If Arlen Specter had been arrested for being a Republican, Scottish law would have ruled, "case not proved."
Now that the Muslim Pirates are literally screaming bloody murder, Barack Obama is about to learn the difference between being President of the United States and merely being an itinerant Critic of the United States.
In fact, it may not be long before an insomniac Obama is roaming the halls of the White House in the night watches, holding conversations with portraits of Lincoln, Truman and George W. Bush.
President Obama's Spokesman, making an official prepared statement about the kidnapping of the Captain of a U.S. flagged merchant ship by Muslim Pirates off the East Coast of Africa, actually said that President Obama's biggest concern is the safety of the Captain.
Memo to Barack Obama: Private citizens have the luxury of having the safety of an individual as their biggest concern, but you are now President of The United States of America, therefore your biggest concern ought to be the interests of The United States of America.
We all hope and pray that the Captain comes out of this OK, but the lives and safety of every other American merchant seaman, and the future freedom of the seas to American shipping are rightly the primary concern of the President of the United States.
When Obama issues a weak-kneed, touchy-feely statement like "[my] biggest concern is the safety of the Captain," Bad Guys all over the World are listening and taking the measure of the man, and the Bad Guys are celebrating over the measurements.
Hmmmm, during the Presidential Campaign Obama never mentioned how "conflicted" he is about America.
Of course, anyone could tell that Obama has mixed feelings about the U.S.A., provided they 1) were not conflicted about the greatest nation on God's green Earth, and 2) had the courage to believe the truth. Alas, the number of people fitting that profile fell somewhat short of that needed to comprise a majority in the Electoral College.
President Barack Obama has offered an apology for the Bush era, declaring that America had “shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive” towards its allies.>
Notably, unlike Obama, President Bush never has been dismissive or derisive toward the United States of America.
These Moderates tread ever-so-softly when advocating the policies they favor, and attack boldly fellow Republicans who decline to make their case with "civility" (in case you don't know what that means, you are witnessing "Civility" every time you see Republicans following the Marquis of Queensbury rules, while Democrats gouge the eyes and knee the groin). John Mark Reynolds post about Rush Limbaugh's speech to CPAC is a good example. <Rush Gave a Bad Speech by John Mark Reynolds on 3/2/09
I listened to the Rush speech at CPAC. You can here, but it is mostly a waste of time. It was a bad speech, as a speech, and it made an argument that in our present societal context sounds like a spirited defense of the White Star Line on April 16, 1912...> Click Here to Read the Full Post and <Sam Adams was ... a leader in the early stages of the Revolution who sacrificed his all for the Cause. He was personally brave and an effective rabble rouser. Revolutions need a Sam Adams like they need air.
If, however, he had become the face fo the Revolution in those days, we might very well have lost. He could not appeal (and turned off) many people we needed on our team. Instead, Washington became the face of the revolution and our leader and the Revolution was saved...> Click Here to Read the Full Post of 3/4/09 Rush is not the right leader for the Reagan Revolution Phase Two>
Mr. Middle-of-the-Road Reynolds misses the point that leaders of movements are not chosen by election, they are chosen by the fact of having followers (with the obvious exception of the "leaders" of the "Civil Rights" and "Women's" movements, who have been chosen by national media anointment, in spite of an embarrasing paucity of followers). Rush IS the leader of the Conservative Movement (this just in: George Washington is not returning calls). because he leads and Conservatives follow.
Is Reynolds telling Conservatives to spurn Rush? Great strategy. This is the Republican Self-Destruction Disorder to which I was alluding when I suggested that Michael Steele would do better to point his weapon down range. You don't win a political fight by picking off everybody on your own side who falls short of some arbitrary standard of perfection, especially if their shortcoming is that some people don't like them (see Gingrich, Newt).
Even General Washington who was certainly a popular hero in his own time, was not without his detractors (see Gates, General Horatio) during the War for Independence. Anyone who believes something worth believing and tries to persuade others will have enemies. In fact, Reynolds recommendation is so thoroughly wimpish that it's likely to appeal to four out of five Republican elected officials, but won't hold water with Conservatives.
Finally, the idea of Rush as leader of the Republican Party is an invention of Obama War Room strategy (see Ayers, William C.), so Reynolds should direct his plea to the President.
Excerpt of exchange between Larry King and Gov. Jindal:
< King: Governor, do you think people are thinking about capitalism now or are they thinking about problems?
Jindal: Look, clearly, the American people are worried about paying their mortgages, keeping their jobs and paying their health care bills. I think Rush is a great leader for conservatives. I think he articulates what a lot of people are concerned about.
King: Do you want him [Obama] to fail?
Jindal: I don't want those policies to be adopted. I want my country to succeed, but I don't want policies to be adopted.
King: What if the policies work?
Jindal: Well, again...
King: What if they work? >
Re-wind to September 2008 when the credit crisis hit. Republican Presidential candidate John McCain had the opportunity to define the issue, instead he readily adopted the Liberal Template that Capitalism has failed, i.e. the problem = “Wall Street greed.” Not only was that the beginning of the end of McCain’s presidential aspirations, but it is a trap that Republicans have universally fallen into, opposing Obama’s “Stimulus” porkage primarily on the grounds of overspending and ineffectiveness at triggering economic recovery.
While the other side is swapping out the FOUNDATIONS of the American Experiment, Republicans are focusing on the details of governance. When the foundations are under assault a PHILOSOPHICAL defense must undergird the fight over line-items (see Reagan, Ronald and Buckley, William F.). This is what’s missing from the Republican argument – although NOT missing from Rush’s arguments, which is why the Left has trained their sights on him. I’m not sure exactly how to put it for a dumbed-down audience (they’re watching Larry King!), but the GOP had better publish some talking points that explain why it doesn’t matter whether policies “work,” in the short-term, if the lasting effect is to diminish liberty and fundamentally alter the relationship of the individual and the state.
Buying into Obama’s Government-as-savior policies is the political equivilent of buying a house beyond your means, because you expect the value to continue rising indefinitely. Haven’t we lately caught on that there comes a day-of-reckoning? But in this case, it’s not your house value that’s “under water,” it’s your freedom, your son’s freedom and your grandson’s freedom. Maybe a phrase like “Government Bubble” could work to communicate the hazard to liberty contained in Obama’s policies, whether or not they “work.”
Jay Cost, writing on RealClearPolitics.com says he is "disappointed" that Obama is engaging in the politics of personal destruction against people, like Rush Limbaugh, Rick Santelli and Jim Cramer, who oppose Obama's agenda.
As for me and my house, we shall NOT use the words “disappointed,” “surprised,” “shocked,” “stunned,” “aghast,” etc… to describe our sentiments when the radical Leftist Obama acts like a radical Leftist. Why should anyone be disappointed, etc… unless they were in thrall to a self-delusional belief that Obama is not a narrow-minded Marxist political hack, nourished at the teet of the corrupt Chicago Democrat Machine, and discipled by the America-loathing, racial greivance monger, Jeremiah Wright.
What I am disappointed about is that Republicans (notably RNC Chairman, Michael Steele) would say they are “disappointed.” Don’t say that! Say, “see I told you so!” say, “this is what happens when we elect a wolf in sheep’s clothing; but, the American People don’t get fooled for long, that’s why Jimmy Carter was a one-term President.”
Then, when an outraged Washington Press Corps demands to know what Steele means by calling Obama “a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” instead of backpedaling and apologizing, the leader of the Republican Party could explain that it’s a phrase from a book – one they’ve probably never read – that refers to a person who cloaks a sinister agenda behind a harmless appearance, and yes that is exactly how he intended to describe the President of the United States, who is a very affable fellow attempting to use that affability to “fundamentally transform America” from constitutionally limited government and a free-market economy to a Europe-like Social Welfare State with no boundaries to Government’s activities; and once the affable exterior loses its novelty, the American People will take an objective look at the policies Obama has enacted and the consequences of those policies, and they won’t like what they see.
Give a man a fish and he can eat for a day…and he'll vote to re-elect you.
Take away half of all the fish a man catches and use them to buy other men's votes, and the man who catches fish will quickly learn to catch only enough to live comfortably, no more.
But, what motivates the man who catches fish to catch as many as possible, so that he needs to hire fishermen, invest in boats and nets, and has a surplus to sell, thereby lowering the price of food and increasing the disposable income of the consumers of fish, leading to a general improvement in the standard of living?
It’s simple actually. You have to let him keep more of the fish he catches. Although simple, this is quite unpopular among politicians, because doing so will inevitably reduce the number of people who need a fish given to them, in turn diminishing the incentive to vote for the man who gives away the fish that another man caught.
Since 9/11/2001 the Central Intelligence Agency has been a major player in keeping the United States free from terrorist attacks, and since 1/5/2009 the U.S. Senate has been a major player in keeping the United States buried in debt for generations. So, I thought the following headline must have been a typo:
AP News, Friday February 27, 2009
AP Reports: < WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is moving to rescind a federal rule that reinforced protections for medical providers who refuse to perform abortions or other procedures on moral grounds, an official said today.>
There’s some “change we can believe in,” medical doctors forced to perform abortions, or else…
So much for the claim that the pro-abortion crowd is “pro-choice.” Healthcare professionals whose conscience forbids them to participate in abortion will be coerced to violate their conscience. No choice for the doctors. The pro-abortion argument has often assured us that a pregnant woman’s decision about an abortion is “a matter of conscience” (as if the decision to proceed with the abortion could constitute the triumph of conscience), and in that spirit, President Obama (whose recent paygrade increase has now qualified him for such judgments) has resolved the often messy struggle of conscience on behalf of doctors. Attention: doctors, by Executive Order the correct answer on abortion is: Choose Death. Now that’s settled. Thank you for clearing that up, Mr. President.
Christian Obama voters OWN this abomination, along with every other freedom-destroying, ungodly policy that candidate Obama promised but some Christians were too starry-eyed to notice. Love is blind, they say, but the word of God says, “it is required of stewards that they be found faithful,” which presumably would include paying attention to the stated agenda of the candidate for whom you are voting, especially as it affects the disposition of the image of God.
Of course, reckless irresponsibility is the generous interpretation of why Christians would vote for a candidate who promised policies that predictably would increase the slaughter of unborn innocents. It is also probable that some Christians knew about Obama’s pro-abortion radicalism and supported him anyway. In “the old days,” when the church was less focused on being nice and more focused on being “the pillar and ground of the truth,” we would have said that those Christians have innocent blood on their hands.
I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve never been very good at math, so can any of you smart people explain this equation to me?
34 = 18
According to the Associated Press article dated February 25, 2009
< President Barack Obama is expected to order all U.S. combat* troops to leave Iraq by August of next year>, but wait, that’s not all.
If you continue for a few paragraphs (no easy task, considering the tediousness of reading AP claptrap) you’ll learn that < The emerging plan now leaves Obama two months off his campaign pledge, and with between 30,000 and 50,000 troops still in Iraq to advise and train Iraqi security forces and to protect U.S. interests…. The complete withdrawal of American forces will take place by December 2011, the period by which the U.S. agreed with Iraq to remove all troops.>
So, exactly as agreed between President Bush and the Iraqi government last November, American troops are scheduled to stay in Iraq until the end of 2011, and that is the glorious fulfillment (cue Hallelujah Chorus) of Obama’s campaign promise? Mr. Orwell, call your office.
The rest of AP’s lead is priceless too: < President Barack Obama is expected to order all U.S. combat troops to leave Iraq by August of next year, administration officials said, closing the door on a war that has led to the deaths of at least 4,250 members of the U.S. military.> What is it the theologians say? “a text without a context is a pretext.” Why not “closing the door on a war that has liberated 25 million Iraqis from tyranny, deposed a terrorism-supporting enemy of the United States, and established a pro-American democracy in the heart of the Arab Middle East.”
Moreover, in Journalism 101 future reporters are taught to ask, “What? When? Where? Who? Why? and How? But, when it comes to reporting on George W. Bush’s success – a.k.a. America’s success – in the Iraq War, AP Reporters have no curiosity about How the U.S. got in a position to be able to withdraw our troops from Iraq, when three years ago Barack Obama and the AP, among others, were calling the situation in Iraq “a Civil War,” and hopeless. An inconvenient fact that might also make the AP Reporters curious as to Why they were wrong and Bush was right.
*That's "all combat troops," you see. This level of nuance was strangely missing, however, every time AP (and the rest of the Tweedledum media) delivered (with evident relish) lines like, "...bringing to x,xxx the number of American Soldiers and Marines killed in since April 2003 when President Bush announced the end of major combat." Never mind that, in order to facilitate the influx of international relief to the Iraqi People from the U.N. and various pansy nations who would not set foot in Iraq while the U.S. offensive was underway, President Bush announced "the end of major combat operations." But, let's not confuse the issue with facts.
A singular curiosity of the past few years, about which not a soul in the Drive-by Media has been the least bit curious, is the Constitutional dogmatism of critics of George W. Bush's handling of enemy captives in the War on Terrorism.
For the sake of argument, I'm going to adopt the conventional wisdom of elite opinion, by pretending that the U.S. Constitution requires Prisoners of War (to say nothing of Illegal Combatants apprehended on the battlefield) to be accorded the same legal regimen as a U.S. Citizen charged by the civil authorities with a statutory violation. I will further pretend that Constitutional "Due Process of Law" equals the procedure used in U.S. Courts for Criminal and Civil proceedings, and nothing else.
This pretence requires me to ignore history, logic and precedent, but hey, in the spirit of civility, bi-partisanship and collegiality, I want to show a little empathy with Liberals.
OK, why is it that in the Liberal universe, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged," is subject to Living Constitution modification by Judges, to better fit with the realities of life in modern America? Why is it that "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" can be tweaked to get attuned to our Pluralistic Society? Why is it that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to The People," is routinely ignored by Congress and the Courts, as the Federal Government increasingly offers itself as the solution to every problem and the arbiter of every dispute? And this just in: the Constitution is explicit that a Representatives must be an inhabitant of the State from which they are chosen, but there are lots of Democrats living in Government City who could add power to Democrats in the House, so the Democrat Congress is proceeding to simply ignore the plain language of the Constitution in the interests of "fairness."
If a "Living Constitution" is good enough for these issues, why can't we have a Living Constitution when it comes to dealing with the Jihadist menace? As understood by Liberals, the Constitution we have clearly does not allow for effective handling of captured enemies, so why is it a problem if the President of the United States simply updates the meaning of the Constitution by whim, to better fit the current circumstances?
Is this Living Constitution thing a game that only Legislators and unelected Judges can play? It's no more unreasonable for the President to make up the Constitution as he goes along than it is for the pnumbra-diciphering black-robed high-priests at the Supreme Court.
So, why all the angst about a couple hundred Jihadis cooling their heels indefinitely at GITMO? Suddenly, the same Liberals who brought us The Living Constitution are the guardians of every jot and tittle. Are Liberals genuinely blind to this inconsistency, or do they just figure everyone has their BS Detectors turned off?
Remember the Old Days (c. 2008 A.D.) when Patriotism consisted of paying more taxes (see: Biden, Joseph Robinette) and speaking out on important issues (see: Obama, Barack Hussein)?
Well, that was then, this is now. President Obama warns Republican Congressmen to steer clear of Rush Limbaugh, an American whose name we know only because he speaks out on important issues, and Obama hands out plum Executive Branch appointments to tax cheats like Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle and Nancy Killefer.
So, on their own terms, the Obama-Biden Administration ostracizes a patriot, while rewarding the unpatriotic. Hmmmmmm.
It was good to see the great American General, David Petraeus, honored at the Super Bowl Coin Toss. Considering the magnitude of his military accomplishment, he is the most unsung hero in the Country.
Why? Well, simply because publicizing General Petraeus' victory creates embarrassment for Liberals, from Move-on.org to Hillary Clinton to Commander in Chief Obama, all of whom bet against the General. Remember "General Betray-Us" and "a willing suspension of disbelief"? Obama was more discreet (and less like a leader, by the way), simply declining to meet with the military Commander in the theater of war from which candidate Obama was promising to precipitately withdraw our Armed Forces.
None of the above have bothered to admit that General Petraeus was right and they were wrong, and unlike former President Bush, none of the above is continually hectored by the Washington Press Corps to confess errors they have made. No "reporter" has thought of asking the new President, the new Secretary of State or the old Commies of Move-On whether Iraq and America would be better off if their side had prevailed two years ago. It would evidently be impolite to inquire, especially since admitting that Petraeus was right would imply the unthinkable . . . that George W. Bush was right. Horrors!
I will be glad to see the corrupt Rod Blagoiovich removed from office, BUT make no mistake about it, the manner and haste of his departure is not motivated by a desire to protect the People of Illinois from corrupt officials and fixers, it's motivated by the desire to protect corrupt officials and fixers from the People of Illinois.
The Democrat Legislature (not to mention a certain Chicago Democrat Machine prodigy now residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue) wants “Closure” on the Blago scandal – and quick, before the festering cesspool of corruption that is Democrat politics in Illinois is further exposed to the public. Hence a fair trial and a fair hangin' for Blago.
How deep and wide is the corruption in Illinois Democrat Politics? Judge for yourself. In an exclusive scoop for LarryNaselli.com, we have obtained this VIDEO, leaked by an anonymous source close to the federal investigation of corruption in Illinois. The video shows U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald and key Democrat elected officials engaged in secret plea bargaining negotiations.
One of George W. Bush's most compelling promises in the 2000 election campaign was that he would restore dignity to the office of the Presidency. He made good, for his part, conducting himself with decorum, as a steward of the lofty responsibilities of the Chief Executive, Head of State and Commander in Chief of the greatest nation on Earth. That was a welcome relief from the sophmoric Clinton years.
What George W. Bush couldn't control was the behavior of others toward the President. Something snapped in a lot of Leftist Democrats when the disputed Florida vote went for Bush, and rather than being assauged by the passage of time, the Democrat Left became progressively more looney, afflicted with what some have dubbed "Bush Derangement Syndrome."
American politics have never really been the model of civility, because Americans disagree about important things, but the craziness of the accusations against President Bush is surely on the short list of outrageousness.
In that context, what impressed me most about the man (and often frustrated me) was his humble determination to not return evil for evil or insult for insult, entrusting his reputation to divine justice. "To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth. When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to Him who judges justly" (I Peter 2:21-23). By so doing, George W. Bush did set a high standard of dignity for the presidency.
Thanks to the confluence of an epidemic of Bush Derangement Syndrome among Leftists and the communication technology of the internet, George W. Bush is probably the most lied about human being in history. A distinction he earned by steadfastly pursuing his duty as Commander in Chief of America's Armed Forces to defend this nation and its Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Public Opinion Polls of Job Approval have judged President Bush harshly, but "will not the Judge of all the Earth do right?" I'm betting He will, and that sooner or later, George W. Bush will be vindicated before men for his faithful stewardship of any President's most important duty. On September 11, 2001 the importance of that duty came into renewed focus, and I would gladly be first in line to shake the hand of the man whose leadership has kept America safe ever since.
Apparently the first Republican Talking Point on the sheet is, "I hope President Obama succeeds." Now that's almost as stupid as "Hope" and "Change." The CONTENT matters! Succeeds at what?
I certainly hope, and will pray, that President Obama succeeds at preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States and seeing that the laws are faithfully executed, but as for the agenda Obama promised during the campaign, God forbid that he should succeed at that!
Am I supposed to hope (because the President is new, or because he is the first African American, or because I want to seem bi-partisan) that Obama succeeds in passing and signing the Freedom of Choice Act? that he succeeds in legalizing homosexuals in the U.S. Military, where my sons may find themselves rubbing elbows with, or worse, saluting them?
Should I hope Obama succeeds at appointing federal judges in the District and Supreme Courts, who regard the U.S. Constitution as a "Living Document," and may overthrow the definition of marriage?
Should I hope that he succeeds in spending additional billions of future taxpayer dollars, saddling business with punishing regulation, singling-out profitable industries for punitive "windfall" taxation, un-doing the Bush tax cuts of marginal rates, estates, capital gains, dividends, investments in equipment, child-tax credit, undoing of the marriage penalty?
Should I hope Obama succeeds in eliminating secret ballots in Labor Union votes?
Should I hope that Obama succeeds in stiffing our courageous, democratic, terror-fighting ally, Columbia, by deep-sixing CAFTA?
Should I hope Obama succeeds in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq by a premature withdrawal? Should I hope he succeeds in shutting down our terrorist detention facility at GITMO or undoes the USA Patriot Act, that he succeeds in abandoning the collection of signals intelligence (known among Media and Democrats as "domestic wiretaps") on international phone calls to or from suspected enemies of the U.S.? Should I hope Obama succeeds at meeting with dictators and thugs who hate America and long to use the President of the United States as a propaganda foil?
Should I hope Obama succeeds in further radicalizing Public Education with the anti-American and/or Afro-Centric indoctrination programs that he and a guy from his neighborhood promoted through the Annenberg Challenge?
Count me out.
A good way for Republicans to begin crawling out of the post-election bunker might be by specifying what we mean when we wish President Obama success, namely that we wish America success, which will be best accomplished if Obama FAILS to deliver on his planned agenda.