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!