Democrats Represent Richest Districts

In major flip, House Dems now represent richest regions - USATODAY.com

A fool and his money are soon parted!

BO Fails To Win Economic Prize

MarketWatch First Take: Obama fails to win Nobel prize in economics - MarketWatch

This is simply too true to actually be funny.

The president has worked tirelessly since even before his inauguration to wrest control of the U.S. economy from failed free markets, and the evil CEOs who profit from them, and to turn it over to wise, fair and benevolent bureaucrats.

From his $787 billion stimulus package, to the cap-and-trade bill, to the seizures of General Motors and Chrysler, to the undead health-care "reform" act, Obama has dominated the U.S., and therefore the global, economy as few figures have in recent years.

The Warmest Year On Record

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | What happened to global warming?

2008? 2009? Nope ... according to that bastion of conservative global warming deniers, the BBC -- 1998. Good article -- it actually sounds like SCIENCE -- not "settled science" which is an oxymoron. Does it say that Global Warming is over? No, it just says we may have 20-30 years of global cooling or maybe more. Even if we do, it MIGHT be that those years won't cool as much as they otherwise would have and that even greater warming may start at the end of that.

The point is that the global warming models did not predict cooling -- not since '98, and certainly not 20-30 more years. In science, prediction and repetition of the predictions are what takes one at least in the direction of "settled science" -- while NEVER getting there!

However, when your models predict WARMING, and you get "a pause", any sort of "science" says it is time for a new model!

BO Leads to Decay

Decline Is a Choice

BO finds the US to be a very flawed nation, so we are in retreat militarily, economically, in space, and in world stature. BO thinks that is great -- no nation "can" be dominant according to him. He must have missed the Reagan years!!

So what does it mean to be an international loser? Poorer, sadder, and most likely eventually beaten in ways that are hard for us to even imagine now. Who will defend this flawed and defeated husk of a ones great nation destroyed by the stench of BO?

Certainly not the God which we have chosen to disdain.

Of symbolic but also more concrete importance is the status of the dollar. The social democratic vision necessarily involves huge increases in domestic expenditures, most immediately for expanded health care. The plans currently under consideration will cost in the range of $1 trillion. And once the budget gimmicks are discounted (such as promises of $500 billion cuts in Medicare which will never eventuate), that means hundreds of billions of dollars added to the monstrous budgetary deficits that the Congressional Budget Office projects conservatively at $7 trillion over the next decade.

The effect on the dollar is already being felt and could ultimately lead to a catastrophic collapse and/or hyperinflation. Having control of the world's reserve currency is an irreplaceable national asset. Yet with every new and growing estimate of the explosion of the national debt, there are more voices calling for replacement of the dollar as the world currency--not just adversaries like Russia and China, Iran and Venezuela, which one would expect, but just last month the head of the World Bank.

There is no free lunch. Social democracy and its attendant goods may be highly desirable, but they have their price--a price that will be exacted on the dollar, on our primacy in space, on missile defense, on energy security, and on our military capacities and future power projection.

But, of course, if one's foreign policy is to reject the very notion of international primacy in the first place, a domestic agenda that takes away the resources to maintain such primacy is perfectly complementary. Indeed, the two are synergistic. Renunciation of primacy abroad provides the added resources for more social goods at home. To put it in the language of the 1990s, the expanded domestic agenda is fed by a peace dividend--except that in the absence of peace, it is a retreat dividend.

And there's the rub. For the Europeans there really is a peace dividend, because we provide the peace. They can afford social democracy without the capacity to defend themselves because they can always depend on the United States.

So why not us as well? Because what for Europe is decadence--decline, in both comfort and relative safety--is for us mere denial. Europe can eat, drink, and be merry for America protects her. But for America it's different. If we choose the life of ease, who stands guard for us?

Not Knowing What Truth Is

RealClearPolitics - Young Hamlet's Agony

"I was part of the 2004 Kerry campaign, which elevated the idea of
Afghanistan as 'the right war' to conventional Democratic wisdom,"
wrote Democratic consultant Bob Shrum shortly after President Obama was
elected. "This was accurate as criticism of the Bush administration,
but it was also reflexive and perhaps by now even misleading as policy."

Which is a clever way to say that championing victory in Afghanistan
was a contrived and disingenuous policy in which Democrats never
seriously believed, a convenient two-by-four with which to bash George
Bush over Iraq -- while still appearing warlike enough to fend off the
soft-on-defense stereotype.

Brilliantly crafted and perfectly cynical, the "Iraq War bad, Afghan
War good" posture worked. Democrats first won Congress, then the White
House. But now, unfortunately, they must govern. No more games. No more
pretense.

The reason that Democrats felt certain that "Bush lied" relative to Iraq is because that is what they had been doing all along, and expect everyone to do. When Billy C cynically called for a "regiem change" policy in Iraq, he never meant to really do anything, just that he could launch some cruise missles and planes whenever he needed to "do something presidential". Being a Democrat means that is "just fine", and it is just fine with the MSM as well (as long as you are a Democrat).

So now we know that yet again, BO just said a bunch of stuff to be elected, but he has no stomach for actually winning the war in Afghanistan either. His real motto is "cut and run", just like the typical Democrat. He only said some other stuff to look good during the campaign. 

Yet his commander in chief, young Hamlet, frets, demurs, agonizes.
His domestic advisers, led by Rahm Emanuel, tell him if he goes for
victory, he'll become LBJ, the domestic visionary destroyed by a
foreign war. His vice president holds out the chimera of painless
counterterrorism success.

Against Emanuel and Biden stand David Petraeus, the world's foremost
expert on counterinsurgency (he saved Iraq with it), and Stanley
McChrystal, the world's foremost expert on counterterrorism. Whose
recommendation on how to fight would you rely on?

Less than two months ago -- Aug. 17 in front of an audience of
veterans -- the president declared Afghanistan to be "a war of
necessity." Does anything he says remain operative beyond the fading of
the audience applause?

I think we know the answer to that.

BO and Right to Choose

Obama: Health Care Plan Would Give Seniors Right To Choose How They Are Killed | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

If this doesn't make you smile you don't have a sense of humor.

SNL BO

Commentary: Will 'SNL' skit sink hopes for Obama? - CNN.com



CNN thought that it needed to FACT CHECK a SNL skit. Isn't that precious? I'm gratified to see that SNL was at least able to see it's way clear to FINALLY poke a little fun at his worshipfulness, but the idea of the MSM navel gazing on "how could they" is nearly too much to take.

Recall any media navel gazing while Bush was savaged in every way possible? Nope.

Wave of the Future?

Op-Ed Contributor - Why Arrest Roman Polanski Now? - NYTimes.com

"Progressivism" always requires "progress", so when there has been a major piece of "progress" in an area, one needs to look out for the next move. We seem to have defacto allowed gay marriage at this point, so while there will still be some "victories" to be had in that area, it is time for the progressives to start staking out the next goal in the "progress" of sexual "freedom".

My suspicion as long been that it will be in the area of sexual exploitation of children. Like homosexuality it has a long history of acceptance, with the Greeks and the Romans being prime examples. It also has a long history in literature and art "Lolita" and "American Beauty" come to immediate mind -- I'm sure the list is VERY long. How many rock songs have something about "little girl"? Most pedophiles, like homosexuals would say "they are born that way" -- and I'm sure they are at least somewhat right. Humans are born with all manner of desires that need to be trained away, transferred to something acceptable, dealt with "day by day with the help of a higher power" (like AA) or simply managed in the old fashioned will power way. While progressives have believe in the deity of man, and thus seek to remove all fetters, the obvious truth is that the only angels that humans resemble serve a master in a very dark yet fiery place.

What age will be pushed as "consensual"? Something in the 12 or thirteen age wouldn't be a bad guess.

Why are we supposed to care so deeply about Roman Polanski? Would the MSM and Hollywood view be the same if he were a Priest? How about an ex-Republican politician that had fled the country?  How long do you have to think to come up with that answer?

Remember, the linked article isn't in some strange Bohemian rag -- it is the NYT, "The paper of record". The mainstream left is working hard to let everyone see that "see, sex with a 13 year old girl is REALLY not so bad -- she turned out fine!". What do YOU think their purposes for such a position are?

Wisconsin Tourism Federation (WTF)

WTF? Bloggers cause Wisconsin Tourism Federation to change name | Technically Incorrect - CNET News

Well, OK ... sometimes some lettering combinations pick up new meanings over time.

When Is The Stimulus a Failure?

So the Democrats and the MSM declared the Surge a "failure" before a single extra soldier had been sent to Iraq. That was considered "fine".

BO predicted that we needed to spend $800 Billion to keep unemployment from going over 8%. Can you imagine the outcry if the Surge HADN'T actually worked??

Is it clear yet that this clown as absolutiely no idea what he is doing? HEEEELLLLOOOO !!!! is there anyone paying any attention, or are people such complete media sheep that they will just go with whatever they are told to think??

What CAN BO Do?

Obama’s Olympic failure will only add to doubts about his presidency - Times Online

I think we all know that, he can talk / campaign. When the electorate is stupid enough to vote for "Hope and Change" I guess that works, but we have seen a lot of the limits to rhetoric this year.

There has been a growing narrative taking hold about Barack Obama’s presidency in recent weeks: that he is loved by many, but feared by none; that he is full of lofty vision, but is actually achieving nothing with his grandiloquence.

Sorta sums it up -- pretty, but empty suit!

Mr Obama was greeted — as usual — like a rock star by the IOC delegates in Copenhagen — then humiliated by them. Perception is reality. A narrow defeat for Chicago would have been acceptable — but the sheer scale of the defeat was a bombshell, and is a major blow for Mr Obama at a time when questions are being asked about his style of governance.

Yup, the folks really like -- a loser, especially when the loser is the former greatest nation on earth. The PEOPLE overseas "really like him" -- the leadership realizes that he is an empty suit, and while the enemies no doubt love him, the allies are starting to get extremely worried. With good reason.

See Bush was NOT an empty suit. The media and the Democrats certainly tried to make him that, but any leader that could drive the Surge with 60% disapproval ratings of the action to success is a LEADER! Note that BO thought it was really bad that Bush hadn't gotten Bin Ladin -- now BO has taken over and is fast on his way to losing the whole deal in Afghanistan, and **HE** said it was a WAR OF NECESSITY!! Does that mean he should step down for a president that can get the job done?

So unemployment is up (a lot), the economy has not turned around, even with the biggest media cheering section we have ever had in the US, Afghanistan is falling apart and BO came in DEAD LAST in the Olympic sweepstakes. It was even a self-inflicted wound! He didn't need to associate himself with the effort.

If Bush's first year had been anything like this, the MSM would have been hard on the impeachment mantra by now -- of course the "Impeach Bush" bumper stickers were already out from the left. Naturally, those are the "civil folks".

Ends And Means

RealClearPolitics - Obama's French Lesson

Confusing ends and means, the Obama administration strives mightily for shows of allied unity, good feeling and pious concern about Iran's nuclear program -- whereas the real objective is stopping that program. This feel-good posturing is worse than useless, because all the time spent achieving gestures is precious time granted Iran to finish its race to acquire the bomb.

I work as a software systems architect, confusing ends with means is a constant danger often fallen into. Software is "infinitely pliable", it gives you the illusion that nearly anything can be accomplished, it is but "a small matter of programming". Sadly it is far from so.

Normal world leaders have long left behind such illusions about nations, politics, human nature, economies and the history of mankind. They have typically drunk deeply from the vast storehouse of human thought and experience that tells us that since when each of us looks in the mirror, at least beyond some hopefully young age, we see a flawed and mortal human. Those of us that will gain some small measure of "success" in this world choose to use that not as an excuse, but as just one more fact of life to be dealt with and improved upon in the best ways that we know possible.

By the time men get to the point of leading nations, they have usually led businesses, states, movements, political parties, cities, or some other form of real world training. To lead in the real world on even a relatively small scale is to learn the universality of human imperfection and the limitations of the real world very directly. That knowledge comes with the realization that too often, those that have never taken the mantle of leadership are still living with those same illusions thought to be left behind as the price of maturity.

We daily see that BO is not a leader. He doesn't understand the most basic aspects of leadership, and would nearly certainly have failed at any number of smaller leadership tasks had he ever have had those tasks. We would be in FAR better shape had he even served as a mayor in a small town in Alaska. There he would have discovered that there are always rivals, some folks that seem to be your friends are not once you take on leadership, getting agreement among even those who generally think like you is extremely difficult.

Most of all, there are often simply no means at all to reach what ever ends it is that we thought desirable. One wonders if BO ever put any toys or lawn furniture together? It seems almost impossible to imagine the stupidity of someone taking on tasks like running GM with the level of condescension and disdain he has displayed for people that clearly know far more than he has even imagined could be known!

It is hard to underestimate the ego of a man who would write two auto biographies before the age of 50. One because he thought being president of Harvard Law Revue was so cool, and the other after he had won a Senate seat after running essentially unopposed. (The Chicago political machine managed to take down a very strong Republican candidate named Jack Ryan by managing to open private documents from a divorce that asserted that he had tried to take his former wife to a sex club. His former wife was Gerry Ryan, "7 of 9" on Star Trek, that would have been better referred to as "11 of 10". That Ryan was able to utter any intelligible sentences other than "can we go to bed now" is a testament to his sexual restraint)

Charles whole column is eminently worthy of reading. The end is unfortunately way too true:

Bismarck is said to have said: "There is a providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children, and the United States of America." Bismarck never saw Obama at the U.N. Sarkozy did.

Infant Mortality

Ann Coulter : A Statistical Analysis of Maritime Unemployment Rates, 1946-1948. Just Kidding, More Liberal Lies About National Healthcare! - Townhall.com

Ann does a great job of destroying the liberal shibboleth that "America has a poor infant mortality rate". Essentially it boils down to these basic facts:

• Most countries don't count premature births below a certain weight, or in many cases even babies that live less than a day as "births" -- they call them "miscarriages".
  
• Most infant problems are lifestyle problems, not medical problems -- smoking, drinking and drugging mothers. Teen mothers. The US leads in all these categories, THANKS LIBERALS!
• Blacks have bad infant mortality rates and nobody really knows why.
  

The fact that it is the US that keeps pushing the envelope on saving premature babies earlier and earlier in fact ADDS to what the liberals refer to as our "infant mortality problem". By working harder to keep these tiny babies alive and counting them as "infant deaths", we end up looking worse in global statistics.

Imagine how quickly our infant morality rates would "improve" if ONLY we got "universal healthcare". Any baby that dies less than a day after birth is a "miscarriage". Why bother to try to save premature "babies"? It seems kind of weird that a nation that allows them to be partially birthed and have their brains sucked out to kill them in partial birth abortion would spend all that money trying to save them -- let them die and count them as miscarriages! Brilliant -- saves money, gives us better statistics, AND makes us more "morally consistent".

Switching Oxen

Op-Ed Columnist - Where Did ‘We’ Go? - NYTimes.com

I read through Freidman's piece and despair that Americans can return to some semblance of reality based discourse. He seems to realize that Bush was also de-legitimatized, but seems to think it was only because his first election was close. True, the Republican's tried to impeach Billy C, but that was only after he clearly lied often and egregiously in a suit that would have cost any other male at least his job, if not jail time. He also certainly perjured himself, and the Democrat side was recently very pleased to see Scooter Libby be prosecuted on that charge.

It is clear that someone as smart as Friedman CAN utterly forget the CONSTANT calls of "Bush Lied", "Bush is Hitler", "Bush is tapping your phone" ... and indeed, whole movies, some of them shown in theatres to millions of people like "Fahrenheit 911", dedicated to any sort of shoestring insinuation and smear that could be trotted out, not only of Bush, but of American troops, and "Death of A President", a FILM about the assassination of Bush. The number of people that "Bush ought to be shot" got to be so high that it wasn't shocking to hear anymore.

It is very hard to believe that Friedman (and others of his ilk) is not just trying to "set the stage" so that **IF** anything should happen to BO, there can be maximum use of force against all who  Tom is "holding responsible in advance". When Reagan was elected, I remember A LOT of folks saying "he is going to get us all blown up with his cowboy attitude". I personally knew a number of people that were actually building and stocking bomb shelters for the apocolypse -- and while I thought they were idiots, they were college educated folks working in good jobs at a major US corporation. If someone honestly believes that the president is going to "kill us all", isn't that MORE of a reason that someone might try to harm him than "he might be a socialist"?

Reagan of course WAS shot shortly after taking office and AFAIK, NOBODY tried to make it out that the rhetoric of the time "caused his death". People of course DID try to claim that "the hate filled climate in Dallas" got JFK shot, but the guy that shot him had gone to the USSR and Cuba and was a Communist -- not exactly the sort of "Southern angst" that the MSM was hoping for. How about today? It is certainly possible that any sort of a crackpot MIGHT take a shot at BO -- the Reagan would be assassin was trying to impress Jody Foster. You don't get a whole lot loonier than that -- unless of course you take Squeaky Fromme who was a drugged out Manson follower that tried to shoot Gerald Ford with a .45 ACP, but she had failed to chamber a round.

So ANY president COULD have an attempt made on his life at any time -- Saddam Hussein for example tried to have Bush 41 assassinated, but the MSM wasn't very worried about that other than they were concerned that W may have been trying to "get even". Were we missing ANYTHING of the "climate for violence against the president" when Reagan or Bush 43 were in office? I can't imagine what it would have been. Would it have been helpful for the media to assert that during Reagan, "people concerned that he was going to blow us all up" would be tempted to do him harm? or that during Bush 43, that "people who thought he was not legitimately elected, a liar, having soldiers killed for the corporate interests, or trying to harm lower income people for his rich friends" might have cause to do him harm?

Either Friedman is so far gone on bias that he utterly missed the 80's and the '00s, or he has his own rather nasty agenda. There is no way to know, we just have to guess.

But something very dangerous is happening. Criticism from the far left has begun tipping over into delegitimation and creating the same kind of climate here that existed in Israel on the eve of the Rabin assassination.

What kind of madness is it that someone would create a poll on Facebook asking respondents, “Should Bush be killed?” The choices were: “No, Maybe, Yes, and Yes if he cuts my health care.” The Secret Service is now investigating. I hope they put the jerk in jail and throw away the key because this is exactly what was being done to Rabin.

Even if you are not worried that someone might draw from these vitriolic attacks a license to try to hurt the president, you have to be worried about what is happening to American politics more broadly.

The previous isn't really a quote -- replace "far left" with "far right" in the first paragraph and "Bush" with "Obama" in the second, THEN it is what Friedman said. BUT, unless the guy is especially evil (see above), we have to assume that he is so biased that he didn't have at all the same feeling in the years from '03 to '08 that Bush was demonized beyond ANY comparison with relatively mild criticism of BO today. Apparently, whose Ox is getting gored really DOES make all the difference.

French Contempt for BO?

RealClearPolitics - Sarkozy's Contempt for Obama

Hey, these are the folks that take showers once a week! BO is a subject they know a good deal about.

Nicolas Sarkozy was furious with Barack Obama for his adolescent warbling about a world without nuclear weapons at a meeting Mr. Obama chaired of the United Nations Security Council last Thursday (9/24).

"We must never stop until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of the earth," President Obama said.

What infuriated President Sarkozy was that at the time Mr. Obama said those words, Mr. Obama knew the mullahs in Iran had a secret nuclear weapons development site, and he didn't call them on it.

‘President Obama dreams of a world without weapons...but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite," Mr. Sarkozy said.

"Iran since 2005 has flouted five Security Council resolutions," Mr. Sarkozy said. "North Korea has been defying Council resolutions since 1993."

"What good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community?" he asked rhetorically. "More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe out a UN member state off the map."

Golly, the cheese eating surrender monkeys are finding BO to be worthy of disdain. Our media used to CELBRATE any slight or perceived slight of Bush from any foreign power -- it was "evidence of how little respect the world had for Bush". But what is up here? Oh, wait -- the MSM LIKES BO, so when foreign leaders show that they think he is an idiot, they do their very best to ignore it, rather than to trumpet it from the mountaintops for days as they did with Bush. If they throw a shoe at him, I bet the MSM will demand that the US go to war over it -- just like we ought to do SOMETHING about those damned "tea bag protestors"!! (after there are so many they can't ignore them anymore).