BO Apologizes for America

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Obama's Unnecessary Apology

Charles points out the dual foolishness of the idea that America has "disrespected Muslims" in the past 30 years  -- Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq -- all to help Muslims. And the dual even more foolish idea that relations were somehow "good" 30 years agao -- when the Iranians took the US hostages in '79.

What Charles doesn't mention that is obvious to one that is 20% of the way through "Dreams from My Father", BO is one mixed up weird dude -- lots of use of the "N word", black rage, racism against whites, etc -- BO is very much a guy that lives in the world he imagines that he lives in, reality be damned.

So he probably DOES think that the late '70s were some sort of "golden age of US Moslem relations" -- and that we have been "Arab nasty" for the past 30 years -- or maybe he just said what was on his mind at that moment. The idea that he is some sort of an actual brilliant guy that thinks though everything he does in some sort of super way is really only a media fabrication anyway. This is the guy that had a guy that is now a convicted felon help him get a sweetheart deal on his $1.6 million home and didn't see any corruption that needed to be reported in IL politics.

I'm sorry America has BO.

Welcome To Socialism Comrade

A 40-Year Wish List - WSJ.com

The nasty Republicans are "partisan" for voting against the greatest glob of pork fat in world history. How quickly the tables turn from the "principled and courageous opposition" the Democrats always provided against Republican measures. I can't wait for the first filibuster -- what was once a threatened "sacred measure of the founders" when weilded by Democrats to prevent Republican court nominees from passing the hallowed halls of the Senate is very soon to become "an obstructionist anachronism". I wonder what has changed?

The Democrats are out buying votes again by the TRILLION. Yes, yes, the Republicans gave into the allure of pork for a few measly 100 Billion, but now the old pros are back in town and tripe is being slathered out by the TRILLION, and where are the MSM complaints? Uh, it isn't big enough?

Rush to Bi-Partisanship

Rush Stimulus Plan Link


BO summarizing his arguments with "I won" when meeting with Republicans hasn't gotten near the press coverage of Rush saying "I hope he fails". I included the entire segment from Rush here -- as pretty much anyone could realize, the "I hope he fails" is taken out of context, and what Rush doesn't want to succeed is an agenda of government taking over private industry, rewarding failure, and taking the nation deeper into hock at the rate of trillions per year rather than 100's of billions (which were bad enough).



I'm not a huge Rush fan, and there is no doubt he is bombastic -- although a good deal less so than Al Franken, and it looks like he is a "MN Nice Senator".

Not All Change is Good

From $80,000 a year to eviction: Hard times in America - CNN.com

In 2006, lots of folks voted for "change" and the Democrats took over Congress. In '08, they voted for the same message and we got a heavier tilt in Congress, and BO as president.

"It's hard not to be depressed during a time like this," she wrote.
"I never imagined in a million years that I would be in such a
situation at my age and at this point in my career. I am humiliated. I
am praying for everyone else out there is who are facing the same
problems."

I have no way of knowing if she is a big supporter of "Change", but she fits the demographic.

Do I think that "everything has happened is due to the Democrat takeover"? No, of course not. We as a nation have been saving little, spending LOTS at both the Government and personal levels and making up the difference with credit for a LONG time. I started work in '78 -- the watchword at that point was to buy as much home as you possibly could, it would go up in value, your salary would go up, and in 2 years you would be sitting pretty -- THEN, buy ANOTHER home and keep doing it. Many folks did, and many of them came out just fine (at least assuming that they quit the pyramid scheme sometime prior to '07). The EXPECTATION was that "everything will go up" -- especially homes, land and the stock market.

What has happened, is that as the economy rose, the expectations and the cry for "more, more, more" at every level have just continued to increase, but the ability of the economy to continue to rise kept reducing because of (among other things) "the law of diminishing returns" -- or put another way, if you make a buck, you can double your income by making two bucks, if you make a $100K, you have to make another $100K to double your income, and it is A LOT harder to make $100K than a buck! Worse, that 2nd $100K is going to get ripped with taxes and mean A LOT less to you than doubling the buck to two would have at that income level.

Even worse, a whole lot of business, financial and government models "required" the ever growing economy. Two main things finally prevented that; reality and expectations. The housing bubble and sub-prime loans provided the catalyst, but they did so on top of the combination of people talking about "how bad things where", and "how much things needed to change". Unfortunately, the fact that no matter how "bad" things are, it is ALWAYS a lot more likely and easy to make them WORSE was completely forgotten. In '06 and in '08 again, people thought that "a vote for non-specific change" was somehow prudent. The US simply rolled the dice and decided that "change was good".

Did we need change? Sure, but unfortunately we needed a change in something close to 180 degrees of the direction we chose. Growth through investment in capital/equipment, massive education improvements (including competition), huge personal and national savings rate increases, improved climate for entrepreneurship, reduction in old ideas like "retirement is better than work", and a host of other things to get our nation off the credit card and on to the earning our lifestyle. Had Bush managed to start investing some amount of money from FICA in stocks, that would have been a start, but that is now considered a "horrible idea".

I don't see any way out of the path we have chosen but a fall to the point where people FINALLY realize that "they have met the enemy, and the enemy is us!". We really CAN'T "have it all" and expect someone else to pay. That kind of logic has always led, and still does lead to most everyone having very very little.

Analog Government

Delay of analog TV's death hits House snag - CNN.com

I got a chance to hear MN's brilliant Amy Klobuchar on MPR discussing how the "incompetent Bush administration screwed up everything and how it was not recoverable, and how foolish it was of them to set the date of the switch for February, when it is cold out in MN, etc, etc". One thing about those Democrats -- they are non-partisan, and when they get the reins of power, it is nothing but competence, taking responsibility, and working together!

Strangely, this article points out that the date has been set for a DECADE ... let's see, who was President in '99? My guess is that Al Gore was in charge of the date as such a brilliant digital guy, inventor of the internet and all, and as Global Warming expert, was certain that everything would be balmy in the middle of February by '09. Global Warming is a crisis; that is why this is the first January since '79 that it hasn't made it above freezing in MN for the whole month!

According to the government it was hot then, and it's hotter now! Learn to trust the MSM and the elites that tell you what to think rather than the weather outside Comrade! This is Amerika! Amy, BO, and Katie Couric will tell you what you think!

I'm mystified here -- BO was to fix all of mankinds problems, and he can't even get some TVs switched over on the date it was originally scheduled? What in the world is up with that? I would have thought he could solve minor issues like that in his first "100 hours" and then accomplish fixing the planet, world peace, the cure for the common cold, and long, meaningful, easy and wealthy lives for all in the first 100 days or so.

What is the use of electing a "Deity" if they aren't going to actually DO godlike things rather than just talk pretty?

Dead President Election

Op-Ed Columnist - The Same Old Song - NYTimes.com

This article ends with the sentence:

"This is a party that, given a choice between Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan, would choose Ronald Reagan in a heartbeat."

Now THERE is a "testable hypothesis", but potentially, it was the most cogent part of the article.

Democrats have been arguing for years that "tax cuts are spending" -- at least in their universe, where everything belongs to the government, and what you keep is really the government's too. It is a universe to the left of France, somewhere in the vicinity of the old USSR. So far, the Democrats have failed to notice, that when everything is the government's, there is inherently a whole lot less to tax, spend, or eventually, even borrow. Money may just be printable willy nilly, but value is not. It requires somebody to "create something of value", and the people that do create value expect to be paid more than those who do not -- if they are not so paid, they tend to produce less, or not at all.

BO Goes to War on Babies

The Vatican Slams Obama Over Abortion - TIME

Most of the MSM has said as little as it can about BO fulfilling a campaign promise to the grim reapers of the unborn, but it appears that the Pope is still willing to stand up for those that can't defend themselves. This is an area that Democrats are pretty consistent on -- they may run away from most any enemy of America, but when it comes to killing babies, they are a brave lot.

It is MUCH easier to be seen as somehow "uniting" when decisions that you make that kill millions are unpopular with those "moral zealots" that care about such things, are soft pedaled to the extent that one has to be a news hound to figure out that they were done at all.

What is more, while a handful of folks protesting Bush or the war always got top billing, something like 20,000+ marchers descended on Washington last Thursday to protest the anniversary of Roe V Wade got a deafening lack of coverage.

Nope, no bias in our media!

.223 Customization

My Bushmaster and Kel Tec .223 guns are getting close to the level of customization that I had envisioned. Starting on the left, I've got the foregrip with picatinny rails on top and bottom on the PLR-16, the muzzle brake, and a red dot on it. I may want to add a laser/tactical light to that as well, but want to do some shooting with it before anything else.

The Bushmaster has an NcSTAR Mark III Tactical scope that is 1.25-4x32, has drop adjustments for 100-500 yards, and lighted reticule in either green or red. I also put a 4-rail compsite handgard on and added a cheap AIM laser/tactical light. Am thinking of adding rail mounted folding grip so I can mount the pressure switches for the laser and tac light there.

Both of them use standard .225 AR15 magazines. I have a couple 45 rounders, a number of 30s and a few 20's.

It will be interesting to see what BO and the Democrats do relative to a new "Assault Rifle Ban" -- last time around, the companies were able to sell out the inventory they had, but they weren't allowed to manufacture or import any new rifles or magazines over 10 rounds for the US. Naturally, prices rose because folks felt it was "now or never", and many folks went out and purchased higher capacity magazines than they ever had before and guns that were banned. This time around, supplies of the "black guns" are limited, and prices are rising rapidly already.

So why would I want such a weapon, when we all know that such "reasonable gun control" prevents crime? You remember that big burst in gun crime after the assault weapon ban expired in '04? Uh, well, neither do I, because there was a DROP in gun crime -- in fact, just the continuation of a drop in gun crime that most likely resulted from stiffer sentences on gun offenders. Here is a little article on that, in case you don't believe me -- from the LA Times, that bastion of conservative pro-gun thought!

Oh, I want such a weapon for two basic reasons:
1). They are really fun -- low recoil, accurate, fairly cheap ammo and magazines that let you shoot, not spend your time filling up another magazine.
2). They are EXACTLY the type of arms that our founders protected in the constitution. The idea of the "militia" was NOT some "government approved militia", it was the "final check" on government tyranny. They had just finished a revolution and they understood the temptations of power -- an armed populace is intended to be something to remind the government that "there are limits".

Do I think I will ever have to use them for anything other than punching holes in paper or plinking? I sure hope not -- just like I never want to use either my fire, health, or car collision insurance -- let alone rely on the air bags and seat belts working. I'm not about to cancel any insurance or pull any safety gear 0ut of the car though.

What about the risk? Certainly there is a risk in having guns -- or driving, or walking, or riding a bike. Our founders didn't think of putting a "right to drive" or "right to walk" in the constitution, because they didn't see those rights as having any prospects for protecting liberty, which they cherished. There is a risk in NOT having guns as well -- we are (still) a free people that can select which risks we consider worth taking.

Overturning Reagan

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Obama Aims to Overturn the Reagan Revolution, Quietly

So far, BO is pretty much a political reflective surface into which the politically narcissistic stare, see a reflection of their own ideas, and fall in love. Unsurprisingly, EJ Dionne sees BO as the the shining knight to turn back the political clock beyond the age of Reagan, as Dionne himself has thought is a grand idea since the day Reagan was elected.

President Barack Obama intends to use conservative values for progressive ends. He will cast extreme individualism as an infantile approach to politics that must be supplanted by a more adult sense of personal and collective responsibility. He will honor government's role in our democracy and not degrade it. He wants America to lead the world, but as much by example as by force.

"Conservative values for progressive ends" is a nice statement. Certainly a good idea use conservative values, since liberal values are an oxymoron -- he is on solid pragmatic footing there. So what is a progressive end? Socialism and other collectivism of course. It is good that individual rights are "infantile", that is a very useful term. So would that be ALL individual rights? Speech, Religion, Property, Association -- or only Property?

He returns to the theme at the end and lets us know a bit more of his position:

For now, each side in the old debate can enlist aspects of Obama's rhetoric in their polemics against the other. But in associating our recent past with "childish things," in insisting that greatness is "never a given" and always "must be earned," Obama is challenging the very basis of their conflict.

It is a worthy fight. It will also be a hard fight to win because rights are so much easier to talk about than duties, and freedom's gifts are always more prized than its obligations.

He earlier claims that "the sides" are the "do your own thing personal morality of the 60's" and "the greed and irresponsibility of the '80s" ... BO will now eclipse with his new higher level of morality, a morality of "duty". So what would BO do to supplant "do your own thing"? Return abortion restrictions, so the wages of promiscuity would include the responsibility of parenthood rather than the killing of the unborn? Apparently not, he has already signed an executive order so that our tax dollars can be used to avoid that responsiblity globally.

Can you really imagine BO doing something that would suspend the moral abrogation of the '60s? Nope, neither can I. That whole side of the equation is exactly what liberals usually do -- present a false bargain where they will give up precisely nothing. Can you imagine him radically attacking property rights through standard income taxation, and possibly even more egregious "wealth taxes"? Not too hard is it?

International Space Station

I haven't watched it all myself -- it isn't all that "fast moving", but it gives a good idea of how big a station we have up there.

Screw the White Males and Middle Class

Has to be watched to be believed. A right wing radio show couldn't even make this up as a PARODY !!! They are discussing ON CAMERA how they are going to DISCRIMINATE against "white males", "people with skills" and the "middle class" on this stimulus. Don't let the State Legislatures have their say! Oh, by the way, the "middle class" is to busy to be concerned about this -- working to put food on their tables and to send their kids to school!!

The age of BO is upon us!

Maybe He Just Has No Idea?

RealClearPolitics - Articles - No Idea What He's Doing

The general view seems to be that BO is brilliant -- he may well be, we need to remember that the Unibomber is a genius as well. Being smart and having ideas hat can be applied successfully to reality isn't the same thing. One translation of BOs "abandonment of ideas" is tied up in the definition of "cipher" -- ZERO; One that has no weight. NONENTITY ....

The following quote sums it up pretty well. The price of being "everything to everyone" is at some point simple negation. You have no position, you don't exist. Is that where BO is headed when we finally see behind the curtain?

It is basic choices between opposing principles that Obama is
telling us are "stale" and "no longer apply." And if you think that
ideas and principles still matter, you're a cynic!

Thus, Obama begins his administration by declaring that he will run
the government while rejecting any overarching ideas and principles
regarding the proper role and scope of government action. He starts by
telling us, in effect, that he has no idea what he is doing.

This is why the rest of the speech sticks to conventional bromides
and tries to split the difference on every big issue. Big government
versus small government; free markets versus government controls;
personal responsibility versus the welfare state; vigorous national
defense versus diplomatic temporizing. Where does Obama stand on these
issues? Nowhere. This is what a cipher sounds like.

Gitmo Alumnis Makes "Good"

Power Line - Inconvenient Timing

Hey, a Gitmo Alumnis is already #2 position of Al Qaeda Yemen! How bad can all that horrible treatment and torture be if you can get out and still have success in your terror career!

BO has decided that "there are dangerous people in Gitmo" -- so he has a "task force" hard at work to figure out how to "close it" -- in a year, or maybe before the end of his first term.

NPR cheered loudly each time the "Bush Administration was repudiated" and some legal approach forced another release from Gitmo. Here here! Nothing better than releasing folks that want to kill us to make a lefty's day!

Opaque, Contradictory and Subtle

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Obama's Inaugural Surprise

Good column by Krauthammer, I think the following is the highlight. As I read the different innauguration retropsectives, I'm struck by how BO still managed to let everyone hear what they want to hear. He is more like a beer commercial than a leader. BO says "responsibility, work, sacrifice and service" and Charles hears "wow, those are conservative values". The BO supporters hear it and think, oh cool, he is going to make those nasty rich folks be "responsible, sacrifice, keep working hard and serve us!". Both sides applaud and BO smiles sweetly.

How long can BO keep 70% of the population from "looking behind the curtain" (as in Wizard of Oz)? Only the time is in question, because there is a LOT of stuff behind the curtain, and "over the rainbow" is just a dream.

Candidate Obama had promised the moon. In soaring cadences, he
described a world laid waste by Bush, a world that President Obama
would redeem -- bringing boundless hope and universal health, receding
oceans and a healing planet.

But now that Obama was president, the redeemer was withholding, the
tone newly sober, even dour. The world was still in Bushian ruin,
marked by "fear ... conflict ... discord ... petty grievances and false
promises ... recriminations and worn-out dogmas." But now no more the
prospect of magical restoration. In a stunning exercise in lowered
expectations, Obama offered not quite blood, sweat and tears, but
responsibility, work, sacrifice and service.

Morris is an Optimist!

http://thehill.com/dick-morris/the-obama-presidency--here-comes-socialism-2009-01-20.html

I've covered almost all of this in one post or another, but a good summary. The only thing I REALLY disagree with him on is the idea that we will be through this all by 2012. My guess is that BO will be very successful with the realignment of the country into > 50% "tax takers" and < 50% tax payers along with adding a lot of illegal aliens to the voting roles, along with Acorn Style "here, let me vote for you" absentee voting to create a nearly impregnable Democrat majority for a good long while.

The big issue is that we will mostly likely face a rapid decline in quality of life on all fronts -- income, crime levels, medical, education, etc, but that will be solidly blamed on "the country having gone in the wrong direction for so long". My thinking is that it will be 8-12 years before some coalition of some set of folks can start to get the point across that we have to re-ignite the free market economy or the quality of life here will continue to drop.

So I guess that I think Morris is a optimist!