You will likely see, as I have, implications from the press that the TRILLION DOLLAR (Larry Kudlow is reporting that the Yabut administration is kicking around adding an ADDITIONAL 2 TRILLION DOLLARS to the bill - making for a THREE TRILLION DOLLAR SPENDING SPREE (remember, Democratic politicians wet themselves if you dare imply they are for 'tax and spend')) is very popular with the public.
There is only one reason to do this, it is to make the Republicans that are defying Great Leader and his followers look like they are the outsiders, out of touch, clueless, and going against the bold new majority. Why is it not possible that they are doing this honestly?
Simple, polls show the TRILLION DOLLAR spending spree is NOT supported by a majority of Americans and is DECREASING in favor.
Rasmussen's latest shows that support has dropped in the past week from 45% to 42%.
Let me say that again so you remember it and have it handy whenever you hear (or read) a liberal claim it is popular and the Republicans are damning themselves by going against Great Leader. BEFORE the vote on the bill, it was already only supported by 45% of Americans. So it was THE REPUBLICANS, voting en masse against the TRILLION DOLLAR spending spree, who were voting in accordance with the wishes of America. It was the Democrats, who voted almost entirely for the bill, that were voting the wishes of less than half the country. And support is dropping.
Remember. Repeat it. Everywhere. At work. At bars. On discussion boards. On blogs. Do NOT concede the net to the left. Do not let the lies continue - 8 years are ENOUGH.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Glory Days Of Islamic Terror
Apparently Great Leader is obsessed with returning America to a pre-911 mentality, as the saying goes. How else do you justify his granting his first interview with a muslim TV network where he criticizes America and wonders aloud what we can do to return to the days pre-911 when we were attacked by muslims in return for our efforts and outreach and bloodloss simply to aid them? His actions are the shining epitome of a desperate return to the head in the middle eastern sand of August 2001. Charles Krauthammer makes his actions look as ludicrous as they sound:
Is it "new" to acknowledge Muslim interests and show respect to the Muslim world? Obama doesn't just think so, he said so again to millions in his al-Arabiya interview, insisting on the need to "restore" the "same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago."
Astonishing. In these most recent 20 years -- the alleged winter of our disrespect of the Islamic world -- America did not just respect Muslims, it bled for them. It engaged in five military campaigns, every one of which involved -- and resulted in -- the liberation of a Muslim people: Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.
The two Balkan interventions -- as well as the failed 1992-93 Somali intervention to feed starving African Muslims (43 Americans were killed) -- were humanitarian exercises of the highest order, there being no significant U.S. strategic interest at stake. In these 20 years, this nation has done more for suffering and oppressed Muslims than any nation, Muslim or non-Muslim, anywhere on earth. Why are we apologizing?
And what of that happy U.S.-Muslim relationship that Obama imagines existed "as recently as 20 or 30 years ago" that he has now come to restore? Thirty years ago, 1979, saw the greatest U.S.-Muslim rupture in our 233-year history: Iran's radical Islamic revolution, the seizure of the U.S. embassy, the 14 months of America held hostage.
Which came just a few years after the Arab oil embargo that sent the United States into a long and punishing recession. Which, in turn, was preceded by the kidnapping and cold-blooded execution by Arab terrorists of the U.S. ambassador in Sudan and his charge d'affaires.
This is to say nothing of the Marine barracks massacre of 1983, and the innumerable attacks on U.S. embassies and installations around the world during what Obama now characterizes as the halcyon days of U.S.-Islamic relations...
As in Obama's grand admonition: "We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith's name." Have "we" been doing that, smearing Islam because of a small minority? George Bush went to the Islamic Center in Washington six days after 9/11, when the fires of Ground Zero were still smoldering, to declare "Islam is peace," to extend fellowship and friendship to Muslims, to insist that Americans treat them with respect and generosity of spirit.
And America listened. In these seven years since 9/11 -- seven years during which thousands of Muslims rioted all over the world (resulting in the death of more than 100) to avenge a bunch of cartoons -- there's not been a single anti-Muslim riot in the United States to avenge the greatest massacre in U.S. history. On the contrary. In its aftermath, we elected our first Muslim member of Congress and our first president of Muslim parentage.
"My job," says Obama, "is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives." That's his job? Do the American people think otherwise? Does he think he is bravely breaking new ground? George Bush, Condoleezza Rice and countless other leaders offered myriad expressions of that same universalist sentiment.
Friday, January 30, 2009
If At First (2nd, 3rd...) You Fail, Do The Same Thing Again
So goes the Democrat mantra. Well, it's never worked before, but they never had a MESSIAH in charge before!
The bill provides a paltry $140 billion for President Obama's "making work pay" tax credit that will be paid out to most taxpayers by lowering the federal income-tax-withholding rate.-Donald Lambro
Economists who have crunched the numbers tell me that this part of the stimulus bill will put about $10 (for single taxpayers) to $20 (for couples) more in their weekly paychecks over the course of a year.
Few economists think $10 more a week is going to send cash-strapped consumers flocking to the stores on a spending spree, but this is what the Obama administration thinks will help low- to middle-income Americans cope with a fierce recession that's going to get worse before it gets better.
"It has virtually no bang for the buck because it doesn't affect incentives for working, investing and things that actually make the economy go," said economist J.D. Foster at the Heritage Foundation...
A chunk of this money will go into needed safety-net and social-welfare programs for unemployment compensation, healthcare and food stamps. But budget analysts tell me the really big money will go into "a black hole" of government largesse that won't deliver the nearly 4 million jobs Obama says it will.
Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad, the Budget Committee chairman, says at best it may create half that, and even that is questionable.
The Congressional Budget Office issued a stinging data analysis of the spending plan during inauguration week that raised troubling unanswered questions about Obama's retro-New Deal infrastructure-spending scheme. It showed that just a very small fraction of the money being dished out will get into the economy by the end of this year. Less than half will get out by late 2010...
The chairman of the 100-member caucus of GOP conservatives calls Obama's plan "the non-stimulus," like the un-cola, because whenever it has been tried in the past, it has failed to boost economic growth.
One wonders if any White House reporter at the president's next news conference will ask Obama to point to another spending stimulus program that pulled the economy out of a recession. When I have put that question to economists, they can't come up with one example where infrastructure spending has worked...
Our Crazy Is Better Than Your Crazy
Proof that conservatives are not 'out of ideas' as they oppose Great Leader's TRILLION DOLLAR boondoggle of a hornswoggle. Linda Chavez proves that even working within the loony confines of PelosiCo's TRILLION DOLLAR tax grab, the right can come up with a more reasonable, workable, effective solution. Of course, as they complain that the Republicans 'brought nothing to the table', you MUST recall (and REMIND those around you) that PelosiCo REFUSED to even allow a Republican near the table (admitted by CBS' Maggie Rodriguez- "I mean, what are -- they're not -- their voices aren't going to be heard anyway, as we saw with this economic stimulus plan."):
But if we're going to have a trillion-dollar stimulus, here's a modest proposal for a better way to do it. This approach would cost about the same as the Democrats' current plan, but it could put money into people's pockets in weeks, not years.
Why not give every man, woman, and child in the United States $3,000 to spend on pretty much anything they choose. The price tag would be about $900 billion, barely more than what is in the House package now. But unlike the Democrats' plan, which has government making the decision about how the money should be spent, people would get to decide for themselves.
There'd be no limits on who could receive the money -- a rich man would get the same three grand that a poor woman or child received. The program isn't intended to redistribute wealth, but to infuse the economy with cash. The only rule that would apply is that the money would have to be spent within a certain period of time, say 18 months. In addition, most of the money would have to be spent on buying things: payment toward a new or used car, down payment on a home, some new appliances, home remodeling, clothes, electronics, or even a vacation. Hey, you could even use it to put solar panels on your roof or erect a windmill in your background (sic) if that's what you wanted. But only a portion of the money could go to paying down credit card or current mortgage debt -- say, a third -- and then only if the person was already two months in arrears in their payments.
In order to keep this cash distribution about as simple as possible but still allow the money to be tracked so that we know that people are actually buying stuff not hording the money in their bank accounts, the government would disperse it in the form of debit cards linked to the individual's Social Security number. The government could surely subcontract this out to one of the large credit card companies for a small administrative fee charged to the cardholder, similar to what some companies charge now for gift cards. And recipients would receive a statement that they would have to submit with their tax return within the time period to ensure they played by the rules.
The virtue of this plan would be that the market would allocate the money far more efficiently than any scheme government bureaucrats could come up with. A young family of four would suddenly have $12,000 that they could use toward a down payment on a home or a new car. Imagine how quick the inventory in depressed housing would dry up if suddenly young families had that kind of cash to put down on a home. And automobiles would go racing off the car lots.
Now, of course, all this cash could be inflationary -- government spending usually is. And we know all those debit cards would be paid for with borrowed money -- but so is Nancy Pelosi's "stimulus package." Nonetheless, the beauty would be that consumer spending would bring the country out of recession, create new private sector jobs and protect existing ones, and the government would get back at least a portion of what it gave away in taxes from people who were suddenly working instead of drawing unemployment compensation.
GDP Contracts Much Less Than Feared
Interesting bit of babble this morning about the economy. All morning I was hearing a couple things - first, that stocks were expected to jump out of the gate higher thanks to really good earnings news from Amazon.com, but that they would likely falter due to the expected 5.5% decline in GDP.
Well, the advance report (expect it to change one way or the other over the next few months) is out and it's much better than feared - a 3.8% drop. As Briefing.com notes, this still isn't good news, but it is "better than expected" news.
World markets are in rough shape as they traded based on the -5.5 guess as well as their own less hardy economies.
Well, the advance report (expect it to change one way or the other over the next few months) is out and it's much better than feared - a 3.8% drop. As Briefing.com notes, this still isn't good news, but it is "better than expected" news.
World markets are in rough shape as they traded based on the -5.5 guess as well as their own less hardy economies.
Blatant Hypocrisy At Times Union
Allow me to take a moment to slap the Times Union around for their blatant hypocrisy. A word of warning for my friendly readers - you may grow lightheaded from laughing or very angry. And for my readers at the Times Union, this should make you very VERY embarrassed at your senior staff - and yourself if you find yourself going along with them all the time.
I'd like to start everyone off with a recounting of what the Times Union had to say about anyone refusing to unequivocally declare that waterboarding is torture at a confirmation hearing. Check out the language the Times Union uses:
10-19-07 - editorial - Mr. Mukasey likewise needs to say if the savage interrogation tactic known as waterboarding is constitutional, regardless of whether it's defined as torture. He's dodging that one, too...THE ISSUE: The attorney general-designate dodges senators' questions about torture. THE STAKES: Confirmation requires answers. "Savage"? Interesting name for something that does no permanent harm and is practiced by our own military against our own warriors. "Confirmation requies answers"! You betcha!
10-19-07 - NYT piece - President Bush's nominee for attorney general, Michael B. Mukasey, declined Thursday to say if he considered such harsh interrogation techniques as waterboarding , which creates the sensation of drowning, to constitute torture or to be illegal when used against terror suspects.
10-23-07 - Tom Teepen column - And never mind if Mukasey, as yet unconfirmed, is not yet privileged to all the administration arcana on just what is or isn't exactly torture. His demurrer on the question of the near drownings called waterboarding ignores their all but universal condemnation as just what Geneva was getting at. In its next round with the nominee, the Senate Judiciary Committee dare not shrink into its fears that to hold Mukasey to clear account is to risk being labeled weak on terrorism. Mmmm...yes, the Senate needs to be much stronger in their questioning of this guy about this waterboarding stuff. Harrumph, yes.
10-26-07 - Jonathan Turley column titled "Why is Mukasey still a viable nominee?" - The most surprising thing about the nomination of Michael Mukasey to be the attorney general, now pending before the Senate, is the wave of support from Democrats. They seem determined to ignore what they clearly view as a minor flaw in this nominee: his refusal to denounce the deplorable practice of waterboarding and his apparent willingness to lie to duck the issue. Harrumph! Yes, you cannot confirm him if he ducks the issue! Quack!
11-1-07 - NYT piece - In adamantly refusing to declare waterboarding illegal, Michael B. Mukasey, the nominee for attorney general, is steering clear of a potential legal quagmire for the Bush administration: criminal prosecution or lawsuits against Central Intelligence Agency officers who used the harsh interrogation practice and those who authorized it, legal experts said on Wednesday...The biggest problem for Mukasey remains his refusal to clearly take a legal position on the interrogation technique. Huge problem, big big big. Gotta deal with this!
11-6-07 - AP piece - At Mukasey's confirmation hearing, the judge rankled Democrats by saying he was not familiar with the technique, and could not say whether it was torture and therefore illegal. Ooooh, they were "rankled". I wonder if that's considered torture.
11-7-07 - Cox piece - President Bush's pick to run the troubled Justice Department advanced Tuesday despite concerns that he has refused to declare waterboarding an illegal torture method.
1-31-08 - editorial - It's easy to understand why Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee were so angered Wednesday by Attorney General Michael Mukasey's refusal to define waterboarding as torture...THE ISSUE: The attorney general ducks and weaves on waterboarding. THE STAKES: He shouldn't be let off the hook once again. Mmm! Yes! Don't let him off the hook on this!
Of course the best parts are the editorials as they are the unfiltered (and often untrue) voice of the papers high holy men themselves. Recall that the TU ran two editorials explicitly calling for Mukasey to be held accountable. But also, you can see how many news pieces and columns they ran emphasizing the nominees refusal to dub waterboarding 'torture' and outright attacking the character of the nominee for his failure to do so - quite viciously, actually.
Now comes the messiah, the redeemer, the healer of worlds...and his nominee Dennis Blair. ABC reports the following:
So, me being me, I did a little research. Can you guess how many times the name Dennis Blair has shown up in the Times Union in the past 30 days (his hearing is much more recent than that)?
One time.
Yes, one time.
Happily, that single instance is an editorial!
I bet you're wondering what the Times Union had to say about Dennis Blair.
Ah, I'm such a tease. First I'm going to remind you what was said about Mukasey due to his failure to genuflect to the left on waterboarding:
"needs to say if the savage interrogation tactic known as waterboarding is constitutional, regardless of whether it's defined as torture. He's dodging that one, too"
"Confirmation requires answers"
"He shouldn't be let off the hook once again."
So what did the high and mighty editorialists have to say about Blair after he, too, "ducked" and "dodged" the matter?
1-23-09 - editorial - What's so refreshing, though, is that Mr. Obama has picked someone who seems to share his wider vision to be his director of national intelligence...So goes a policy of protecting both our safety and our ideals.
Waterboarding? Funny - never came up. Imagine that. Ahhhhh...refreshing!
I guess with Great Leader in charge, suddenly a nominee can be "let off the hook" and his confirmation does not require answers and he does not need to confirm his position on "savage" waterboarding - even when questioned about it directly.
Proud of yourselves?
You know...I bet they are.
-
In an unrelated item, check this out from the ABC piece: "Concerning past oversight issues of the Bush administration on domestic surveillance and detainee interrogations, Blair promised to have more "transparency and accountability" if confirmed."
Let me get this straight...the nominee for director of national intelligence is saying that he will be more "transparent" on surveillance of our enemies. I can see it now...we'll get some spies into Iran, but they'll all be wearing "Hi, my name is USA SPY" stickers. Ever see The Kentucky Fried Movie? The longest bit I think was called like "A Fistful of Yen" or something...at one point the good guy has infiltrated the bad guy's secret fortress and he is meeting with the captive scientist who points out the "secret surveillance" going on of their conversation - including a guy with a boom mike in plain sight and an entire recording room, also in plain sight.
I'd like to start everyone off with a recounting of what the Times Union had to say about anyone refusing to unequivocally declare that waterboarding is torture at a confirmation hearing. Check out the language the Times Union uses:
10-19-07 - editorial - Mr. Mukasey likewise needs to say if the savage interrogation tactic known as waterboarding is constitutional, regardless of whether it's defined as torture. He's dodging that one, too...THE ISSUE: The attorney general-designate dodges senators' questions about torture. THE STAKES: Confirmation requires answers. "Savage"? Interesting name for something that does no permanent harm and is practiced by our own military against our own warriors. "Confirmation requies answers"! You betcha!
10-19-07 - NYT piece - President Bush's nominee for attorney general, Michael B. Mukasey, declined Thursday to say if he considered such harsh interrogation techniques as waterboarding , which creates the sensation of drowning, to constitute torture or to be illegal when used against terror suspects.
10-23-07 - Tom Teepen column - And never mind if Mukasey, as yet unconfirmed, is not yet privileged to all the administration arcana on just what is or isn't exactly torture. His demurrer on the question of the near drownings called waterboarding ignores their all but universal condemnation as just what Geneva was getting at. In its next round with the nominee, the Senate Judiciary Committee dare not shrink into its fears that to hold Mukasey to clear account is to risk being labeled weak on terrorism. Mmmm...yes, the Senate needs to be much stronger in their questioning of this guy about this waterboarding stuff. Harrumph, yes.
10-26-07 - Jonathan Turley column titled "Why is Mukasey still a viable nominee?" - The most surprising thing about the nomination of Michael Mukasey to be the attorney general, now pending before the Senate, is the wave of support from Democrats. They seem determined to ignore what they clearly view as a minor flaw in this nominee: his refusal to denounce the deplorable practice of waterboarding and his apparent willingness to lie to duck the issue. Harrumph! Yes, you cannot confirm him if he ducks the issue! Quack!
11-1-07 - NYT piece - In adamantly refusing to declare waterboarding illegal, Michael B. Mukasey, the nominee for attorney general, is steering clear of a potential legal quagmire for the Bush administration: criminal prosecution or lawsuits against Central Intelligence Agency officers who used the harsh interrogation practice and those who authorized it, legal experts said on Wednesday...The biggest problem for Mukasey remains his refusal to clearly take a legal position on the interrogation technique. Huge problem, big big big. Gotta deal with this!
11-6-07 - AP piece - At Mukasey's confirmation hearing, the judge rankled Democrats by saying he was not familiar with the technique, and could not say whether it was torture and therefore illegal. Ooooh, they were "rankled". I wonder if that's considered torture.
11-7-07 - Cox piece - President Bush's pick to run the troubled Justice Department advanced Tuesday despite concerns that he has refused to declare waterboarding an illegal torture method.
1-31-08 - editorial - It's easy to understand why Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee were so angered Wednesday by Attorney General Michael Mukasey's refusal to define waterboarding as torture...THE ISSUE: The attorney general ducks and weaves on waterboarding. THE STAKES: He shouldn't be let off the hook once again. Mmm! Yes! Don't let him off the hook on this!
Of course the best parts are the editorials as they are the unfiltered (and often untrue) voice of the papers high holy men themselves. Recall that the TU ran two editorials explicitly calling for Mukasey to be held accountable. But also, you can see how many news pieces and columns they ran emphasizing the nominees refusal to dub waterboarding 'torture' and outright attacking the character of the nominee for his failure to do so - quite viciously, actually.
Now comes the messiah, the redeemer, the healer of worlds...and his nominee Dennis Blair. ABC reports the following:
Retired Adm. Dennis Blair, President Barack Obama's nominee for director of national intelligence, said today that it's time to "turn this new page" on Guantanamo Bay interrogations and how the intelligence community has operated -- though he stopped short of calling waterboarding torture...Hmmmm...his lack of faith in the weak-kneed left's retreat and surrender response to terrorism is troubling to the Democrats. Shame.
Levin responded, "Your reluctance to give your own judgment on that question, it seems to me, is troubling to me."
So, me being me, I did a little research. Can you guess how many times the name Dennis Blair has shown up in the Times Union in the past 30 days (his hearing is much more recent than that)?
One time.
Yes, one time.
Happily, that single instance is an editorial!
I bet you're wondering what the Times Union had to say about Dennis Blair.
Ah, I'm such a tease. First I'm going to remind you what was said about Mukasey due to his failure to genuflect to the left on waterboarding:
"needs to say if the savage interrogation tactic known as waterboarding is constitutional, regardless of whether it's defined as torture. He's dodging that one, too"
"Confirmation requires answers"
"He shouldn't be let off the hook once again."
So what did the high and mighty editorialists have to say about Blair after he, too, "ducked" and "dodged" the matter?
1-23-09 - editorial - What's so refreshing, though, is that Mr. Obama has picked someone who seems to share his wider vision to be his director of national intelligence...So goes a policy of protecting both our safety and our ideals.
Waterboarding? Funny - never came up. Imagine that. Ahhhhh...refreshing!
I guess with Great Leader in charge, suddenly a nominee can be "let off the hook" and his confirmation does not require answers and he does not need to confirm his position on "savage" waterboarding - even when questioned about it directly.
Proud of yourselves?
You know...I bet they are.
-
In an unrelated item, check this out from the ABC piece: "Concerning past oversight issues of the Bush administration on domestic surveillance and detainee interrogations, Blair promised to have more "transparency and accountability" if confirmed."
Let me get this straight...the nominee for director of national intelligence is saying that he will be more "transparent" on surveillance of our enemies. I can see it now...we'll get some spies into Iran, but they'll all be wearing "Hi, my name is USA SPY" stickers. Ever see The Kentucky Fried Movie? The longest bit I think was called like "A Fistful of Yen" or something...at one point the good guy has infiltrated the bad guy's secret fortress and he is meeting with the captive scientist who points out the "secret surveillance" going on of their conversation - including a guy with a boom mike in plain sight and an entire recording room, also in plain sight.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
More Vinegar, Honey?
Well, so much for 'a new kind of politics' in DC. Just another flame out by the newbie. You'll probably recall that Bush extended a hand of bipartisanship to Democrats right off the bat in 2001, including working on No Child Left Behind with Ted "You can swim, right?" Kennedy. That bipartisan bill flew through. Alas, no such luck for the Redeemer. His TRILLION DOLLAR handout to leftist causes garnered not one single solitary House Republican vote, despite his attempts to sweet talk the GOP. His commander in the House, Nancy Pelosi, and he repeatedly refused to entertain even any INPUT from the Republican side of the aisle on this bloated beast, let alone consider their alternatives, and then attacked the Republicans for "not having an alternative". Can you imagine the press reaction if the the GOP was in control, was ramming through an unpopular bill that the Democrats had alternatives for drawn up, but refused to even allow them to have any input on the final bill? Exactly.
Anyway, from the french-fried AP we find that Great Leader is reverting to form - a mere week into his presidency...just as the rightweb was warning America would happen:
1) We were warned that Great Leader would continue to 'campaign' once in office. That his people would make it a perpetual campaign. Voila - campaign ads a mere week after the inauguration.
2) We were warned that Obama was part and parcel with Saul Alinsky and ACORN and their strong-arm tactics. Voila - if at first you don't succeed, call on your heaviest hitters - labor unions - to go after the people that disagree with you.
3) We were reminded of the tired politics of failure, also, by Paul Weyrich, who tells an old tale about leadership:
Unfortunately for us all, it does little to shout "See, we told you so!" as the ship sinks.
Glub glub, my friends. Glub glub.
Anyway, from the french-fried AP we find that Great Leader is reverting to form - a mere week into his presidency...just as the rightweb was warning America would happen:
After a failed "charm offensive," US President Barack Obama and his allies unleashed a hard-hitting campaign Thursday to break defiant Republicans' thus-far united opposition to his economic stimulus plan.There's some 'new politics' for you. Calling on union bosses to pressure their members into jamming phone lines (unpopular with the press when Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity get their listeners to do it over immigration or such, but fine now). Television ads - actual television ads attacking Republicans over this and blaming Bush.
The strategy called for millions of labor union members to telephone Republicans from hard-hit states, coupled with an aggressive television advertising campaign targeting potentially vulnerable Republican senators.
The ad featured Obama's warnings about the economic crisis he inherited from George W. Bush and invited viewers in Maine, New Hampshire, Alaska, and Iowa to tell their senators "support the Obama plan for jobs not the failed policies of the past," according to the script.
And the White House did not deny a report by Politico.com that it planned a state-by-state effort, highlighting job losses, to pressure lawmakers on the stimulus plan.
The aggressive tactics came after Obama's week-long charm offensive failed to win over even a single Republican when the House of Representatives voted 244-188 to pass the 819-billion-dollar measure...
House Republicans, who point out that 11 Democrats voted against the plan, says their ideas are better and recently carried out public opinion polling that found tax cuts edge out spending as a preferred stimulus mechanism.
Lawmakers "will have no trouble returning home and explaining to struggling families that they voted against a bill that would recklessly spend billions upon billions of dollars on non-stimulative and non-emergency government programs," said Republican Whip Eric Cantor's spokesman, Brad Dayspring...
1) We were warned that Great Leader would continue to 'campaign' once in office. That his people would make it a perpetual campaign. Voila - campaign ads a mere week after the inauguration.
2) We were warned that Obama was part and parcel with Saul Alinsky and ACORN and their strong-arm tactics. Voila - if at first you don't succeed, call on your heaviest hitters - labor unions - to go after the people that disagree with you.
3) We were reminded of the tired politics of failure, also, by Paul Weyrich, who tells an old tale about leadership:
An old President says to a newly elected President, "You will run into trouble. In the middle drawer in the desk in the Oval Office, I have prepared three envelopes. When you get into trouble remember those envelopes." So after six months the new President gets into terrible trouble. He remembers the envelopes, so he opens the first one. It reads, "Blame it on my Administration." He does and his problems go away. Another seven months go by and this time the President is in greater trouble. He recalls the envelopes, so he opens the second one. It reads, "Blame it on me." He denounces his predecessor as irresponsible and blames him for creating the current crisis. Again, his problems go away. Then a year before he runs for a second term the President gets in worse trouble than ever before. He remembers the envelopes. So he opens the third and last one. It reads, "Prepare three envelopes."Alas, the late Mr. Weyrich did not survive to see that "the newly elected President" has run into trouble after a MERE ONE WEEK and has already had to open envelope one and blame it all on Bush.
Unfortunately for us all, it does little to shout "See, we told you so!" as the ship sinks.
Glub glub, my friends. Glub glub.
Warfare Class
Obama Skipped Inaugural Ball for Medal of Honor Recipients
American Legion - class
Craig Roberts - class
Great Leader - classless
It's called "make the time".
President Barack Obama was the first president to miss the Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball, which recognizes Medal of Honor recipients. The Medal of Honor is considered the nation’s highest military award.A little primer for the new President:
Forty-eight Medal of Honor recipients attended the ball, sponsored by the American Legion, and over the past 56 years and 14 inaugurations, dating back to Dwight Eisenhower, no president has skipped it until now.
“President Obama was invited but did not attend...The new President’s absence was understandable considering the unprecedented logistical challenges presented by the vastly increased number of visitors to this inauguration and the necessary attendant security measures. The American Legion, as an organization, does not feel offended or ‘snubbed,’” Craig Roberts, media relations manager for the American Legion, said in a statement.
Obama attended 10 official balls on the evening of the inauguration...
American Legion - class
Craig Roberts - class
Great Leader - classless
It's called "make the time".
Off The Hook!
This is pretty funny:
All U.S. taxpayers would enjoy the same immunity from IRS penalties and interest as Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner under a bill introduced Wednesday by Republican Rep. John Carter of Texas.
The bill has no chance of passing, but it makes a point: “We must show the American people that Congress is following the same law and the same legal process as we expect them to follow,” said Carter, a former Texas judge.
Under the proposed “Rangel Rule Act of 2009,” any taxpayer who wrote “Rangel Rule” on their return when paying back taxes would be immune from penalties and interest.
Do As Obama Says, Not As Obama Does
Oh, this is freaking PRICELESS! And from the NYT no less! Thanks so much to JunkScience for pointing this out:
So, was that great, or what? You know what they say, though...
BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE!!
And this time from the Washington Post!
Oh, and as pointed out at Villanous Company:
I did happen to notice this bit of bias in the NYT piece (of course I did, what did you expect?) as they, unlike other sources, continue to falsely portray President Bush:
The capital flew into a bit of a tizzy when, on his first full day in the White House, President Obama was photographed in the Oval Office without his suit jacket. There was, however, a logical explanation: Mr. Obama, who hates the cold, had cranked up the thermostat.Isn't he the cutest thing? Especially since he's the one that told us lazy, wasteful Americans:
“He’s from Hawaii, O.K.?” said Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Axelrod, who occupies the small but strategically located office next door to his boss. “He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there.”
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times... and then just expect that other countries are going to say "OK"... That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."You'll excuse me while I absolutely laugh my freaking rear end off, right? Oh, man. Yeah, very "logical", NYT. Makes all kinds of sense to crank up the thermostat so much that you have to start taking off clothes. What's he shooting for, David? Hawaiian shirt and swim trunks? And how much you do love the condescending, defensive reaction of Axelrod? Wow, a week in and the guy's already freaking out. From Hawaii...he's lived in DC for a couple of years and balmy Chicago before that. From Hawaii...oh man, my teeth hurt this is so rich.
So, was that great, or what? You know what they say, though...
BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE!!
And this time from the Washington Post!
Commander in chief for eight days, he steps right up and pokes fun because Washington-area schools are closed for "some ice." Then he offers this: "When it comes to the weather, folks in Washington don't seem to be able to handle things."Oh my aching gut...I haven't laughed like this in a long time. This is going up on the Rotataquote at the top of the page. Hypocrisy, thy name is Obama.
Oh, and as pointed out at Villanous Company:
DC public schools weren't cancelled for the day. They were on a 2 hour delay to allow school buses more time to navigate icy roads, but they opened. It was tony private schools like Sidwell Friends that didn't open at all, so if the Obama girls were inconvenienced, they were inconvenienced by their parents' decision to send them there, not by public policy.---
I did happen to notice this bit of bias in the NYT piece (of course I did, what did you expect?) as they, unlike other sources, continue to falsely portray President Bush:
...even as he kept them talking, engaging them in the details of the legislation far more than was customary for Mr. Bush.Alas, poor NYT, the truth (which many of us have long known) is already out there, as they say:
"In sessions with policy experts, Bush tends to ask questions that get right to the nub of a sticky issue."
Conservatives Respond To Inauguration
I thought I'd compile some of the conservative reaction to the *yaaaawn* inaugural address *yaaaawn* of Great Lea*aaaaawwwwnnnn*der and the record demolishing (obliterating? crushing? annihilating?) $150+ million inauguration.
Dennis Prager:
Dennis Prager:
As a politically moderate friend of mine said to me, the speech was joyless.Michael Medved:
And when it wasn’t joyless, it was often either incoherent or disjointed or factually wrong...
“For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sanh.” It is a joy to hear, finally, a man of the left include the Vietnam War in the list of the good wars America has fought...
“On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear …” It is time to retire this Democratic Party platitude. No one invokes fear as much as the left does. Beyond Islamic terror, it’s hard to identify a right-wing fear. But the left’s list has been almost endless: racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, xenophobia, heterosexual AIDS, secondhand smoke, global warming, just to name a few...
“We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” It is only a “false choice” among those who deem the Patriot Act a rejection of our ideals. Most Americans believe that the Bush administration kept us safe and preserved our ideals.
“We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth …” We are? What religion has shaped America as much as Judaism and Christianity have? What language has shaped America as much as English? The President’s point is either untrue or meaningless. Why did he make it?
“We cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself.” Unfortunately, there isn’t a shred of evidence that most of the old hatreds are passing. And there are even some new ones. And “common humanity” means little outside of biology. People who treat others decently do so out of common values, not “common humanity...”
And, finally, a platitude that is actually dangerous:
“Our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.” Only the very, very naive could say something so wrong. It is hard to identify a time in history when any people’s security emanated from the justness of their cause. That is a fairy tale. Did the justness of the Jews’ cause give the Jews security in Hitler’s Europe? Or the Ukrainians or Armenians or Cambodians or anyone else? Powerful armies give decent peoples their security, not the justness of their cause. If President Obama believes that in this world good people are secure thanks to the goodness of their cause, America is in trouble.
Based upon the big moments of his campaign, many observers expected a speech of scary, sweeping, socialistic substance written in a glittering, epic, eloquent and indelible style. Instead, the new president delivered a puzzling address of mostly reassuring substance, but worded in a pedestrian, platitudinous and occasionally clumsy style...Michael Reagan:
Many commentators noted the lack of a memorable sentence or phrase by which historians will remember this address – no “We are all Democrats, We Are All Federalists,” no “With malice toward none, with charity for all,” no “The Only Thing We Have to Fear…,” no “Ask not what your country can do for you…,” no “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”
The bottom line is that the new president's widely anticipated inaugural address, which beforehand was widely touted to be another stunning example of exalted oratory, just plain fell flat.Brett Joshpe:
It wasn't the soaring eloquence for which he is rightly noted -- it was in fact the kind of speech a Chicago ward heeler would have made to his constituents -- " full of sound and fury," as Shakespeare would have put it, "but signifying nothing."
After digesting our new President’s inauguration speech for a full 24 hours, I am still struck by several remarks. The first is President Obama’s call for a “new era of responsibility” and “hard-work.” I applaud and second Obama’s suggestions. However, I would query how $50 billion in foreclosure relief fosters the notion of personal responsibility. How does a stimulus package that will likely exceed $800 billion—coupled with hundreds-of-billions of dollars of additional Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) spending and automobile bailout funds—foster responsibility or sacrifice? How does record spending and record deficits that will leave our children with massive debt not constitute another form of “putting off unpleasant decisions” and “hard choices”?Emmett Tyrell:
Yet for my part, I am willing to give the new president the benefit of the doubt. In his fine and workmanlike speech, he spoke out for markets, saying their capacity "to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched."Brent Bozell:
The most obvious contrast comes from the Associated Press. On Jan. 12, 2001, the AP headline was "Texans' inaugural ball will be definitive Texas excess." Reporter Suzanne Gamboa asserted: "It would be redundant to say this party put on by Texans is big, but is it big enough to meet the definition of Texas excess? You bet." The AP noted $1.75 million in corporate sponsorships, and trotted out the usual "watchdog groups" to lament the lobbyist access through excess.Ann Coulter (yes, Ann Coulter - deal with it):
On Jan. 13, 2005, AP's Will Lester disparaged the "lavish" Bush inauguration, creatively listing how much could be purchased with the millions wasted on the ceremonies: 200 armored Humvees with the best armor for troops in Iraq, vaccinations and preventive health care for 22 million children in regions devastated by the tsunami, even a down payment on the nation's deficit, "which hit a record-breaking $412 billion last year."
Lester added that Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban (the man who would soon hire disgraced Dan Rather for his HDNet channel) insisted President Bush should cancel all his parties and festivities to set an example. Democratic congressmen Anthony Weiner and Jim McDermott were highlighted for urging Bush in a letter that he imitate FDR's 1945 inaugural, where he served guests "cold chicken salad and plain pound cake."
But on Jan. 13, 2009, with deficit estimates passing over the trillion-dollar mark, the AP urged that "excess" was mandatory for an inauguration they finally felt was worth celebrating. They wrote of no attempts to ask liberal Democrats if they would now urge Obama to stick to cold chicken salad and pound cake.
AP's Laurie Kellman was aware that the economy was in crisis, but breezily suggested "glitzing it up" was a must. "So you're attending an inaugural ball saluting the historic election of Barack Obama in the worst economic climate in three generations. Can you get away with glitzing it up and still be appropriate, not to mention comfortable and financially viable? To quote the man of the hour: Yes, you can. Veteran ballgoers say you should. And fashionistas insist that you must..."
A few reporters eventually offered a traditional "watchdog group" story. On the morning of Jan. 20, ABC's Brian Ross found the Naderites at Public Citizen and declared, "even in the middle of a brutal recession, there's been no shortage of wealthy Americans ready to pay for the most expensive inaugural ever." (This is hardly as sour a report as ABC's successful search in 2005 for a Iraq-related military funeral that the late Peter Jennings could highlight on the Inauguration Day evening news.)...
For the record, the "lavish" Bush inaugural cost $43 million. Final tallies are not complete, but according to some sources, like the Guardian newspaper, the Obama inaugural will cost more than $150 million.
Here's a small sampling of the churlishness in just The New York Times:Mona Charen:
-- The American public is bemused by the tasteless show-biz extravaganza surrounding Barack Obama's inauguration today.
-- There is something to be said for some showiness in an inauguration. But one felt discomfited all the same.
-- This is an inauguration, not a coronation.
-- Is there a parallel between Mrs. Obama's jewel-toned outfit and somebody else's glass slippers? Why limousines and not shank's mare?
-- It is still unclear whether we are supposed to shout "Whoopee!" or "Shame!" about the new elegance the Obamas are bringing to Washington.
Boy, talk about raining on somebody's parade! These were not, of course, comments about the inauguration of the angel Obama; they are (slightly edited) comments about the inauguration of another historic president, Ronald Reagan, in January 1981...
But I gather that if Obama had uttered anything more than the briefest allusion to Bush, that would have provoked yet more booing from the Hope-and-Change crowd, which moments earlier had showered Bush with boos when he walked onto the stage. That must be the new tone we've been hearing so much about.
So maybe liberals can stop acting as if the entire nation could at last come together in a "unity of purpose" if only conservatives would stop fomenting "conflict and discord" -- as Obama suggested in his inaugural address. We're not the ones who booed a departing president...
It will be replaced by the new question for conservatives on every liberal's lips these days: Do you want Obama to succeed as president?
Answer: Of course we do. We live here, too.
But merely to ask the question is to imply that the 60 million Americans who did not vote for Obama are being unpatriotic if they do not wholeheartedly endorse his liberal agenda...And why was that question never asked of liberals producing assassination books and movies about President Bush for the last eight years...
Liberals always have to play the victim, acting as if they merely want to bring the nation together in hope and unity in the face of petulant, stick-in-the-mud conservatives. Meanwhile, they are the ones booing, heckling and publicly fantasizing about the assassination of those who disagree with them on policy matters.
Hope and unity, apparently, can only be achieved if conservatives would just go away -- and perhaps have the decency to kill themselves.
Republicans are not the ones who need to be told that "the time has come to set aside childish things" -- as Obama said of his own assumption of the presidency. Remember? We're the ones who managed to gaze upon Carter at the conclusion of his abomination of a presidency without booing.
There were things for conservatives to like in Obama's address. Few have noticed, for example, that he clearly disavowed plans to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. He proclaimed that those who hold on to power through "silencing dissent" were on "the wrong side of history." That's a relief...Charles Krauthammer:
Naturally, the parts of the speech the commentators seemed to like the most were actually hackneyed political evergreens. "We will restore science to its rightful place" -- who moved it? -- "and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its costs." Aren't we supposed to be "putting away childish" ideas like getting something for nothing? Besides, our health care system is heavily technologically weighted compared with others -- that's one of the reasons it's so expensive. Obama's pet project of digitalizing medical records seems like a sensible idea. But it would be expensive ($75 billion to $100 billion) and there are privacy concerns. Maybe it would save money, but surely not enough, not nearly enough, to make a significant dent in our huge health care spending...
Obama has never actually offered anything that was new -- except himself. And nothing in his inaugural address clarified where this fresh personality wants to take the country.
Fascinating speech. It was so rhetorically flat, so lacking in rhythm and cadence, one almost has to believe he did it on purpose. Best not to dazzle on Opening Day. Otherwise, they'll expect magic all the time...Dinesh D'Souza:
But he decisively left behind the candidate who made audiences swoon and the impressionable faint. And that left the million-plus on the Mall, while unshakably euphoric about the moment, let down and puzzled by the speech. He'd given them nothing to cheer or chant, nothing to sing.
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.
When candidate Obama said "it's not about me, it's about you," that was sheer chicanery. But now he means it, because he really cannot part the waters. Hence his admonition to rely not on the "skill or vision of those in high office," but on "We the People."
...he gave a pedestrian inauguration speech without a single memorable line.
Thinking It Through
Just so we're clear on what's going on...I've been trying to get straight in my head what "we" are doing. By "we", of course, I mean "Democrats".
They seem to be telling us that they can create jobs by deficit spending on, well, stuff. The reasoning is We'll spend all this money (we don't have it, but we'll 'borrow' it) and use it to do stuff, build bridges, pave roads, fix up buildings, resod the Mall that got trampled during Great Leaders anointing, and give kids condoms (hey, how'd that get in there?). Well, to do all this stuff businesses (and us, the bigger government) will need to hire people. That means JOBS! It's a foolproof plan. All we need to do is spend a trillion bucks on stuff like highways and paintings of the Virgin Mary covered with dung and people will be working again - partying like it's 2006. Fool proof. That will so excitingly stimulate the economy that we'll generate a feel good run that makes that under George W. Bush look like a distant memory.
Foolproof. I mean, how else to you justify spending A TRILLION DOLLARS unless you've thought it through.
Foolproof, eh? Yeah, and kitty will never figure out how to get into that automatic feeder, either.
See, my economic education is pretty much limited to a single course in microeconomics that I didn't show up for from time to time. True, that was quite a while ago and I've learned a few things along the way, but, still, I ain't no economonomist or nuttin'. Still, I'm pretty sure I see the fools behind this foolproof plan.
Allow me to put it this way: We are going to employ, first or secondhand, millions of people by paying them with imaginary government money. One trillion dollars will employ them for a year or two.
Um...so what about next year?
I pity the fool that thinks this plan is foolproof or anything but sheer insanity.
Is the bridge builder going to keep the employees she hires to build the government bridge?
Is the road paver going to keep the employees he hires to pave roads with this imaginary money?
Is the government going to keep these employees they're hiring to oversee all th....oh, wait...never mind this one...
Is the builder going to keep all the non-white construction workers he's going to hire to fix up government buildings with his part of this TRILLION DOLLARS (you know, the part voter fraud artists ACORN aren't getting)?
Ummm...
How about a rousing HELL NO.
Simple...we just give out another trillion next year. And a trillion the next year. And a trillion the next year.
See? We can jolt and sustain the economy just by increasing the federal budget by A TRILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR.
Yeah, that'll work. Allow me to remind you that we (again, read as: Democrats) tried this before. It was called the Great Depression. Big success then, why not give it another shot?
'AHA! I see the flaw in your argument, Mr. Wizard' I hear you yell (I can do that).
You're thinking no, you're reading too much into this, it's just to tide people over until the free market economy recovers - then they'll go back into free market jobs.
REALLY? Is THAT how it works? The free market will find a way to employ available labor again?
Allow me to disabuse you of that counter-argument. If the free market can be counted on to fix this mess in a year or few, why not simply help the free market fix this mess sooner rather than later by cutting their taxes aka make it more attractive for them to hire people and keep them working and also by cutting income taxes so that people that do have jobs (that's still way more than 90% of us, by the way) will have incentive to spend money and invest money thereby creating the demand that would cause goods and services companies to hire people to meet that demand? See? You can do the same thing without resorting to artificial demands and without spending A TRILLION DOLLARS on condoms and anti-religious art and voter fraud.
I know, the answer is simple. It's because we all know that it is not the goal of the left to stimulate the economy or any of that carp. It is, like the "New Deal", meant to entrap more and more people into government dependency, grow the size of the government, centralize decisionmaking to "those who know better than you and me", and ultimately punish those that would otherwise get ahead in this country. I can't see any other explanation.
They seem to be telling us that they can create jobs by deficit spending on, well, stuff. The reasoning is We'll spend all this money (we don't have it, but we'll 'borrow' it) and use it to do stuff, build bridges, pave roads, fix up buildings, resod the Mall that got trampled during Great Leaders anointing, and give kids condoms (hey, how'd that get in there?). Well, to do all this stuff businesses (and us, the bigger government) will need to hire people. That means JOBS! It's a foolproof plan. All we need to do is spend a trillion bucks on stuff like highways and paintings of the Virgin Mary covered with dung and people will be working again - partying like it's 2006. Fool proof. That will so excitingly stimulate the economy that we'll generate a feel good run that makes that under George W. Bush look like a distant memory.
Foolproof. I mean, how else to you justify spending A TRILLION DOLLARS unless you've thought it through.
Foolproof, eh? Yeah, and kitty will never figure out how to get into that automatic feeder, either.
See, my economic education is pretty much limited to a single course in microeconomics that I didn't show up for from time to time. True, that was quite a while ago and I've learned a few things along the way, but, still, I ain't no economonomist or nuttin'. Still, I'm pretty sure I see the fools behind this foolproof plan.
Allow me to put it this way: We are going to employ, first or secondhand, millions of people by paying them with imaginary government money. One trillion dollars will employ them for a year or two.
Um...so what about next year?
I pity the fool that thinks this plan is foolproof or anything but sheer insanity.
Is the bridge builder going to keep the employees she hires to build the government bridge?
Is the road paver going to keep the employees he hires to pave roads with this imaginary money?
Is the government going to keep these employees they're hiring to oversee all th....oh, wait...never mind this one...
Is the builder going to keep all the non-white construction workers he's going to hire to fix up government buildings with his part of this TRILLION DOLLARS (you know, the part voter fraud artists ACORN aren't getting)?
Ummm...
How about a rousing HELL NO.
Simple...we just give out another trillion next year. And a trillion the next year. And a trillion the next year.
See? We can jolt and sustain the economy just by increasing the federal budget by A TRILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR.
Yeah, that'll work. Allow me to remind you that we (again, read as: Democrats) tried this before. It was called the Great Depression. Big success then, why not give it another shot?
'AHA! I see the flaw in your argument, Mr. Wizard' I hear you yell (I can do that).
You're thinking no, you're reading too much into this, it's just to tide people over until the free market economy recovers - then they'll go back into free market jobs.
REALLY? Is THAT how it works? The free market will find a way to employ available labor again?
Allow me to disabuse you of that counter-argument. If the free market can be counted on to fix this mess in a year or few, why not simply help the free market fix this mess sooner rather than later by cutting their taxes aka make it more attractive for them to hire people and keep them working and also by cutting income taxes so that people that do have jobs (that's still way more than 90% of us, by the way) will have incentive to spend money and invest money thereby creating the demand that would cause goods and services companies to hire people to meet that demand? See? You can do the same thing without resorting to artificial demands and without spending A TRILLION DOLLARS on condoms and anti-religious art and voter fraud.
I know, the answer is simple. It's because we all know that it is not the goal of the left to stimulate the economy or any of that carp. It is, like the "New Deal", meant to entrap more and more people into government dependency, grow the size of the government, centralize decisionmaking to "those who know better than you and me", and ultimately punish those that would otherwise get ahead in this country. I can't see any other explanation.
Up Is Down
I should probably get my hands on Tony Blankley's book instead of just reprinting part of Brent Bozell's commenting on it...nevertheless, enjoy:
One doesn't expect that Blankley's tome is going to be required bedtime reading at the White House. This may be a good thing; it will avoid a national run on smelling salts. The chapter that will send the Left into a panic is called "In Praise of Censorship."
Blankley focuses on the terrifying prospect of another attack on the American homeland, even a nuclear blast. He reminds us that during the Bush years, "the media blissfully endangered America's safety for the pleasure of striking a blow at a president it despised. ... Even when there's no allegation of wrongdoing, it seems that many newspapers today take a perverse pride in revealing U.S. intelligence secrets."...
It's not enough to hope these newspapers will now cooperate with the Obama administration when it wants them to keep its actions secret. Blankley believes we need to establish the principle, protected by law, that our nation's freedom of the press should not extend to telegraphing our nation's intelligence secrets to the terrorist enemy.
As the late Tony Snow remarked when he was White House press secretary, "The New York Times and other news organizations ought to think long and hard about whether a public's right to know, in some cases, might overwrite somebody's right to live."
Blankley trenchantly recounts left-wing hacks like CNN's Jack Cafferty and Newsweek's Jonathan Alter finding the seeds of a "full-blown dictatorship" in the Bush White House, and snarling Joe Conason claiming Bush was headed toward an "authoritarian peril." Blankley dismisses these claims for showing "an embarrassing ignorance of the history of executive authority."
This is censorship: President Lincoln shut down dozens of newspapers and imprisoned their editors. During World War I, President Woodrow Wilson's Sedition Act banned "uttering, printing, writing or publishing any disloyal, profane, scurrilous or abusive language about the United States government or the military." At least 75 periodicals were banned by the postmaster general. During World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt gave FBI director J. Edgar Hoover the power to censor all news or communications entering or leaving America. Blankley notes FDR repeatedly asked his attorney general, Francis Biddle, "When are you going to indict the seditionists?"
These presidents are hailed by Obama supporters as all-time greats, not as full-blown dictators.
By contrast, during those allegedly dictatorial Bush years, our national newspapers proudly published op-eds by founders and supporters of terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. Blankley invites us to imagine opening the paper during World War II to find "a direct appeal to the American people from a top official of Nazi Germany's Propaganda Ministry, or an entreaty from an Imperial Japanese pilot suspected of participating in the attack on Pearl Harbor." It never happened, because censorship policies prohibited it. Look at the degree to which the pendulum has swung: Despite this free publicity for Islamic terrorists, liberal newspaper editors and leftist book authors bemoan the last eight years as a dark time of muzzling opposition.
President Obama has already signaled that it isn't Hamas chieftains he wants to silence, but conservative talk-radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh. Will this new age's "seditionists" be citizens like Limbaugh or Blankley, voices that threaten the "smart power" momentum of Obama as he goes about unraveling the War on Terror?
James Hansen *Punch*
This is bound to sting just a bit - like as much as the very chilly winter air is stinging the world. Hansen's former supervisor bashes Hansen, declares himself a skeptic of AGW
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Obama "Addicted To Czars"
I mean, c'mon, how funny is this? A government management specialist saying Great Leader is "addicted to czars"? It's got this whole bizarro-world layer of commie czar-nostalgia to it...I dunno, it's an onion, it's baklava, it just keeps going and going and it's only been a week.
All because a few people think they know better than everyone else how to do things and are allowed to do it without oversight of anyone else. These people don't even have to go through the faux-vetting, token dog and pony shows that pass for confirmation hearings when the Democrats are in charge and a liberal messiah in the White House. This is how it starts. Will we let it finish?
President Barack Obama is building a White House staff so loaded with big names and overlapping duties that it could collapse into chaos unless managed with a juggler's skill.Hi, America. Hear that giant sucking sound? It's not the sound of jobs being sucked to Mexico thanks to NAFTA. No, what you are hearing is the centralization of America - centralized right on Pennsylvania Avenue - starting with the centralization of the executive branch...
It's an administration that seems "addicted to czars," says one longtime observer of government organization.
Obama has installed a White House health czar who doubles as secretary of Health and Human Services. The State Department now has "special envoys" for the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and for climate change — areas already overseen by other officials.
Just for the environment, along with the new climate envoy Obama has an energy secretary, an Environmental Protection Agency director and a chief of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Hovering over them all is Carol Browner, a high-profile former EPA administrator in a newly created role some call "climate czarina."
The economic team is perhaps the most multilayered and ego-driven of all. Former college professor Christina Romer heads Obama's Council of Economic Advisers. Timothy Geithner, a former top Federal Reserve official, is treasury secretary. Former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker is heading the newly formed Economic Recovery Advisory Board. And Peter Orszag, former head of the Congressional Budget Office, is the budget director.
Coordinating and perhaps overshadowing all of them is Lawrence Summers, the brainy and sometimes abrasive former Harvard University president and treasury secretary who directs Obama's National Economic Council.
The White House elevated the council's importance last week, announcing that Summers will brief Obama on the economy each morning, similar to the president's daily national security briefing...
Administration officials will have to "watch and see when it starts to become dysfunctional," said Stephen Hess, a Brookings Institution scholar who has held several top government jobs going back to 1959. "It's a very high risk because you're adding without subtracting."
When naming Volcker to his team, Obama could have scrapped either Romer's or Summers' agency, and divided the advisory duties between two groups, Hess said. "Instead, he adds a third."
Paul Light, a specialist on government organization at New York University, said, "They're kind of addicted to czars right now. I think they're more trouble than they're worth."
Obama obviously disagrees. He has signaled plans to name Bronx politician Adolfo Carrion Jr. to a new White House post coordinating urban housing and education policies. And he has named Nancy Killefer to the new job of "chief performance officer," which oversees many agencies.
Obama is hardly the first president to have a close aide coordinating several agencies. For years, a White House-based national security adviser has tried to put together information from the military, State Department and intelligence agencies.
But Obama's creation of new policy czars and special envoys is pushing White House centralization to new levels...
All because a few people think they know better than everyone else how to do things and are allowed to do it without oversight of anyone else. These people don't even have to go through the faux-vetting, token dog and pony shows that pass for confirmation hearings when the Democrats are in charge and a liberal messiah in the White House. This is how it starts. Will we let it finish?
Socalize Medicine?
Let me get this straight.
Medicare already reimburses doctors less than what it costs to treat Medicare patients (with the result that doctors are refusing left and right to treat these patients).
Right now there are about 45 million people covered by Medicare.
As it is now, Medicare is heading towards bankrupting the country (trillions upon trillions of costs over collections long term).
As IBD asks, how can we even be considering expanding such a thing to 300 million+ people?
45 million = inadequate care = can't pay for even the inadequate care. Only liberals and their politicians would consider this an equation that reads "expand by 700 percent".
Medicare already reimburses doctors less than what it costs to treat Medicare patients (with the result that doctors are refusing left and right to treat these patients).
Right now there are about 45 million people covered by Medicare.
As it is now, Medicare is heading towards bankrupting the country (trillions upon trillions of costs over collections long term).
As IBD asks, how can we even be considering expanding such a thing to 300 million+ people?
45 million = inadequate care = can't pay for even the inadequate care. Only liberals and their politicians would consider this an equation that reads "expand by 700 percent".
Noncontroversial Abortion
I'm not going to mince words, if you want a straight comparison of the press treatment of Clinton/Bush/GL on abortion funding, just go here: CBS and NBC Minimize Obama’s Abortion Funding Order; ABC Highlights ‘Brutal’ Reaction from Religious Conservatives
However, if you want some pointy-stick comments, read on:
ABC on 2009 reaction:
So, John Roberts, funding abortions is 'controversial' if you don't use tax money for them, but not 'divisive' if you do fund them? Was this a 'nod to pro-abortion groups'? Do anti-abortion groups "fear" there is more to come from this president who opposes medical care to the survivors of failed abortions?
So, Tom Brokow, it was 'controversial' for Bush to stop using my money to pay for abortions, but it is not 'divisive' for GL to start paying for more abortions with my taxes?
So, David Gregory, where's your headline on the big abortion message GL sent? Hmm?
The NBC item is almost as entertaining. When Bush ordered a halt to funding abortions with taxpayer money, that was THE LEAD ITEM for Tom Brokow. When GL ordered a resurgence of funding abortions with taxpayer money, that was a brief ENDING BLURB 'BY THE WAY' not even from the anchor. Interesting, no?
Finally, let's look at how ABC's World News Sunday, when they finally got around to mentioning it (unlike Terry Moran's attack of Bush (remember now, also, the claims by the press that they gave Bush a 'honeymoon period', also - HA!) in 2001), described this 'non-divisive' action:
"another big fight on his hands"
"it may be impossible to find common ground"
"The Vatican condemned the President's policy"
"hoping not to provoke anti-abortion groups"
"Reaction was fast and brutal"
"Christian faithful say they're now losing faith in Obama"
"I think he runs the risk of derailing his administration"
"intensified the divide"
"may be just the tip of the iceberg"
"Some conservatives are angry"
"They are going to oppose a lot of what Obama said he wants to do."
"And the President may upset some more people in the days ahead."
"And proving he's not afraid of a fight"
"risk a new culture war"
Hmmm...does that sound like a president concentrating on not being divisive? Does that sound like a president successfully not being divisive?
Up is down, believe what they tell you until they tell you the opposite, then believe that and virulently hate the opposite...
We have always been at war with Eastasia...
However, if you want some pointy-stick comments, read on:
ABC on 2009 reaction:
At churches across the country, the good will coming from the pulpit to the President seems to be wavering....On Friday, the President signed an executive order, reversing the ban on federal funding for international organizations that facilitate abortions in other countries. The President didn't allow cameras to film the signing, hoping not to provoke anti-abortion groups....It didn't work. Reaction was fast and brutal. Family groups accused Obama of plotting the infanticide of African children. And the Christian faithful say they're now losing faith in Obama.Let me go back a step and remind you all that the press repeatedly emphasized that GL (Great Leader) was "avoiding divisive stands" in his first days. Really? If it's such a non-divisive issue, why would he shroud one of his very first acts in secrecy? "Brutal"? Yeah, lots of "brutal" church uprisings all the time 'round here, ain't there?
Eight years ago, however, the burden was all on George W. Bush when he revoked Bill Clinton’s executive orders permitting federal funds to go to abortions. Highlights from the January 22, 2001 evening newscasts, which cast the news as a controversy needlessly instigated by Bush to appeal to his right-wing base (no one this week suggested Obama was appealing to his left-wing base with his abortion orders):So, Terry Moran, was GL's act designed to appeal to pro-abortion liberals? Did you and your fellows in the press "pepper" GL's press secretary with questions about it? If it's so newsworthy and controversial a subject, why did you fail to do your job with GL?ABC’s Terry Moran: “One of the President’s first actions was designed to appeal to anti-abortion conservatives. The President signed an order re-instating a Reagan-era policy that prohibited federal funding of family planning groups that provided abortion counseling services overseas. Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was peppered with questions about the order at his first daily briefing."
CBS’s John Roberts: “The President waded into controversy on his first day. In a nod to anti-abortion groups on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, he announced he’ll cut federal funding to organizations that provide family planning and abortion counseling overseas. Abortion rights activists fear there’s more to come.”
NBC’s Tom Brokaw: “We’ll begin with the new President’s very active day, which started on a controversial note....”
Reporter David Gregory: "On his first day of official business Bush decides to send his strongest message on the issue of abortion. 28 years to the day since the Roe v Wade decision legalized abortion, Bush today issues an executive order banning federal funding for international groups that offer abortions or abortion counseling abroad, a ban President Clinton had lifted."
So, John Roberts, funding abortions is 'controversial' if you don't use tax money for them, but not 'divisive' if you do fund them? Was this a 'nod to pro-abortion groups'? Do anti-abortion groups "fear" there is more to come from this president who opposes medical care to the survivors of failed abortions?
So, Tom Brokow, it was 'controversial' for Bush to stop using my money to pay for abortions, but it is not 'divisive' for GL to start paying for more abortions with my taxes?
So, David Gregory, where's your headline on the big abortion message GL sent? Hmm?
Here’s how CBS and NBC covered Obama’s abortion orders on their Friday, January 23 evening newscasts:The Chip Reid quote is SIMPLY PRICELESS! NOT funding abortions is a similarly controversial policy, like killing al-qaida in Pakistan. Yet it is, apparently, NOT controversial to fund abortions with tax money. That's considered, by CBS News, NONCONTROVERSIAL.CBS’s Chip Reid: “Meanwhile, the president overturned yet another Bush administration policy today by executive order, this one on abortion, ending the ban on federal funding for international organizations that perform the procedure or do abortion counseling. But Mr. Obama continued another controversial Bush administration policy, allowing two missile strikes inside Pakistan that killed at least one al-Qaeda operative.”
NBC’s Savannah Guthrie: “One other note from here tonight, Brian, late this afternoon the president signed an order ending the ban on federal funding to international organizations that provide abortion services or abortion counseling. Brian, back to you.”
The NBC item is almost as entertaining. When Bush ordered a halt to funding abortions with taxpayer money, that was THE LEAD ITEM for Tom Brokow. When GL ordered a resurgence of funding abortions with taxpayer money, that was a brief ENDING BLURB 'BY THE WAY' not even from the anchor. Interesting, no?
Finally, let's look at how ABC's World News Sunday, when they finally got around to mentioning it (unlike Terry Moran's attack of Bush (remember now, also, the claims by the press that they gave Bush a 'honeymoon period', also - HA!) in 2001), described this 'non-divisive' action:
"another big fight on his hands"
"it may be impossible to find common ground"
"The Vatican condemned the President's policy"
"hoping not to provoke anti-abortion groups"
"Reaction was fast and brutal"
"Christian faithful say they're now losing faith in Obama"
"I think he runs the risk of derailing his administration"
"intensified the divide"
"may be just the tip of the iceberg"
"Some conservatives are angry"
"They are going to oppose a lot of what Obama said he wants to do."
"And the President may upset some more people in the days ahead."
"And proving he's not afraid of a fight"
"risk a new culture war"
Hmmm...does that sound like a president concentrating on not being divisive? Does that sound like a president successfully not being divisive?
Up is down, believe what they tell you until they tell you the opposite, then believe that and virulently hate the opposite...
We have always been at war with Eastasia...
Plain Talk
Simple sense from Sowell:
Using long, drawn-out processes to put money into circulation to meet an emergency is like mailing a letter to the fire department to tell them that your house is on fire.
If you cut taxes tomorrow, people would have more money in their next paycheck, and it would probably be spent by the time they got that paycheck, through increased credit card purchases beforehand.
If all this sound and fury in Washington was about getting an economic crisis behind us, tax cuts could do that a lot faster.
None of this is rocket science. And Washington politicians are not all crazy, even if sometimes it looks that way. Often, what they say makes no sense because what they claim to be doing is not what they are actually doing...
If the Beltway politicians aren't really trying to solve this crisis as quickly as they could, what are they trying to do?
One important clue may be a recent statement by President Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel, that "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste."
This is the kind of cynical revelation that sometimes slips out, despite all the political pieties and spin. Crises have long been seen as great opportunities to expand the federal government's power while the people are too scared to object and before any opposition can get organized...
In the name of protecting the taxpayers' investment, they are buying the power to tell General Motors how to make cars, banks how to bank and, before it is all over with, all sorts of other people how to do the work they specialize in, and for which members of Congress have no competence, much less expertise.
This administration and Congress are now in a position to do what Franklin D. Roosevelt did during the Great Depression of the 1930s-- use a crisis of the times to create new institutions that will last for generations.
To this day, we are still subsidizing millionaires in agriculture because farmers were having a tough time in the 1930s. We have the Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae") taking reckless chances in the housing market that have blown up in our faces today, because FDR decided to create a new federal housing agency in 1938.
Who knows what bright ideas this administration will turn into permanent institutions for our children and grandchildren to try to cope with?
Whites Need Not Apply
Has it really come to this? Well, if a certain segment of the liberal population in this country (the leftist part), has their way...yes.
Robert Reich was labor secretary under Clinton. He is now considered a "top advisor" to Great Leader on the economy. Great Leader's new labor secretary refused to even discuss labor issues during her confirmation (as if that makes sense). So what is in store if they convince President Post-Racial? Let's see what Reich has to say:handout government make-work job? Could you be a little more clear about that, Mr. Mouch - I'm sorry - Mr. Reich?
I'm sorry, but perhaps all these civil rights warriors that were so praised and limelighted during the recent $150 million dollar party for Great Leader could tell us just how far this is from 'back of the bus'? Pretty far? Quite far? Not far? A little ways?
Do yourself a favor and do a little search on part of Reich's quote. You'll find dozens and dozens of hits on conservative blos. Other than that, lots of silence. I, being who I am, decided to take it a step further and did a check of the New York Times, Daily Gazette, and Times Union to see if they had reported any of this? Of course they did no. The only hits on Reich at all were mentions of his new spot in the unofficial part of the Yabut Administration.
Robert Reich was labor secretary under Clinton. He is now considered a "top advisor" to Great Leader on the economy. Great Leader's new labor secretary refused to even discuss labor issues during her confirmation (as if that makes sense). So what is in store if they convince President Post-Racial? Let's see what Reich has to say:
I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers. … I have nothing against white male construction workers. I’m just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well...Criteria can be set so that the money does go to others, the long term unemployed minorities, women, people who are not necessarily construction workers or high-skilled professionals.Who, exactly, should be making these decisions, Mr. Reich, about who is allowed to get a
I'm sorry, but perhaps all these civil rights warriors that were so praised and limelighted during the recent $150 million dollar party for Great Leader could tell us just how far this is from 'back of the bus'? Pretty far? Quite far? Not far? A little ways?
Do yourself a favor and do a little search on part of Reich's quote. You'll find dozens and dozens of hits on conservative blos. Other than that, lots of silence. I, being who I am, decided to take it a step further and did a check of the New York Times, Daily Gazette, and Times Union to see if they had reported any of this? Of course they did no. The only hits on Reich at all were mentions of his new spot in the unofficial part of the Yabut Administration.
Apples To Apples
Ever see a Great Depression era movie with scenes that take place in a city? How about King Kong? Anyway, you've probably seen the scenes with unemployed people desperately trying to sell apples on the street for a pittance, right?
As Great Leader and his amplifier (the press) try to talk us into another Great Depression, when was the last time you saw people doing this?
No, instead you have pages and pages and pages of ads every single week, week after week after week in the Sunday newspaper advertising electronic gizmos and whozits and doohickeys.
Just a hint before you bite into the hype - during a Great Depression you'd have people trying to sell you an apple for a nickel. Today you have people trying to sell you an Apple™ for $300.
As Great Leader and his amplifier (the press) try to talk us into another Great Depression, when was the last time you saw people doing this?
No, instead you have pages and pages and pages of ads every single week, week after week after week in the Sunday newspaper advertising electronic gizmos and whozits and doohickeys.
Just a hint before you bite into the hype - during a Great Depression you'd have people trying to sell you an apple for a nickel. Today you have people trying to sell you an Apple™ for $300.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
War? What War?
You have to hand it to the press - they really know their stuff. Bias, distort, lie about it - repeat. The Times Union is no exception. Take the Jan. 2 paper. The US actually handed over control of the "Green Zone" in Baghdad to the Iraqis now that the war is, well, over, and the sputtering violence had dropped to levels seen elsewhere in countries inhabited by lots of muslims.
You might have missed it - it on was on page 7 and took up less room on the page than a MetroMattress ad. It took up less room than that photo on page 1 of the "first baby of the new year". It was slightly bigger than the top of the front page breaking news about a blind kid (build like a "blue USPS mailbox" we're told) that goes to karate classes. Considering the additional 'coverage' inside of that story, it was significantly longer than the story of the US beginning the long pull out from Iraq after defeating the terrorists there and setting up the first arab democracy.
You might have missed it - it on was on page 7 and took up less room on the page than a MetroMattress ad. It took up less room than that photo on page 1 of the "first baby of the new year". It was slightly bigger than the top of the front page breaking news about a blind kid (build like a "blue USPS mailbox" we're told) that goes to karate classes. Considering the additional 'coverage' inside of that story, it was significantly longer than the story of the US beginning the long pull out from Iraq after defeating the terrorists there and setting up the first arab democracy.
Everything Old Is New
blah blah don't learn from history blah blah
I was struck by some of what I saw in the historical inauguration front pages from the Times Union - one of the great benefits that the press can provide. Looking here at the one for FDR I see, in just a few seconds, some interesting stuff.
Like the end of the headline: "Ready to Demand War-Time Power" Ever recall Bush "demanding" war-time power?
Another small item that is always hyped to no end whenever a Republican leaves office: "Hoover Signed 32 Bills on Last Day"
This was 1933 people. It's about time you stopped acting as if it's some unprecedented power grab when an outgoing president wraps up stuff they've been trying to get done on the last day. Bush did it. Clinton did it. Herbert freaking Hoover did it. Get over it.
How about Calvin Coolidge? 1925 the headline blares "COOLIDGE PLEDGES TAX REDUCTION AND PROMOTION OF WORLD PEACE". What he failed to realize is that he's not the messiah. Little did he know that it would take until 2009 to get this done. Seriously, let's reword the opening paragraph a tad:
I was struck by some of what I saw in the historical inauguration front pages from the Times Union - one of the great benefits that the press can provide. Looking here at the one for FDR I see, in just a few seconds, some interesting stuff.
Like the end of the headline: "Ready to Demand War-Time Power" Ever recall Bush "demanding" war-time power?
Another small item that is always hyped to no end whenever a Republican leaves office: "Hoover Signed 32 Bills on Last Day"
This was 1933 people. It's about time you stopped acting as if it's some unprecedented power grab when an outgoing president wraps up stuff they've been trying to get done on the last day. Bush did it. Clinton did it. Herbert freaking Hoover did it. Get over it.
How about Calvin Coolidge? 1925 the headline blares "COOLIDGE PLEDGES TAX REDUCTION AND PROMOTION OF WORLD PEACE". What he failed to realize is that he's not the messiah. Little did he know that it would take until 2009 to get this done. Seriously, let's reword the opening paragraph a tad:
Clothed with a direct mandate from the people, Barack Obama today dedicated himself and his administration to the lightening of the tax burden at home and to the promotion of pece through mutual understandings with the nations of the world.I mean, all I had to change was the name. This part doesn't work, though, "We have been, and propose to be, more and more American". For BHO it would be "less and less American." Naughty Americans.
Mission Accomplished
Funny, is it not, that after 8 years of relentless attacks and, let's call a spade a spade, vicious demeaning smears and outright lies, the media finds itself able, suddenly, to tell the truth about President George W. Bush. With him safely headed back to Texas the media can find space (on the front page no less!) to tell the Bush side of the story, the side they have perpetually failed to reveal and actively obscured. With the saviour come, you might call this their "Mission Accomplished" banner.
Take the Jan. 4 Gazette. Right on the front page of this Sunday edition we find "A legacy shaped by personality - 'True Bush' colored by character public saw". Frankly, I would make it "'True Bush' colored by cartoon character public shown by media". This is an AP story by Ben Feller.
After 8 years of unending 'intellectually incurious' Bush, we finally hear:
Mission accomplished.
And it's certainly not just the Gazette. MRC reports on another instance here: Shocking Headline: 'Why the Bush Years Weren't So Bad'
Sure, it's surrounded by backhanded slappery, but the meat is still meaty:
Take the Jan. 4 Gazette. Right on the front page of this Sunday edition we find "A legacy shaped by personality - 'True Bush' colored by character public saw". Frankly, I would make it "'True Bush' colored by cartoon character public shown by media". This is an AP story by Ben Feller.
After 8 years of unending 'intellectually incurious' Bush, we finally hear:
In sessions with policy experts, Bush tends to ask questions that get right to the nub of a sticky issue. His top aides speak regretfully about how the country never got to see that side of him, even after all this time. They describe a man who is deeply inquisitive, not blithely incurious as much of the world thinks.Mission accomplished, media. You are the reason (along with Bush's near-awe-inspiring modesty) the country never got to see this side of him. You are the reason 'much of the world thinks' he is 'blithely incurious'.
Another devotion: exercise. He makes time for a workout at least six days a week, wherever he is. And he goes at it hard, especially on his mountain bike on the weekends, when he pushes Secret Service agents to keep up with him.Yet the press lectured America that Bush's devotion to a healthy body was somehow disturbing. Yet the saviour's workouts are praise- (and drool-) worthy to the fawning press. I don't recall Bush posing with his shirt off for the his adoring admirers in the newsroom. Instead we are regaled with photos of Bush falling off a Segway or wrestling with an unruly pretzel. A devotion to a healthy lifestyle - Admired in a Democrat, mocked in a Republican. Mission accomplished.
His tangled moments have undoubtedly helped shape an unflattering public perception; there are entire books of his "Bushisms." Invariably, though, people who talk to him privately - historians, journalists, dissidents - come away with a very different impression of a meticulous thinker.Yet those journalists never let that private impression become public. It might hurt the Democrats. It might help Bush. You don't see them replaying over and over the verbal stupidity sliding from Great Leader's lips. You don't see them playing the clips from the campaign trail when his teleprompter broke and he was reduced to a blithering Caroline Kennedy string of 'ums' and 'you know's. Mission accomplished.
The toughest moments for him come when he meets the grieving families of the troops he sent to war. Or when he meets severely wounded troops in recovery.Yet the media would rather pursue the side of the equation where Democrats accuse Bush of sending these troops into battle for his "enjoyment". That is the warmongering picture the media has given us for years. Mission accomplished.
He and his wife will go to friends' homes but stay away from restaurants and Washington's other delights. His aides say he doesn't like to cause a security hassle for the public. That's also why he speeds through his foreign travel. Even in the world's more magnificent sites, Bush often skips touristy stuff to stick to business, contributing to that incurious reputation.Supporters have been saying this is the case for years, that the compassionate President refused to place himself above others by screwing up their day just to accomodate him. Yet, again, what have we been force fed for 8 years? Incurious George. Mission accomplished.
He relaxes by reading quite a bit, mostly U.S. and world historyYet when this simple truth finally started to make its way into our papers, what did we see? A stunned, yet respectful 'Ok, so he reads, we were wrong'? No. We were treated to opinion pieces attacking the often-dense historical tomes and classics that he reads as if they're somehow not 'good enough' for the press. Great Leader is, of course, praised for the left-leaning pap he reads.
Mission accomplished.
And it's certainly not just the Gazette. MRC reports on another instance here: Shocking Headline: 'Why the Bush Years Weren't So Bad'
Sure, it's surrounded by backhanded slappery, but the meat is still meaty:
Start with this: You are better off than you were four years ago. After adjusting for inflation, the average American earns about $2500 a year more today than on the day of W's second inaugural. That same average American now spends a little less time at the office or on the assembly line, and a little more time on vacation or on the couch. He or she shops online for products that were unimaginable just four years ago. (How many of you read this morning's paper on your Kindle or iPhone?) The air is cleaner than it was a decade ago and life expectancy is up.
Not that the last president had much to do with any of this. He didn't. It's the way the modern world works. Things improve. Incomes rise, work hours fall, the quality of goods improves.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Equal?
Back and forth is pretty much the order of the day now. After lengthy terms by opposing viewpoints - very opposing viewpoints - back and forth, there is no way to avoid comparing this administration to that administration to that other administration. If the press weren't such humongous pantywaists they would have the guts to talk about abortion. Instead they sweep the left's dirty little secret under the rug every chance they get.
So, Mr. Newspaper, what's the new President been up to?
Well, he's been hard HARD at work sorting out the very intricate matters of climate change, national security, and the like.
Yeah, except for the other item that he devoted some of his first precious hours to - such as funding more abotions worldwide. But you don't hear more than passing mention of that, not from the most grotesquely pro-abortion president we've ever seen. The guy's to the left of NARAL for crying out loud - even NARAL thinks that kids that survive abortions should be provided with medical care - Great Leader does not. The Times Union granted a whopping 4 or 5 sentences in a brief blurb to the most recent March for Life, which regularly draws tens to hundreds of thousands of marchers and is regularly ignored by the press, which is more eager to cover a half dozen unwashed hippies protesting the President keeping them safe.
So, back to the tit-for-tat. It was either Reagan or Bush (I think Reagan) that first stopped funding foreign organizations that provided abortions. Clinton immediately led them start aborting foreign babies again with US taxpayer money. Bush immediately stopped it again. Great Leader immediately started it again. Seems like straight up tit-for-tat, right?
Here's where I don't think so.
The Republican administrations have been clear that the reason they wouldn't fund abortions is because a significant portion of the US population (aka the taxpayers) are against abortion and find it morally reprehensible. They couldn't justify using their money to fund abortions. Another significant portion of the population see nothing wrong with it, actively support it, or are just ambivalent about the whole matter. In other words, the Republican presidents refuse to do something morally objectionable to a significant portion of those they represent.
The Democratic administrations, however, actively spend taxpayer money on abortions - not even US abortions here, but abortions of foreigners. Again - those they represent are the same set of people, yet the Democrats presumably because they know better than the riff-raff they represent decide they can ignore the group that is mortified that their taxes are used to support this. If they chose not to use tax money to abort foreigners those that are not against the practice would not be morally outraged, disgusted, horrified, etc. by the fact.
Did I sort of kinda make my point clear enough to understand? Republicans are willing to take a stand that makes some unhappy, but not morally disturbed, to keep from morally disturbing others. Democrats* are willing to take a stand that makes (according to what they say) no one happy and morally disturbing others, simply to...what? Fund abortions. Does it make the left actively happy to fund abortions? I mean, what sort of thrill or satisfaction is the left getting from funding abortions overseas using not only their money but the money of those that find the practice repugnant? It's not like there's some big cabal of leftist abortionists in America that operate abortion clinics in 3rd world countries and they're all happy now because they can apply for federal money to abort 3rd worlders so they can't burn fossil fuels or eat their corn or something...
I dunno, I see Republicans as being unwilling to use the taxes from people morally opposed to abortions for abortions. Democrats don't seem to give a carp about that. But I just don't understand why? What is it about funding abortions in Mexico or Africa that makes it worth it? Has anyone ever seen a good explanation for this? I'd like to see it.
Unless, of course, your thinking runs along the Sanger/Planned Parenthood rail - racist and forced population control of undesirables. Shockingly I just read something in the paper where Nancy Pelosi said something that one thing the federal government must certainly not do at an economic time like this is stop funding abortions or birth control (she said 'family planning' or some other euphemism, I think, as if we're supposed to believe that, grandma) because it would help state governments keep down costs if they keep killing off babies of poor people. Meanwhile we'll just keep attacking abstinence as completely unworkable. Yup, not getting pregnant is certainly a much worse idea than just having an abortion and removing some unwanted cell growth like an infection.
As someone without a dog in the fight, I may be missing something on one side or the other of the abortion debate, here, but I really, really can't see what gratification Democrats get, while claiming, laughably, that they want abortion to be "rare", from funding more abortions even if it means forcibly taking money from those that are morally opposed to it in order to do so.
--
* A similar issue would be embryonic stem cell research. Another would be war. You could easily starting tying issues like these to the abortion debate and make a 'yabut' case. For example, Bush and Congress sent troops to Iraq even though many found the move morally reprehensible. Democrats want to fund ESCR even though many find it morally reprehensible. Allow me to muddy the waters very briefly (there is much more that could be said on each of these additional issues).
As for ESCR - I think many believe that science trumps morality. That is, if you can 'make the paralyzed walk', it is worth using matter that could otherwise potentially be a child. In other words, the ends justify the means, assuming you believe that the means are even mildly unacceptable. The problem, of course, with this argument is that, no matter how much you try to avoid it, it MUST become a slippery slope argument. It just must. Where do you stop? Who decides where to stop? Who's "pay grade" is high enough to make these decisions? Cloning? Reproductive control? This is OK, that is banned, this is fine, that is not. Not many people would want to be in that position. Those that would are all leftists. Most people instead want to just keep off the slope. I don't think that will happen, as I believe we're already headed down that path. Getting back to the point - those that favor this believe there is significant, positive return on this action.
The war argument is simple after the previous one because it boils down to the same issue: those that reluctantly support it believe that it is the only way to stop a greater evil. Take the atomic bomb debate - same thing. Yes, we nuked thousands and thousands of Japanese citizens. The alternative was seen as a near-endless, unbelievably bloody march through Japan where we envisioned having to slaughter every man, woman, and child we came across because all would have been armed and told to sacrifice themselves for a chance to kill an American. Any of that sound familiar? Those in favor weigh the cost and benefit and find it preferably to not only fight, but take the fight to the enemy, where civilians are endangered, in order to avoid further destruction of not only our own people, but, in the long run, of the civilians pressed into suicidal service down the road. Israel is seeing the long term results as we speak. No one ever 'cleaned out' the Palestinians (that doesn't have to mean 'killed') or, more specifically, the poison that now encompasses their lives. Compassion stayed their hands, as it does every time they are forced to defend themselves, which, while noble, is ultimately self-destructive. The palestinians have reached a point where they are simply breeding for the purpose of making more people to try to kill Israelis. They don't aspire to anything else in far too many cases. Consequently, Israel is forced to kill palestinians over and over again, yet they never stop coming. Of course, nowadays, no one would support the nuking (or carpet-bombing) of Gaza just to stop the deadly attacks. But Israel (and the court of public opinion) refuses to do what they are accused of doing - occupy Gaza and redefine the palestinians, the way we did with Afghanistan and Iraq. You must kill those that would kill you as you are doing this (or lock them up if that is feasible) and set up a government strong enough to eventually control its own destiny. Putting Hamas or Abbas in charge isn't going to do it, not when they're dedicated to eradicating Israel. Unfortunately, the Gazans have been ignored and trampled by their muslim brethren for so long they don't know how to operate anything anymore. It's not like you could lock up or kill a certain percentage and then let the rest set up a peaceful, stable democracy. At least I don't think you could. Maybe it could happen. That would, of course, be the best solution. But I doubt it. We keep hearing about how impoverished the Gazans are, etc. Give me a break. You don't get to make that argument anymore. Once, yes. Now, no. Not after all those greenhouses were purchased from the Israeli settlers to give to the palestinian people when the Israelis were forcibly removed from their homes and, instead of using them to grow food for themselves and export as the Israelis had been doing, smashed them to pieces like monkeys let loose in a china shop or something.
Wow, talk about rambling. End of story is that in these seemingly-similar cases the party that is a proponent believes there is significant benefit to be gained for (nearly) everyone. In the case of funding abortions, the argument is still 'what are the liberals gaining from paying to abort babies'?
So, Mr. Newspaper, what's the new President been up to?
Well, he's been hard HARD at work sorting out the very intricate matters of climate change, national security, and the like.
Yeah, except for the other item that he devoted some of his first precious hours to - such as funding more abotions worldwide. But you don't hear more than passing mention of that, not from the most grotesquely pro-abortion president we've ever seen. The guy's to the left of NARAL for crying out loud - even NARAL thinks that kids that survive abortions should be provided with medical care - Great Leader does not. The Times Union granted a whopping 4 or 5 sentences in a brief blurb to the most recent March for Life, which regularly draws tens to hundreds of thousands of marchers and is regularly ignored by the press, which is more eager to cover a half dozen unwashed hippies protesting the President keeping them safe.
So, back to the tit-for-tat. It was either Reagan or Bush (I think Reagan) that first stopped funding foreign organizations that provided abortions. Clinton immediately led them start aborting foreign babies again with US taxpayer money. Bush immediately stopped it again. Great Leader immediately started it again. Seems like straight up tit-for-tat, right?
Here's where I don't think so.
The Republican administrations have been clear that the reason they wouldn't fund abortions is because a significant portion of the US population (aka the taxpayers) are against abortion and find it morally reprehensible. They couldn't justify using their money to fund abortions. Another significant portion of the population see nothing wrong with it, actively support it, or are just ambivalent about the whole matter. In other words, the Republican presidents refuse to do something morally objectionable to a significant portion of those they represent.
The Democratic administrations, however, actively spend taxpayer money on abortions - not even US abortions here, but abortions of foreigners. Again - those they represent are the same set of people, yet the Democrats presumably because they know better than the riff-raff they represent decide they can ignore the group that is mortified that their taxes are used to support this. If they chose not to use tax money to abort foreigners those that are not against the practice would not be morally outraged, disgusted, horrified, etc. by the fact.
Did I sort of kinda make my point clear enough to understand? Republicans are willing to take a stand that makes some unhappy, but not morally disturbed, to keep from morally disturbing others. Democrats* are willing to take a stand that makes (according to what they say) no one happy and morally disturbing others, simply to...what? Fund abortions. Does it make the left actively happy to fund abortions? I mean, what sort of thrill or satisfaction is the left getting from funding abortions overseas using not only their money but the money of those that find the practice repugnant? It's not like there's some big cabal of leftist abortionists in America that operate abortion clinics in 3rd world countries and they're all happy now because they can apply for federal money to abort 3rd worlders so they can't burn fossil fuels or eat their corn or something...
I dunno, I see Republicans as being unwilling to use the taxes from people morally opposed to abortions for abortions. Democrats don't seem to give a carp about that. But I just don't understand why? What is it about funding abortions in Mexico or Africa that makes it worth it? Has anyone ever seen a good explanation for this? I'd like to see it.
Unless, of course, your thinking runs along the Sanger/Planned Parenthood rail - racist and forced population control of undesirables. Shockingly I just read something in the paper where Nancy Pelosi said something that one thing the federal government must certainly not do at an economic time like this is stop funding abortions or birth control (she said 'family planning' or some other euphemism, I think, as if we're supposed to believe that, grandma) because it would help state governments keep down costs if they keep killing off babies of poor people. Meanwhile we'll just keep attacking abstinence as completely unworkable. Yup, not getting pregnant is certainly a much worse idea than just having an abortion and removing some unwanted cell growth like an infection.
As someone without a dog in the fight, I may be missing something on one side or the other of the abortion debate, here, but I really, really can't see what gratification Democrats get, while claiming, laughably, that they want abortion to be "rare", from funding more abortions even if it means forcibly taking money from those that are morally opposed to it in order to do so.
--
* A similar issue would be embryonic stem cell research. Another would be war. You could easily starting tying issues like these to the abortion debate and make a 'yabut' case. For example, Bush and Congress sent troops to Iraq even though many found the move morally reprehensible. Democrats want to fund ESCR even though many find it morally reprehensible. Allow me to muddy the waters very briefly (there is much more that could be said on each of these additional issues).
As for ESCR - I think many believe that science trumps morality. That is, if you can 'make the paralyzed walk', it is worth using matter that could otherwise potentially be a child. In other words, the ends justify the means, assuming you believe that the means are even mildly unacceptable. The problem, of course, with this argument is that, no matter how much you try to avoid it, it MUST become a slippery slope argument. It just must. Where do you stop? Who decides where to stop? Who's "pay grade" is high enough to make these decisions? Cloning? Reproductive control? This is OK, that is banned, this is fine, that is not. Not many people would want to be in that position. Those that would are all leftists. Most people instead want to just keep off the slope. I don't think that will happen, as I believe we're already headed down that path. Getting back to the point - those that favor this believe there is significant, positive return on this action.
The war argument is simple after the previous one because it boils down to the same issue: those that reluctantly support it believe that it is the only way to stop a greater evil. Take the atomic bomb debate - same thing. Yes, we nuked thousands and thousands of Japanese citizens. The alternative was seen as a near-endless, unbelievably bloody march through Japan where we envisioned having to slaughter every man, woman, and child we came across because all would have been armed and told to sacrifice themselves for a chance to kill an American. Any of that sound familiar? Those in favor weigh the cost and benefit and find it preferably to not only fight, but take the fight to the enemy, where civilians are endangered, in order to avoid further destruction of not only our own people, but, in the long run, of the civilians pressed into suicidal service down the road. Israel is seeing the long term results as we speak. No one ever 'cleaned out' the Palestinians (that doesn't have to mean 'killed') or, more specifically, the poison that now encompasses their lives. Compassion stayed their hands, as it does every time they are forced to defend themselves, which, while noble, is ultimately self-destructive. The palestinians have reached a point where they are simply breeding for the purpose of making more people to try to kill Israelis. They don't aspire to anything else in far too many cases. Consequently, Israel is forced to kill palestinians over and over again, yet they never stop coming. Of course, nowadays, no one would support the nuking (or carpet-bombing) of Gaza just to stop the deadly attacks. But Israel (and the court of public opinion) refuses to do what they are accused of doing - occupy Gaza and redefine the palestinians, the way we did with Afghanistan and Iraq. You must kill those that would kill you as you are doing this (or lock them up if that is feasible) and set up a government strong enough to eventually control its own destiny. Putting Hamas or Abbas in charge isn't going to do it, not when they're dedicated to eradicating Israel. Unfortunately, the Gazans have been ignored and trampled by their muslim brethren for so long they don't know how to operate anything anymore. It's not like you could lock up or kill a certain percentage and then let the rest set up a peaceful, stable democracy. At least I don't think you could. Maybe it could happen. That would, of course, be the best solution. But I doubt it. We keep hearing about how impoverished the Gazans are, etc. Give me a break. You don't get to make that argument anymore. Once, yes. Now, no. Not after all those greenhouses were purchased from the Israeli settlers to give to the palestinian people when the Israelis were forcibly removed from their homes and, instead of using them to grow food for themselves and export as the Israelis had been doing, smashed them to pieces like monkeys let loose in a china shop or something.
Wow, talk about rambling. End of story is that in these seemingly-similar cases the party that is a proponent believes there is significant benefit to be gained for (nearly) everyone. In the case of funding abortions, the argument is still 'what are the liberals gaining from paying to abort babies'?
The Liberal "Conservative Democrat"
All of us in the Capital Region are having a heck of a laugh at both the left and the right outsiders that are calling Gillibrand a "conservative".
Right?
I mean, c'mon. Get real.
I tried to quash this at Wizbang, but I don't know with how much success. One of the new additions, Michael Laprarie, posted this piece. Michael occasionally has some good ideas, but he parrots media lines way too often and his research/primary sourcing is often pitiful. Sadly, the source is the Post, which should know better (wait, what am I saying?). Michael concludes:
Right?
I mean, c'mon. Get real.
I tried to quash this at Wizbang, but I don't know with how much success. One of the new additions, Michael Laprarie, posted this piece. Michael occasionally has some good ideas, but he parrots media lines way too often and his research/primary sourcing is often pitiful. Sadly, the source is the Post, which should know better (wait, what am I saying?). Michael concludes:
She's youngObviously, I flipped.
She's attractive
She's relatively unknown
She is not an elite urbanite
She is a fiscal conservative
She is a social conservative
She is a darling of the NRA
Before you read too much into all of this, folks, realize that the 'facts' about Gillibrand are a load of horse-you-know-what. She's no upstater, she fled upstate for NYC long ago and only moved back to run for the House against Sweeney. She's no conservative, either fiscally or socially, but she plays one for the press who play it up, as you can see, for effect because she is in a decreasingly conservative district. The fact is that she votes reliably with Nancy Pelosi pretty much all of the time. She talks the talk, but rarely walks the walk (or votes the vote). On several rare occasions in the last Congress she voted 'with the Republicans' on issues strongly opposed by conservatives, but ONLY when the vote was safely out of reach one way or the other. She never goes against the liberal wing when it matters. As an example - you probably remember the vote that the Democrats stole a couple of years ago? When fill-in Speaker McNulty (also from upstate NY, just retired) gaveled a vote closed after a glance (this is all on CSPAN video) at Dem leadership on the floor and NOT the tally board, because it appeared that the Dems had won the vote, but the tally actually showed a Republican win? You might also recall that for the first time House members were allowed to change their votes AFTER THE VOTE HAD BEEN GAVELLED CLOSED? Three Democrats came forward and were allowed to change their vote after the voting was over. One of those sent up to dutifully change their vote (this was the amendment that would have kept illigal aliens from getting food stamps) to make it look like a Democratic victory was Pelosi clone Gillibrand. This is no upstate conservative by any stretch of the imagination, and I mean STRETCH. As a weird aside, it's very possible that this seat in the House will return to the GOP with her leaving - assuming the NY GOP can find a candidate that's not a horse's rear end. As for "NRA-backed" - she's not virulently anti-gun and doesn't call for the abolition of hunting as she represents a very hunting heavy district...she's hardly a 'darling' of the NRA.And there's some more. I see over at MRC that ABC is spinning the same lie:
She's also loaded down with scandals that the press has successfully covered up. She ran against Sweeney whining about him having a fundraiser in Utah. After she was elected she jetted off to England and France for fundraisers (lying about the one in France in the process). She whined about Sweeney using an official portrait in fundraising (he wasn't). After she was elected she was one of the freshman Dems caught using their official portraits on a fundraising website. She whined about Sweeney's ties to lobbyists. Meanwhile her father is a lobbyist and after she was elected she and the other freshmen Dems hired a longtime lobbyist to head up their fundraising - a guy with such a bad reputation that some of the slimiest politicians distanced themselves from him in the past. This "fiscal conservative" spent more money on campaign travel than ANY OTHER freshman Dem in her first term in the House.
And, by the way, do you remember Norman "Hillraiser" Hsu? Gillibrand got more from Hsu than all but one other House member.
This "social conservative", I believe I recall correctly, was heartily and heavily backed by Emily's List, the group that spends money to get pro-abortion women elected.
I beg you, take everything you're hearing about her from the press with 14 or 15 metric buttloads of salt.
(And, no, she's not my Rep. but is in a neighboring district.)
On Friday's "Good Morning America," reporter John Berman spun Representative Kristen Gillibrand, the soon-to-be announced senator from New York, as a "conservative Democrat." Although she is only beginning her second term in the House, Gillibrand has been endorsed by the aggressively pro-abortion group NARAL. According to the New York Observer, she supports gay marriage.Don't let this one drop if it comes up in conversation or on a blog or whatever - now more than ever we need to push back against every lie the media is pushing.
Additionally, the American Conservative Union ranked her voting record as a meager eight.
President Yabut
2009 - The first year of the yabut presidency. Ain't we lucky?
I'm going to immediately pull out of Iraq starting on my first day! Yabut maybe I'll follow the Bush plan and honor our international agreement to a safe, steady, phased withdrawal.
I'm going to immediately put a 'closed' sign on Guantanamo Bay! Yabut maybe I'll follow the Bush plan to try the people held captive there, send home the ones we can, and find somewhere IN THE UNITED STATES to house the rest of these murderous, suicidal terrorists...and it might take a year or so.
I'm going to put the politics of yesterday in the past! Yabut I'm going to be so hyperpartisan the Republicans shouldn't even bother to show up because I WON...and I'm going to call my 'shut up and sit down' attitude towards the GOP "bipartisanship" just because I can...and I'm going to personally single out individual citizens for partisan attacks (in truly nonpartisan spirit!).
I'm going to really take Vice-President Cheney's advice to heart, that's some good advice to take a little time to get all the facts before I make any big decisions on national security matters. Yabut I'm going to sign sweeping policies designed to give more rights to terrorists and less protection to Americans within my first 48 hours in office.
I really need to focus on the wars and economy before anything else. Yabut maybe I need to get some money flowing to abortionists first.
One of the first things I'm going to do is sign this thing saying there will be no lobbyists working in MY administration! Yabut right after that I'm going to sign this waiver so I can have a lobbyist as Deputy Secretary of Defense.
This is going to be the MOST transparent administration EVAH! Yabut I've told my cabinet nominees not to actually discuss anything of substance at their hearings since the Democrats will rubber stamp anything I say, or else.
There will be no torture or any sort of harsh interrogations or anything on MY watch! Yabut I made sure with my lawyer that we don't have to abide by that, so we can do the same stuff Bush did since whatever he was doing sure did work.
I'm going to immediately pull out of Iraq starting on my first day! Yabut maybe I'll follow the Bush plan and honor our international agreement to a safe, steady, phased withdrawal.
I'm going to immediately put a 'closed' sign on Guantanamo Bay! Yabut maybe I'll follow the Bush plan to try the people held captive there, send home the ones we can, and find somewhere IN THE UNITED STATES to house the rest of these murderous, suicidal terrorists...and it might take a year or so.
I'm going to put the politics of yesterday in the past! Yabut I'm going to be so hyperpartisan the Republicans shouldn't even bother to show up because I WON...and I'm going to call my 'shut up and sit down' attitude towards the GOP "bipartisanship" just because I can...and I'm going to personally single out individual citizens for partisan attacks (in truly nonpartisan spirit!).
I'm going to really take Vice-President Cheney's advice to heart, that's some good advice to take a little time to get all the facts before I make any big decisions on national security matters. Yabut I'm going to sign sweeping policies designed to give more rights to terrorists and less protection to Americans within my first 48 hours in office.
I really need to focus on the wars and economy before anything else. Yabut maybe I need to get some money flowing to abortionists first.
One of the first things I'm going to do is sign this thing saying there will be no lobbyists working in MY administration! Yabut right after that I'm going to sign this waiver so I can have a lobbyist as Deputy Secretary of Defense.
This is going to be the MOST transparent administration EVAH! Yabut I've told my cabinet nominees not to actually discuss anything of substance at their hearings since the Democrats will rubber stamp anything I say, or else.
There will be no torture or any sort of harsh interrogations or anything on MY watch! Yabut I made sure with my lawyer that we don't have to abide by that, so we can do the same stuff Bush did since whatever he was doing sure did work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
