwhelmed.

So would there actually be any negotiation between BO and Darth? or would they pretty much be "on the same team"?

BO Stinkin So Bad CBS Notices

Chrysler Bankruptcy Exposes Dirty Politics - CBS News

WOW, Dan Rather would have a cat. The loyal lefty memo forgers are willing to point out that BO is illegally paying off folks that supported his campaign. I'm not talking about "illegal" because this simple "pay for play" as politicians tend to do constantly, but because the Sr Creditors had a CONTRACT -- and they were NOT "speculators" any more than any other investor, and far less than most. In fact ANY stock holder is FAR more a "speculator" (as if that was a bad thing) than ANY bondholder.

Read the whole article, here are a few quotes. The very idea that someone at CBS would know about the Federalist Papers and ideas like "contracts" and "rule of law" is enough to make one wonder if reform of even the dregs isn't possible once a vermin like Gunga Dan has vacated!

Rep. John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat, sent reporters a statement calling the creditors "vultures" and "rouge hedge funds." Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm piled on, taking aim during her radio address at a "few greedy hedge funds that didn't care how much pain the company's failure would have inflicted on families and communities everywhere."

It must be a coincidence that the United Auto Workers has handed $25.4 million to federal politicians over the last two decades, with 99 percent of that cash going to Democrats. And that Mr. Obama's final campaign stop on Election Day was a UAW phone bank.

"I represent one less investor today than I represented yesterday," Lauria said on a Detroit radio show. "One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight. That's how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence." Lauria said that his clients were willing to compromise on 50 cents on the dollar, but the government offered them only 29 cents.

In the Federalist Papers in 1788, James Madison wrote that "laws impairing the obligation of contracts are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation." Unfortunately, Washington politicians seem to pay little attention to history, morality, or the rule of law.

Forget Reagan?

Should the GOP Forget Reagan? - WSJ.com

The answer to that historic question is an apt subject this week as the GOP, looking for a path from the wilderness, says farewell at National Cathedral tomorrow to Jack Kemp, who remained a Reaganite to the end.

Jack Kemp, anyone who spent time around him will tell you, stayed on message. That message, like Reagan's, had a number of parts, but it is not possible to even guess how many times Jack Kemp summarized his explanations of that message in three words: "Work, save and invest." Republicans should think hard about building a governing philosophy on the foundation of those three words, ideas that most voters understand.

I have a picture of Reagan up in my office at work. I viewed my trip to Reagan Library as something like "going to Mecca". I love Reagan. I say that people that still believe in America -- be they Republican, Libertarian, apolitical, or "confused" need to "forget Reagan". Why? Primarily because it was never about "Reagan" -- it was about basic principles. "Work, save and invest" are good. Believe in something that transcends yourself and even America (hopefully God), and always believe in the exceptionalism of America and the majesty of her founding Constitution, are also important. Being responsible, prudent, reasonable, focused on truth, focused on reality and in the ultimate sense optimistic even though these days are dark and look to be going to get a lot darker.

Reagan NEVER said "trust in me", or "trust in government" -- he said "trust in America -- that shining city on the hill". "Trust in God". "Trust in the PEOPLE of America". The very same "We The People" of the Preamble to the Constitution.

"We The People" have horribly lost our way, and the idea that we would make the memory of Ronald Reagan into some totem or litmus test for leaders of the future is just one more sign of how lost we really are.

The American Nightmare

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090525/greider

I suggest holding one's nose, having a very stiff drink handy and being ready to get up and go for a walk a couple times during reading this -- if you have a brain. If you don't, then you are going to LOVE IT!!

Here is Greider's view of "the new American Dream".

Here is the grand vision I suggest Americans can pursue: the right of all citizens to larger lives. Not to get richer than the next guy or necessarily to accumulate more and more stuff but the right to live life more fully and engage more expansively the elemental possibilities of human existence. That is the essence of what so many now seem to yearn for in their lives. People--even successful and affluent people--are frustrated because the intangible dimensions of life have been held back or displaced in large and small ways, pushed aside by the economic system's relentless demands to maximize yields of profit and wealth. Our common moral verities have been trashed in the name of greater returns. The softer aspects of mortal experience are diminished because life itself is not tabulated in the economic system's accounting.

Let me try to parse that "big idea". There is some "right to live large lives"-- but competition and money aren't part of that. Can somebody explain to me why people today don't have a right to live whatever life they want that doesn't include "money and things"?

Current people's "common moral verities have been trashed" -- by I guess, someone looking for greater returns. Apparently, Greider and the people he normally talks to are "victims" -- this horrible current overzealous and overly productive wealth system just "pushes them around". Somehow the fact that others have "money and things" somehow "prevents" them from living the life they would like without the dreaded "money and things"? Is there potentially just a bit of plain old envy here trying to make sure that once the folks that Greider thinks have "too much" have been swatted down to size, then "somehow" the world will just be "better".

What's needed in American life is a redefinition of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Given the nation's great wealth, the ancient threats of scarcity and deprivation have been eliminated. Yet people remain yoked to economic demands despite wanting something more from life--freedom to explore the mysteries and bring forth all that is within them. Collectively, Americans need to take a deep breath and reconsider what it means to be rich.

So according to Greider, we are rich enough and there are no threats of scarcity or deprivation -- "plenty has been achieved", and apparently, it would be impossible to kill the goose that layed this golden egg. My thought on that is; Great, so now you can go forth and live the minimalist life you desire -- live long and avoid prospering. Nobody is stopping you. Oh, wait, that doesn't seem to be it:

Guaranteed public jobs paying more than the minimum wage would permanently and automatically stabilize the economy, swelling the ranks of public workers in recessions and shrinking them when private jobs become more abundant. Instead of punishing the working poor most severely in downturns, as the system does now, the government would redistribute the costs of recession so that all taxpayers would share the burden as a public obligation.

Ah, we need a "gaurenteed public job at more than minium wage" -- uh, so that will sort of make "minimum wage" meaningless won't it? Seems that I may as well take that guarenteed public job that I can't be fired from and just show up and drink coffee with the other guaranteed job public workers until I get my check. It will be fun to chat about the private fools working their butts off to pay the taxes so that I can be as indolent as my heart desires. Oh, wait, how likely is it that "all taxpayers will share the burden as a public obligation"? Think they might not like me sitting there doing zip getting "more than minium wage" while all their dining and retail establishments raise prices and close down because of the high cost of labor?

The article drones on ... "Social Corporations" ... where that nasty idea of "profit" is far down the list of priorities. Ah yes, how much better life could be if we didn't need to produce something that someone else was pay more than it cost to make if for!! It is true that wiping out competition might help there -- if there is no competition, products can be pretty bad and still purchased, but even then, there is a limit.

One might imagine that thinking like this in a major US magazine, and a guy in the White House that would nearly certainly agree with much of it would be a fantasy ... but alas, it is an actual "waking nightmare".

Investing with BO

RealClearPolitics - Sunbeams from Cucumbers

Good article, this paragraph sums a lot of the current situation up for me.

It is Demagoguery 101 to identify an unpopular minority to blame for problems. The president has chosen to blame "speculators" -- aka investors; anyone who buys a share of a company's stock is speculating about the company's future -- for Chrysler's bankruptcy and the dubious legality of his proposal. Yet he simultaneously says he hopes that private investors will begin supplanting government as a source of capital for the companies. Breathes there an investor/speculator with such a stunted sense of risk that he or she would go into business with this capricious government?

The Fascist Descent Continues

www.washingtonexaminer.com >> Politics >> - White House puts UAW ahead of property rights

Think carefully about what’s happening here. The White House, presumably car czar Steven Rattner and deputy Ron Bloom, is seeking to transfer the property of one group of people to another group that is politically favored. In the process, it is setting aside basic property rights in favor of rewarding the United Auto Workers for the support the union has given the Democratic Party. The only possible limit on the White House’s power is the bankruptcy judge, who might not go along.

Support BO or be destroyed !!!

But my sadness turned to anger later when I heard what bankruptcy lawyer Tom Lauria said on a WJR talk show that morning. “One of my clients,” Lauria told host Frank Beckmann, “was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight.”

If you don't like the stench of BO, learn to hold your nose harder!!

Nice Coverage of Liberty and Tyranny

Mike Adams : Liberty and Tyranny - Townhall.com

I've already reviewed the book, but Adams does an excellent job. I like this:

There is little question that a guaranteed outcome undercuts man’s ability to overcome his weaknesses. The statist fails to realize that by confiscating a man’s property – in service to equality of outcome – he confiscates his incentive to improve his own life by building his own home, growing his own food, and making his own clothes. When the statist confiscates property he also confiscates a man’s ability to improve his life.

Coochgate

RealClearPolitics - Democrats Wallow in a 'Culture of Corruption'

Nice list of Democrat scandals that are getting little to no reporting, followed by this gem:

But you know what? We ain't seen nothing yet. For starters, the real corruption isn't what the media are ignoring or downplaying as isolated incidents. It's what the media are hailing as bold, inspirational leadership. The White House, as a matter of policy, is rewriting legal contracts, picking winners (mostly labor unions and mortgage defaulters) and singling out losers (evil "speculators") while much of the media continue to ponder whether Obama is better than FDR.

If a Republican administration, staffed with cronies from Goldman Sachs and Citibank, was cutting special deals for its political allies, I suspect we'd be hearing fewer FDR analogies and more nouns ending with the suffix "gate."

Pretty hard to argue with. Mostly, BO is simply paying off his constituencies with borrowed money + whatever he can chisel out of the folks that earn money. Were he a Republican, it would be a scandal, since he is a Democrat, it is a "New New Deal".

Bad Week For Business

Specter, Bank of America, Chrysler: A Bad Week for Business - BusinessWeek

I wonder who knows more about the prospects for the US? Dana Milbank, declaring the official deification of BO, or Jack and Suzy Welch over at BusinessWeek.

Let's see, Jack was head of GE during some of it's most successful years ... Dana Milbank? Uh ...

Jack doesn't seem to think that the unions that were a huge factor (maybe the decisive one?) in running the auto companies into the ground, deserve to be handed 51% of them on a silver platter, ahead of bond holders who have the actual legal right to more of the company.

However, Dana has BO, Community Organizer on his side, and BO is no mere mortal. Hopefully failed Community Organizers are more brilliant on how to operate business and create a thriving economy than the former CEO of GE.

Onion Still A Good News Source

Shirtless Biden Washes Trans Am In White House Driveway | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Actually, I'm certain that Joe would never work this hard, but it is cute anyway.

Press Chooses It's Stand

Our press is without bias!

Most Open Administration Ever?

PHOTOS OF AIR FORCE ONE BACKUP PLANE FLYING OVER NYC NOT TO BE SEEN BY PUBLIC - New York Post

Gee, the photos of BOs plane over Manhattan that cost us over $300 grand aren't going to be shown? Imagine that! Of course, the evil NY Post is the only place even mentioning that they would exist -- the rest of the media is completely silent that the fly-by even happened.

BO Looks Divine

Dana Milbank - Washington Sketch: Obama's World Looks More and More Divine - washingtonpost.com


Here is a nice "hard hitting piece of journalism".

You would think there would be limits to just how excited one would be about a nation abandoning all that has made it great and turning whole heartedly to a path that has failed many times (witness England prior to Thatcher for example), Japan (in recession/depression for 17 years now and Europe in general where every one of the countries was in worse shape than us prior to the crisis, had worse effects from the crisis, and has worse prospects for ever coming out of it than us.

Again, "rationality" just isn't strong in the lefty lexicon.

Let's Hope BO Never Learns

RealClearPolitics - Obama Gets It Wrong on Churchill & Torture

Not a badly written article -- covers the same issue on BO being wrong on Britan torturing in WWII. Brings in the point that things like firebombing Dresden, nuking Hiroshama and Nagasaki, allowing Coventry to be bombed to protect the knowledge of the codebreaking, interning Japanese in the US and no doubt thousands of other things in WWII (or any war) are "shortcuts".

War is about inflicting more pain on your enemy than on your own soldiers and civilians -- that is how one is most likely to win the war. It isn't a pretty thing, that is why we call it War. There was a brief time in Europe when war was at least visualized to have "honor" -- the British wore red coats and marched in columns while the "terrorists" of the day, the US forces hid in the woods and picked them off. The British found that to be "dishonorable" -- we called it "winning".

I think his last paragraph hits the nail on the head. In "ugly things", we are OFTEN working very hard to find a "shortcut" -- maybe some old surgeon would say that orthoscopic surgery is a "shortcut" for example. Maybe another 3, 5, 10 or even 100K Americans could have died not finding out one or more plot that was discovered by "putting the screws to" the guys that had information that helped the Bush administration stop the attacks. Were those American's lives worth less than what BO sees as "the character cost" of having a known al Quaeda opertive exposed to the same techniqe we use on our own troops to simulate torture?

Maybe BO doesn't understand "simulated vs real". Why did he need a "real" picture of Air Force One flying at low level around NYC? It was fake anyway -- it isn't AF-1 unless the President is on it. It is the person of the President on the plane that gives it that designation, not the paint job. A photoshop using the plane taken when he was on it (or any other President -- it is the OFFICE that has the majesty, not the person or the props!) with the Statue of Liberty in the background would be identically as "genuine" -- at least the plane would be real!

It might seem otherwise, but I'm not making the case for what some people see as torture. I'm simply noting that war is always about shortcuts - all are horrible; some are necessary. If Obama doesn't understand that, let's hope he never has to learn it.

Beneath Contempt

RealClearPolitics - Pelosi: Utterly Contemptible

Charles is pretty easy on Pelosi, this is beneath contempt. It is another lesson in how the Statist mind works:

In 2007, she admitted that she was briefed BEFORE the methods were used:

In December 2007, after a Washington Post report that she had knowledge of these procedures and did not object, she admitted that she'd been "briefed on interrogation techniques the administration was considering using in the future."

Now she is "repeatably clear" that they were NOT told AFTER ... this is precisely like Slick Willie with "there is currently no ..." -- "that depends on what the meaning of is ... is":

"we were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any other of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used."

Here is what Porter Goss says about the briefings:

Porter Goss, then chairman of the House intelligence committee: The members briefed on these techniques did not just refrain from objecting, "on a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al-Qaeda."

So what are we to make of this? She was in the briefings where she was briefed on what they CIA was PLANNING to do, and did not object, and in fact at a minimum went along with folks asking if the CIA needed MORE support to carry this out!

So, when would one expect someone opposed to these methods a supervisory role to object? BEFORE they are carried out? or AFTER they are carried out?? If they objected AFTER, what kind of oversight is that? "Go ahead and get this information with my blessing, and even offer of added support, but after you get the information, let me denigrate the methods I approved and seek to impugn and even prosecute you for using them??"

How does that mange to rise to the standard of "contemptable"? This is beneath contept -- this is a lying weasel of the worst sort.

Shocked!!! Britan DID Torture in WWII

The secrets of the London Cage | UK news | The Guardian


Can it be? BO **LIED**!!!!
It is only fair to hold him to the same standard as Bush, right? ... also, since BO is omniscient, there is no chance that he didn't know.

Is it REALLY a surprise to ANYONE that the Brits tortured German prisoners to get information to save the lives of their people and their soldiers??? How about if they hadn't and the war was lost? Would the modern moralists think that a better outcome???

Again, we aren't talking "fuzzy caterpillars and things we do to our own folks" -- we are talking "being beaten until they begged to be killed". I'm betting that "left a mark".

Ann On "Torture"

Ann Coulter : Muslims: 'We Do That on First Dates' - Townhall.com

I like to read her, I'm sorry. The fuzzy caterpillar torture is just too much -- I may recall evil little boys that would even tell the girls that the caterpillar would bite -- although I suppose all of them grew of to be Republicans or mass murderers ... oh wait, same thing.

Imagine an alternate universe where Ann could be elected Senator from the Republican party like her best equivalent from the Democrat side, Franken. It is hard to even imagine -- the Democrat candidate would have to be as bad as Franken for even me to consider going out and voting for her, but just try to imagine today's media and left wing if Ann Coulter was being elected Senator in a very close and questionable race ... especially if it would give the Republicans 60 votes in the Senate!!!!

Just give a moment of thought to another "shoe on the other foot" ... If a Democrat had been indicted and convicted the week of the election, lost by <1% and then the charges were subsequently dropped like Ted Stevens in AK? They were apocoplytic about Max Cleland being defeated in GA in 04 because someone questioned his voting record on military issues! He lost limbs in Vietnam, nobody ought to be able to question a Democrat on the issues if he was injured in war!!! (of course, no such pass for a Republican, see Bob Dole) I personally read a book, purchased at a Barnes and Noble on "The Assassination of Paul Wellstone" -- the Dems and MSM were bleating for years on how "unfair" it was for Republicans to show pictures of the Dems hooting and hollering for blood at his memorial service!!! Egads, showing the public how Democrats act! The Republican's evil knows no bounds.

Suppose if Ann Coulter was on the verge of being elected as the 60th vote, Lieberman had just switched to the Republicans to make that possible, and 1 of the seats now owned by the Republicans was due to indictment / conviction / charges DROPPED??

Considering how berserk they went in 2000 and '04, I simply can't imagine where the left would be at were the shoes on the other foot. Well, this is the country we live in -- there is really no such thing as too far left, and any concerns from the right are either ludicrous, unpatriotic, dangerous, or all of the above!

Early to Regret

RealClearPolitics - We Will Regret 'Post-American' Outcome

I suppose some folks will have to wait for the future to experience their regret -- mine started right after the 2006 election.

I have always believed that there are many ways to love America. Sharing my politics is not a precondition. I have watched elected officials denigrate a war in progress (that we are now winning), soften borders that once protected us, erode cultural standards that once united us, and now attack an economic crisis not with an energizing call to boldness and courage but with astonishing spending designed to spawn dependency and thus political obedience.

This new era requires America be brought down several notches, laid low by the frustrations and envies of rivals, taught a lesson about excessive pride. Our president is more than glad to direct us to this new humility. It is evident in his economic strategies, which liquefy wealth in a blender of socialism and environmental extremism. It is evident in his foreign policy, which kowtows to tyrants and comforts terrorists with the assurance of an America ready to step down as alpha male to become just another animal in the pack.

This is supposed to make the world like us better. It may, in the short term, until the dictators given room to breathe by an enfeebled America choose to broaden their adventures.

And when that time comes - and the world turns to America, as it has for centuries, only to find that we are no longer a superpower but just an ordinary neighbor - I hope those who favored and helped raise the curtain on the "post-American" world are stricken with a horror and regret that only the great tragedies of history can impart.

BO's Economic War on America: Day 100

The Real Culture War Is Over Capitalism - WSJ.com

To put a modern twist on the old axiom, a man who is not a socialist at 20 has no heart; a man who is still a socialist at 40 either has no head, or pays no taxes. Social Democrats are working to create a society where the majority are net recipients of the "sharing economy." They are fighting a culture war of attrition with economic tools. Defenders of capitalism risk getting caught flat-footed with increasingly antiquated arguments that free enterprise is a Main Street pocketbook issue. Progressives are working relentlessly to see that it is not.

That is pretty much the core -- the Democrats wrote article after article about how the evil Carl Rove was out to create "a permanent majority" from a coalition of the religious, the investor, the believer in American exceptionalism and the "working nuclear family". That is actually what politics is SUPPOSED to be about, it is called "representative government".

The Democrats strategy is far simpler, but like a lot of their strategies, it is antithetical to the core values of America and will destroy the heart and soul of the nation. They want to create a PAID majority of the net recipients of government largess ... through increasing the number of government owed business (auto as an early example, healthcare to come ... 17% of the economy), deciding who can get money and who can't (banking and finance), as well as the usual dogs breakfast of benefits for dependence, penalties for independence.

There needs to be a battle for the heart of America, but Republicans are now beset with an extreme lack of LEADERSHIP!! Not surprising considering the high cost of sticking ones head up as a Republican, but never the less, an extreme problem for the way forward.

Another 100 Days Retrospective

100 DAYS, 100 MISTAKES FOR BARACK OBAMA - New York Post

These guys are a bit less positive than the MSM. Some of it is pretty ticky tack, but OTOH, had Bush governed like BO in first 100 days, they would have started impeachment proceedings. The Leno "special olympics" comment would have likely have been enough, but the Manhattan fly-by and "lying" about the British "never stooping to torture" would have certainly got the proceedings started at least in the MSM!

TOTUS

Teleprompter Of The US



BO is a good reader in front of groups of people. Is that what is called "leadership" these days?

Democrats on Debt

Last I recall, the Democrats claim to have turned into deficit hawks. Things haven't gone so well since they took over congress in '06.

Ever Hear of Photo Shop??

'Furious' Obama orders review of NY plane flyover - CNN.com

So who was paying for this? "Training mission" -- what a line of BS. Clearly this was a photo op for some campaign donor gimme. My bet would be BO's Christmas calendar to be sent to all the Wall Street, Banking and Union fat cats that paid the freight on his bloated campaign and have already been paid in WAY more than full by taxpayers!!!

So BO will throw someone else under the Bus. I'm SURE that the press would be letting Bush dodge responsibility if he was "furious". Ha!

Come on you completely biased MSM! Can't you even glimpse the disdain for the "common man" that your royal pain in the Butt BO has!

The Real Pirate Story

The "Real" story about the Somalia pirates and the NAVY SEAL'S

Lots more detail and it sounds a bit more realistic relative to the "BO orders". My guess is that the Bainbridge Captain was the real "decider" here. BO is far more qualified to decide things like low passes over Manhattan on a Monday than life and death issues.

In any case, it makes one proud to read it.

BO Stops No Bucks

White House apologizes for low-flying plane - CNN.com

The BO media love fest is truly amazing to watch. Gee, I wonder who it is that would have been responsible had one of the AF-1 747's been dispatched over lower Manhattan for a "photo op" during the Bush administration???


So why are BO's popularity numbers high? EVERYTHING at this point that can be cast in some sort of a positive light is attributed to his brilliance, and NOTHING that is "stupid, ham-handed, or just flat out a human error, made by all" is attributed to his worshipfulness.

Again, **IF THE TREATMENT OF BOTH PARTIES WAS THE SAME** this level of treatment for a story would be fine by me -- report it, blame the staffie that did it and the the FAA, and just "move on". Were the shoe on the other foot though, responsibility would be driven to the top (where it always is, but can never be fully covered because we really do put humans in those positions). I'd bet dollars to donuts if the shoe were on the other foot we would have to be talking about "how much did this cost" -- and "is this a campaign expense, or a legitimate government expense?".

I can't imagine it being useful for anything but a campaign expense -- but I'll bet it isn't being charged that way by BO, and no doubt after the hullabaloo got over, it would have to be by a Republican. A Republican President woudl lose the WEEKS news cycle on this and come out -- "how did it happen", "when did you know", "what was the purpose?", "what did it cost and who is paying"?, "will there be reimbursement of the companies that lost work hours for people having to leave the office?" ... lawsuits for pain and suffering for those that were there on 9-11 ... the list would just go ON and ON and ON ... until even most moderates would just be SICK of it.

However, to follow what happened in the Bush administration, such things leave a "bad taste in your mouth" even if you generally agree with the President's politics and even him personally -- seeing stuff like this drug through the media for a week, or weeks is just "unseemly", it adds "the patina of incompetence". Were the shoe on the other foot, I may well be unhappy primarily with the media, but I would be "unhappy" -- and clearly would realize that if someone in the WH had not made a mistake, there would be no coverage.

BO Throwing In Towel on Assault Weapons Ban?

First 100 days: Assault weapons ban - The First 100 Days- msnbc.com

Were that it were true. My bet is that once they get their 60 in the Senate they will try at least SOMETHING.

The Truth

100 days in office, Obama coronated Messiah

Imagine if they were "having fun" with the image of Mohamed! I love the title of the image; "The Truth". Reference to "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life"?

As I saw this, I was thinking of the BO symbol

I was wondering who the last leader was to have a symbol of their own?

Buy an Assault Weapon!

Op-Ed Contributor - What Happened to the Ban on Assault Weapons? - NYTimes.com

If Jimmy Carter is against it, then I'm for it, and it must be important for America -- I'm not going to be a slave to that rule like the Statist's were against W, but it isn't a bad starting position. The best use of his writing is to see how a Statist argues:

But none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives. That’s why the White House and Congress must not give up on trying to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, even if it may be politically difficult.

This is a CLASSIC Statist argument. The ONLY people who would want an Assault Weapon are people that:
1). want to kill policemen
2). what to go to a school or workplace and stack up victims / commit suicide

A conservative person looking at a point wants to understand BOTH sides. So here is the other side. No real need to run off there. EVERY major hunting gun is rooted in a military gun -- it is simply much easier to take whatever the current military platform is and adapt it to civilian hunting use. NONE of the guns banned by the "assault weapons ban" are in fact "assault weapons", because none of them have the selector switch to shoot full auto. That was made illegal in the '30s. If Carter is referring to anything at all, he is referring to a STYLE of gun -- black, collapsible stock, shrouded barrel and large magazines. They are often referred to as "black guns" -- unsurprisingly, because they are almost always painted black.

What are the results of this profligate ownership and use of guns designed to kill people? In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported more than 30,000 people died from firearms, accounting for nearly 20 percent of all injury deaths. In 2005, every nine hours a child or teenager in the United States was killed in a firearm-related accident or suicide.

Across our border, Mexican drug cartels are being armed with advanced weaponry imported from the United States — a reality only the N.R.A. seems to dispute.

The gun lobby and the firearms industry should reassess their policies concerning safety and accountability — at least on assault weapons — and ease their pressure on acquiescent politicians who fear N.R.A. disapproval at election time. We can’t let the N.R.A.’s political blackmail prevent the banning of assault weapons — designed only to kill police officers and the people they defend.

Let's similarly look at these "arguments"; Those numbers of deaths. How many of those were due to assault weapons? Apparently Jimmuh wants us to believe a large number, but we all know that is not true -- as does Jimmuh! See above, the ONLY people that buy Assault Weapons are those that want to kill cops or mass murder. His stats are of course COMPLETELY idiotic, because they INCLUDED murder and suicide, which are ALREADY ILLEGAL. Assault Weapons are used in < 1% of all crime. Crime went DOWN when the Assault Weapon ban went off. Banning Assault Weapons is has no purpose relative to crime or consumer safety.

I've covered the "Mexican Issue" elsewhere -- classic Statist argument to claim "ONLY" some group supports it. So what? That has no effect on truth or falsehood. Truth isn't determined by poll numbers. If Jimmuh thinks it is, then he ought to clearly be very quiet since Reagan completely trashed him in '80, so the definition of "truth" is "poll says", then Jimmuh is a loser. The guns used in Mexico drug wars are FULL AUTO -- those are ALREADY ILLEGAL HERE !!!! Everyone is entitled to their opionion, but not to their own facts.

WOW, a class of firearm DESIGNED to only kill ONLY policemen and civilians??? But wait! Why would cops carry them??? Do they want to just kill each other and civilians??? Like what happens? You point the Assault Weapon at a "criminal" and the bullets go seek out cops or innocent bystranders??? I've shot a few thousand rounds at paper targets with my Assault Weapon, and so far no bystanders or police killed -- does that mean that all the folks at the gun range when I was shooting were criminals, and thus saved??? I mean Jimmuh is a Nobel Prize winner -- just like Al Gore and Yassir Arafat, so he MUST know what he was talking about.

BO's "Pantywaist" Global Standing

Barack Obama and the CIA: why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly? :: Gerald Warner

Ah yes, the Brits. Sometimes it takes someone from across the pond to note the nakedness of the emperor:

If al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself. Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people - not even Jimmy Carter.

Obama's problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens. He has never abandoned the campaign trail.

Remember when any foreign criticism of a US President was trumpeted from the MSM as if it had been handed down from God Almighty? Bush just HORRIBLY "reduced the standing" of America "in the world" -- well yes, in the eyes of the French cheese eating surrender monkeys, or the German engineering Saddam reactor sales team, but like most opinions, it is VERY unlikely that the WHOLE world was in one accord with our brilliant MSM. They certainly aren't now!

President Pantywaist Obama should have thought twice before sitting down to play poker with Dick Cheney. The former vice president believes documents have been selectively published and that releasing more will prove how effective the interrogation techniques were. Under Dubya's administration, there was no further atrocity on American soil after 9/11.

President Pantywaist's recent world tour, cosying up to all the bad guys, excited the ambitions of America's enemies. Here, they realised, is a sucker they can really take to the cleaners. His only enemies are fellow Americans. Which prompts the question: why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?

Yes, BO is a hero to enemies of America both here and abroad. He is fast on the track to seeing if he can't start rounding up some of those awful political enemies on the right with the Homeland Security shock troops. Based on his books, he hates America because it has a lot of white folks in it, and he doesn't like them very much. They are all RACIST you know -- I think that is why they elected him President, they had a lot of guilt and self-loathing and thought it would be cathartic to have a Black racist destroying their nation.

Liberty and Tyranny

Subtitle: A Conservative Manifesto, by Mark Levin. I've never read anything by this guy, I've barely heard his name, but ran into the book recommendation off Amazon due to earlier purchases. I didn't learn a lot new since I pretty much keep it with this stuff, but it MAY be a useful "summary book", although I'm not sure it is going to go very far at resonating with any "moderates" yet until the nation descends a whole lot farther.

I like his designation of the "liberal" as "statist". I've talked a number of a times about the difficulty with the term "liberal", since it is anything BUT "liberal" in all of the cases but a narrow band of largely morality related to sex. "Fascist" or "Totalitarian" would be closer to the truth than "liberal", and while I like the Sowel term "un-constrained" even better, the amount of education required to make that term meaningful to enough people is too large. "Statist" is short, and I think gets the critical point across well enough.

I'll start with his Reagan quote at the end of the book:

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on to them to do the same , or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free".

Mark's comment is "We conservatives need to get busy", which is hard to disagree with, but after reading the book, one can easily despair. To be a conservative is to accept this reality in as much truth as we can muster and maybe most of all to accept the flawed and limited capacites of ourselves as humans within the reality. For most conservatives, we pray for the strength of a higher power/reality to help us do that.

Mark draws a quote from Washington's farewell address:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and m0rality are indespensible results -- and let us wtih caution indulge in the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion"

Levin goes on to say:

"How can it be said, as it often is, that moral order is second to liberty when one cannot survive without the other? A people cannot remain free and civilized without moral purposes, constraints and duties. What would be left but relativism manifesting itself as anarchy, followed by tyranny and brute force?"

He says this on the issue of judicial precedent relative to the Supreme Court:

"If words and their meaning can be manipulated or ignored to advance the Statist's political and policy preferences, what then binds the allegiance to the Statist's words? Why should today's law bind future generations if yesterday's lawy does not bind this generation? Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?"

One of the things this book does a good job of is showing just how far we have already strayed what is the obvious intent of the Constitution, and how perilous that makes our hold on ANY remaining liberty. While I fear we are a LONG way from getting the kind of control that would be needed to move court rulings back to original intent, I find his arguement extremely persuasive.

He provides this excellent FDR quote on the subject of FICA:

Those taxes were never problems of economics. They are politics all the way through. We put those payroll taxes there so as the give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program".

There is arrogance, and then there is universal and perpetual narcissim of the the FDR and BO sort. The separation of "means" (economics) from "politics". As Burke put it: "What is the use of discussion a man's abstract right to food or medicine? The question is upon the method of procuring and adminstering them. In that deliveration I shal always advise to call in the aid of the farmer and the physician, rather than the professor of metaphysics". Once could easily add, "also before the politician, lawyer, or academic.

The book does a good job of exposing the Ponzi scheme of FICA and medicare, and the fact that all the politicians that promulgated them were well aware that the programs were ruiniousin the future, but sure to be popular in the present. I believe what even the most cynical supporters of the programs underestimated was the insidius ways which they instituted a general irresponsibilty for investment for old age, the idea that it is "OK" or somehow even "virtuous" to fail to pass anything on the the succeeding generation, save debt and ever greater future obligations. The spirtual and moral rot of FICA and subsequent "entitlements", along with the bold faced lies promulgated by their supporters went a very long way to creating the culture of a corrupt "spend it today, have someone else pay it tomorrow" US attitude.

I could go on. He has decent coverage of the Sub-Prime debacle, environmentalism, unions, and other topics, but those were some highlights. I recommend the book -- at some point I likely ought to check into other items that Levin has written.

Pelosi on a Rope?

PRUDEN: Steady descent into third world - Washington Times

Conservatives essentially have nothing left to lose, so a couple of us were reduced to noodling on the thought that if BO can manage to let North Korea get BOTH nukes and ballistic missiles, potentially San Francisco would be a target of choice. So, assuming that Pelosi is home for the weekend, would that be a bad thing?

The point is essentially moot, since we have 100% Democrats in charge, so we can of course rest completely easy, as can Nancy. Only fools would not have complete faith in BO and his talented minions to keep this nation completely safe.

We do notice the increasing movement toward a "3rd world Amerika". If Bush's lawyers need to attend a necktie party, it seems that Nancy from the Intelligence Committee that was fully aware of the "torture" would need to be an active bouncing broken neck participant! As long as we are supposed to start enjoying conversion of policy decisions to criminal proceedings, ti seems that BO could get a lot more right wing support if he just left Nancy swinging from a rope until all that was left was her bleached bones.

No reason to apologize for that kind of thinking, seems like it would be right in line with the perspecitive from the BO Luo tribe!

Krugman's America has a Soul?

Op-Ed Columnist - Reclaiming America’s Soul - NYTimes.com

Wow, Paulie is a pretty strong leftist, I always thought he would have been a strict "randomness is god" materialist. Why would nature, let alone a nation, suddenly develop "a soul", and what would it look like?

Well, certainly not the Constitution to Paulie -- I've not seen any limits on what he finds acceptable for confiscation of private property, let alone the power of the federal government. He seems to be very sure of himself though.

No, it isn’t, because America is more than a collection of policies. We are, or at least we used to be, a nation of moral ideals. In the past, our government has sometimes done an imperfect job of upholding those ideals. But never before have our leaders so utterly betrayed everything our nation stands for. “This government does not torture people,” declared former President Bush, but it did, and all the world knows it.

Never? Golly. Like what "moral ideals"? Hatred for Republicans? BJs for all in the oval office and perjury is cool as long as you are a Democrat? Buying votes with other peoples money? Avoiding putting caterpillars on terrorists?

Slick Willie was doing foreign renditions, and it was the CIA that asked for the ability to use "enhanced interrogation", not the Bush administration. Anybody want to take a guess how Slick might have handled any request for executive guidance on interrogation methods? I'm thinking "don't ask, don't tell" was probably a really important Slickster policy for a lot more than what we know about.

For the fact is that officials in the Bush administration instituted torture as a policy, misled the nation into a war they wanted to fight and, probably, tortured people in the attempt to extract “confessions” that would justify that war. And during the march to war, most of the political and media establishment looked the other way.

WOW, that is quite a paragraph -- first of all, Paulie knows "facts". He has defined the line for torture for starters, and there is no need to write any memos trying to figure it out. Writing memos is beside the point -- the fact that the previous 4 CIA directors as well as the current one did not want even the memos released is a "non-point". It was BUSH that INSTITUTED the "torture policy" -- the fact that the CIA REQUESTED it has nothing to do with it. What is more, Pauli knows WHY! It was to extract "false confessions" to justify the war!! Man, that is really amazing -- how come both the Senate and the house, including most Democrats voted for the war WITHOUT any such confessions at all??

How mushy does one's head have to be to listen to this guy? I would love to see Pauli spend say "15 min" pointing out his "vision of the soul of America" to old General US Grant and General Sherman in a nice Union camp after one of the major battles. Suppose they ever had any captured rebel soldiers that needed to be asked a few questions? Suppose they wrote a lot of "memos"?

My guess is that Pauli would pee his pants the first instant Grant or Sherman focused his attention on him. His inflated ego would just start folding in on itself as he realized that America really did have a soul, but it was once so real and powerful that just being exposed to a couple of embodiments of it would be too much for the sort of maggot that now infests the rapidly decaying carcass of our once great nation.

Freddie Foster?

Freddie Mac's Acting CFO Found Dead - WSJ.com

As soon as I heard about this "apparent suicide", I thought back to the Clinton years. For some strange reason, Democrat administrations seem to have a lot of "tragic events" -- the Vince Foster "suicide" was one of the marque events of the Clinton regeime, but there were plenty of others -- Ron Brown dying in a plane crash, a plane crash with a bunch of Secret Services guys on it coming back from a Presidential vacation in Jackson hole are a couple that come to mind.

The Democrats have a lot of Union and Mob ties, and I often wonder if any of those are "contributors" to any of these tragic events. The MSM has been keeping the fact that Democrats were driving the easing up of all the credit restrictions since the '70s, and especially that all of these finanacial firms have been pouring money into the democrat party by the bucket load since at least the early 2Ks. Why?

"Follow the money" is a standard MSM line when the Republicans have any power, but right now there seems to be much less concern in doing that.

Would BO, Dodd and Barney Frank be willing to have someone killed that might be going to something stinky that linked some of the "wrong people" to the pure and shining Democrat party of the people? Nah, of course not. To even consider that, one has to be so foolish to think that Global Warming is questionable, nations might not become prosperous by just running humongous deficits and not everyone will be nice to you just because you bow to them and apologize for existing.

We don't have any time for that radical thinking today. Everything is fine.

Barocky Road

In honor of the 44th President of the United States, Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream has introduced a new flavor: "Barocky Road."

Barocky Road is a blend of half vanilla, half chocolate, and surrounded by nuts and flakes.

The vanilla portion of the mix is not openly advertised and usually denied as an ingredient.

The nuts and flakes are all very bitter and hard to swallow.

The cost is $100.00 per scoop.

When purchased it will be presented to you in a large beautiful waffle cone, but then the ice cream is taken away and given to the person in line behind you.

Thus you are left with an empty wallet, no change, holding an empty cone, with no hope of getting any ice cream.

Are you feeling stimulated?