Breaking News: ILLITERATE GUNMAN AT LARGE ON NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY CAMPUS
Evidently, the gunman could not read the “GUN-FREE ZONE” signs at the campus entrance.
Babe of the Year goes, hands down, to Sarah Palin.
Palin had many critics and made many supporters cringe, when she resigned the Governorship of Alaska, but at this stage of the game, the move looks both good and original (originality is always captivating, but it's especially welcome after two years of listening to Barack Obama regurgitate the well-learned nostrums of his many Leftist mentors), as Palin's name recognition and brand identity have become the envy of Fortune 500 marketers.
So, John McCain played Porter Waggoner to Sarah's Dolly Parton. i.e. once the old guy had escorted her to the stage, she didn't need his help anymore to get noticed.
In both cases, the success is due to a combination of form and substance. Sarah isn't merely vivacious, and she isn't merely Reaganite, she is us! i.e. she's Middle-Class America, so the connection -- or disconnection, in the case of elitists (and you elitists out there know who you are) -- is visceral. Sarah Palin has become a litmus test for faith in the common American man/woman, and at least during 2009, no other woman has captured our attention, for more than a moment, to the extent that Sarah has. That makes her 2009's Babe of the Year.
How about Saul Alinsky?
Seriously, Obama has been the man of the year in 2009, nothwithstanding that his actions have been abominable. But you must admit, the guy has been inescapable in the national consciousness -- for cryin' out loud, little Johnny and Janie can't even get through day one of Kindergarten without a televised visit from Uncle Barry.
The damage that Obama has done to law, liberty and prosperity and national power in America, while the Earth has been taking a single turn around the Sun, will take decades to undo, if it can be undone at all, and if anyone has the vision and the fortitude to try.
In my book, that makes Obama Man of the Year, as well as Disgrace of the Year.
Now this is Change We Can Believe In. Some Americans are worried that Enemy Combatants held at GITMO will not receive justice before U.S. Military Tribunals, while other Americans fear that bringing KSM and other Al Qaeda terrorists into the U.S. to stand trial in civilian court will endanger our people's lives, publicly embarass the United States, compromise critical intelligence in the War on Terror, provide a world-wide podium for Jihadist rantings, demoralize our military and intelligence services, and risk acquittal due to procedural technicalities.
President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have Hopeful news for both camps. For those fretting "civil libertarians" Obama promises KSM a fair trial, and for those worrying "national security-ists" Obama promises KSM a fair hangin'.
What else to make of both Holder and Obama assuring skeptics that a civilian court trial will not lead to acquittal?
I just heard a report that President Obama ACCEPTED the Nobel Peace Prize.
Barack Obama is not merely a con-man, he is a megalomaniac con-man. The crucial difference being that the former does not believe his own propaganda, while the latter is blissfully unsuspecting of the disproportionately short distance between messiah and laughingstock.
Democrats like their Generals docile, unless of course those Generals are voicing disagreement with Bush policies (see McCaffery, Barry, et al).
Democrats think that Generals should enjoy limitless tenure, provided they were appointed by Bill Clinton and disagree with Don Rumsfeld's vision (see Shinseki, Eric).
Democrats think that a man's history of military service puts him above reproach and criticism (see Kerry, John F.), unless he is implementing a strategy to carry out a George W. Bush policy (see Petraeus, David, aka "General Betray-Us," see also Clinton, Senator Hillary R. "willing suspension of disbelief").
Democrats believe that any General's wisdom on matters military is always superior to that of the Commander in Chief (see Clark, Wesley), unless that General disagrees with CIC Obama (see McCrystal, Stanley).
Once you understand these simple axioms you won't be so confused when you watch the news.
Are you old enough remember the Neutron Bomb? It was a battlefield artillery shell that employed low-grade radioactivity to offset the numerical advantage of Soviet Bloc troops to NATO forces in Central Europe. American technology designed to give the good guys an advantage in The Cold War. The Neutron "Bomb" was never deployed because a successful marketing campaign by Soviet Disinformatzia dubbed it as "the ultimate Capitalist weapon: it kills people, but leaves buildings standing." The craven Jimmy Carter withdrew plans to deploy the neutron artillery shell, succumbing to the PR pressure, initiated by America's mortal enemies without (i.e. USSR), and amplified by America's mortal enemies within (i.e. CBS, NBC, ABC, NY Times, AP). Champagn glasses could be heard clinking inside the Kremlin.
Fast-forward three decades. The U.S. is set to deploy ballistic missile defenses in Poland and Czechoslovakia. American Technology that would offset the Russian nuclear threat to former subject nations, and the Iranian nuclear threat to all of Europe. President Obama cancels the program.
What is the difference between Obama and Carter? Obama required no enemy propaganda campaign manufacturing the pressure to break his will. At least Jimmy Carter agonized before wimping out; Obama's unilateral disarmament was pro-active.
Well, it may not be quite true to say that Obama was not subjected to a propaganda campaign by America's enemies before throwing away a technological advantage vital to U.S. interests. It's just that the enemy propaganda campaign didn't occur during Obama's presidency; instead Barack Obama has been subjected to a lifetime of anti-American propaganda: from his Indonesian schooling, to his Ivy League lobotomization, to Saul Alinsky's writings, to William Ayers sponsorship, to ACORN hyjinx, to Jeremiah Wright's rantings and Van Jones' ravings.
For cutting the USA down to size by cancelling U.S. Missile Defense in Europe, Obama earns a Gold Star from his anti-American mentors. For all you Moderates who voted for Obama, how's that Hope-and-Change working out for you?
President Obama is infamous for employing Straw Man tactics to win arguments, but as the Public has expressed its collective revulsion at his pet plan for a government takeover or the Healthcare/Insurance industry, Obama has modified the technique. Rather than his usual mischaracterization of opponents' policy positions, Obama now claims that his opponents have no policy positions.
The sound byte of the day on the news is Obama complaining that American healthcare is in crisis and opponents of his Healthcare takeover have no solutions to offer. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Republicans in Congress and the George W. Bush Administration have been pushing serious healthcare reform for at least 15 years, but most of those reforms have been thwarted by Democrats, with the assistance of various GOP "Moderates."
Republican proposals include Medical Liability Lawsuit Reform, Medical Savings Accounts, Insurance Portability, Interstate Commerce in Health Insurance, Individual Vouchers for Medicare Members (i.e. Medicare Advantage), full deductibility of health insurance purchased outside of employer group plans.
Those are reforms I can think of off the top of my head. Is it conceivable that President -- and former U.S. Senator -- Obama is unaware of these Republican Healthcare Reform proposals? That is what one must believe in order to believe that Obama is not attempting to deliberately mislead the American People when he claims that opponents of Obamacare have no alternative solutions.
Townhall meetings with angry citizens shouting at their elected representatives and government officials, because of policy proposals that these citizens perceive to threaten their liberty -- is this un-American?
On the contrary, it is consummately American, and very heartening to those of us who have wondered whether any substantial vestige survives of The Spirit of '76 in modern America.
The truth is that nothing could be more American than for free men to resist government inroads on liberty. Forget, if you wish, that just last year dissent was "the highest form of patriotism," and consider the appalled reaction of Washington elites to Commoners who lack the "civility" to defer to their Betters. The Liberal political and media elites chide the citizenry for excessive passion in opposition to a hated policy, but the Americans standing up with fierce passion to big-shot office holders are acting on flawless instinct.
To respond to a frontal assault on liberty and limited government -- such as Obamacare presents -- with docility, or even civility, rather than with fury and defiance would be to cheaply value the blood-bought free republic we have received from our forefathers. The conduct of the town hall dissenters both honors and carries on the legacy of the patriots of the American Revolution.
From the Associated Press:
NATICK, Mass. (AP) -- A white police sergeant who arrested renowned black scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. said Thursday he's disappointed President Barack Obama said officers acted "stupidly," despite acknowledging he didn't know all the facts.
Sgt. James Crowley responded to Gates' home near Harvard University last week to investigate a report of a burglary and demanded Gates show him identification. Police say Gates at first refused and accused the officer of racism.
Gates was charged with disorderly conduct. The charge was dropped Tuesday, and Gates has since demanded an apology from Crowley.
Obama was asked about the arrest of Gates, who is his friend, at the end of a nationally televised news conference on health care Wednesday night.
"I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry," Obama said. "Number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home. And number three - what I think we know separate and apart from this incident - is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately, and that's just a fact."
Most people would conclude that it was not the police, but the subject who acted stupidly, by refusing to cooperate with law enforcement officers responding to a call.
Can somebody refresh my memory, are all “scholars” exempt from the normal exigencies of dealing with the authorities, or is it only “reknowned scholars”, or only Black-skinned “scholars,” reknowned or otherwise, or is it only Black-skinned Leftist “scholars,” or do the special rules apply to Leftist “scholars” of any skin color?
This all gets pretty complex for us mere Commoners to understand, but to our unenlightened ears it sounds an awful lot like “four legs good, two legs better.”
Having solved the crisis of health care for Veterans with V.A. Hospitals, the crisis of health care for the poor with Medicaid, and the crisis of health care for the elderly with Medicare, the U.S. Government, under the intrepid leadership of President Obama, proposes to apply the same formula that has made V.A. Hospitals, Medicaid and Medicare the envy of the World, to solving the crisis in health care for all Americans.
Here's a "3 AM phone call" for the Leader of the Free World:
The Thug-ocratic Iranian Mullahs steal a national election so flagrantly that not a soul in the world, besides perhaps Jimmy Carter, believes the official results. In response, the longsuffering Iranian People take to the streets to protest their hated totalitarian government (which just coincidentally happens to be on the short list of America's most dangerous enemies), and that government predictably rolls out the shock troops to crack some heads, which they do with gusto, shooting dead several democracy protesters for good measure.
Now, Liberals never tire of reminding us of how complex the issues are, so if you are a Liberal this may seem like a tough call, but let's try a little thought experiment: imagine that you are the President of the United States of America -- that's the home of the Declaration of Independence, the Liberty Bell, the Statue of Liberty, and the longest-running government of, by and for the People in the world -- who do you side with, the pro-democracy protestors filling the streets of Tehran or the ruling Mullahs re-enacting Tianamen Square?
Barack Obama, whose idea of moral courage is to circle the globe apologizing for America at every lay-over, sizes up the situation and couragously votes "Present."
Americans were promised a post-partisan, post-racial presidency, but while the President has failed to deliver on either of those platitudes, Obama does seem to have what it takes to establish a Post-Leadership Presidency.
Barack Obama has promised that his policies will "save or create" five million jobs in three years. It's tempting to conclude that this "heads I win, tails you lose" metric of success or failure says much about Obama's low opinion of the intelligence of American voters, but I'd rather call President Obama's bet and raise him.
Measuring jobs created and lost is a fairly objective process, at least over the long term. But measureing jobs saved is considerably less scientific -- what is known in less polite circles as bullshit (please excuse the crudity, but it is the right word).
If we are going to measure the nebulous category of jobs "saved," (i.e. jobs that would have been lost, but for Obama's policies which prevented them from being lost), then we should just as well be able to measure jobs "destroyed," (i.e. jobs that would have been created, but for Obama's policies which prevented them from being created).
Policies of deficit spending and confiscatory taxation drain capital from the job-creating private sector, therefore every dollar increase in taxes and spending costs job creation at the margin -- these jobs that would have been created but aren't, are jobs destroyed.
Obama's sycophants celebrate a loss of 350,000 jobs in May as a net gain of "jobs saved or created," while every monthly gain of 150,000 or so jobs during George W. Bush's tenure was decried as a disappointment, because it "fell short of experts* expectations."
Applying my model to May's 350,000 lost jobs, we add to that number, all the jobs that would have been created but for the drain of capital from the private sector due to increased taxation and government spending. Taking a cue from Obama and company, we could claim that in May two million jobs were destroyed, for a net lost or destroyed job count of 2,350,000 in May alone.
If President Obama considers the Lost or Destroyed method fanciful, then, as Reagan taught us, we can offer him a "Zero Option." We will grant the point that it is impossible to calculate jobs destroyed, if he will stop claiming to be able to divine jobs saved.
*what is it, anyway, about being evidently incapable of making a solitary accurate prediction that qualifies one as an expert?
It's time for Republicans to stop fighting the last war, and stop fighting among themselves, because President Obama has shown the Republican Party the path out of the political wilderness: Empathy.
With the appointment of Sonya Sotomayor, (all together now) the first latino nominated to the High Court, or more to the point, with Obama's rationale for the selection of Judge Sotomayor, the President has shown Republicans the key to redeeming their political fortunes. Obama says that Sotomayor is right for the Supreme Court, not because she will uphold the laws enacted by the People's elected Representatives, but because she has empathy -- not just any old empathy, mind you, but empathy with all the correct designated victim groups, women, people of color, diabetics, and the downtrodden and disadvantaged in general.
With 59 empathetic Democrats in the majority, Sotomayor's confirmation by the U.S. Senate is almost a foregone conclusion. So, what can the GOP learn from this? In 2010 there will be elections for the U.S. House and Senate, and for many State and Local Offices, and in 2012 all that plus a Presidential election. In an election, voters cast ballots, and those ballots must be counted by . . . that's right, JUDGES.
Now, in the bad old days of racism, sexism, capitalism, bigotry, homophobia, and general all-around American unfairness, mean old non-empathetic Judges were expected to apply the law with impartiality, showing no favoritism to any party before the court. But in The Age of Obama, the bad old days are just a bad memory, so now Judges are in the business of helping some people get even with other people, by looking at the law empathetically, and looking as hard and as empathetically as necessary to make the law come down on the side of the underdog. It's all so much fairer this way.
So, who is a bigger underdog today than Republicans? Instead of an internecine bloodletting, what the Republican Party needs is a united recruitment drive for empathetic Election Judges -- Judges who understand what it feels like to lose an election, judges whose life experience lets them bring a point of view to counting the ballots that will lead to wiser vote totals, than if they just counted the ballots the old-fashioned, theoretical 2+2=4 way.
I'd say those kind of empathetic Judges could help downtrodden Republicans get even in 2010 and even get even in 2012 against President Empathy himself.
Barack Obama certainly has outdone George W. Bush at being “The CEO President.” With Bush it was merely a metaphor.
Those who doubt automaking magnate Obama’s qualifications for running a corporation – you know, those basic fundamentals, like making a payroll -- should be reassured by the fact that since taking office Obama has consistently made a whole bunch of payrolls.
First he paid off the big-city Democrat Mayors with the “Stimulus” Bill -- and he didn’t forget ACORN’s commission check either. He paid off Democrat cronies by doubling-down on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He paid off the UAW by letting them cut in line in front of secured creditors at Chrysler’s bankruptcy. This week he is paying off the Trial Lawyers by opening vast acreage to exploration and drilling for new supplies of domestic lawsuits. That's "stimulus," of a sort.
Whose payday will be next? I’m not sure, but I know who will have to come up with the money.
Obama and the Democrats won the cheers of the Public by telling Auto Execs not to fly their private jets, by telling AIG not to pay bonuses, and by sending those Corporate Bondholders to the back of the bankruptcy line. Well, who can complain? After all, if the taxpayers are paying the bills, the government, as representative of the taxpayer, will tell the recipients of government money what they may and may not do. What could be more reasonable? So, we can all rejoice that the fat cats are getting their come-uppence.
Now that that inequity has been resolved, let’s move on to the Health Care Crisis. 40 zillion Americans are without health insurance, the big insurance companies are getting rich on skyrocketing policy premiums and the cost of medical care is out of control. Enter the Federal Government to fix the problem (building on its previous successes with Medicare, Medicaid and VA Hospitals). The solution? Government-subsidized healthcare. What a relief, huh? Oh, and by the way, since the taxpayers are paying the bills, the government, as representative of the taxpayer, will tell the recipients of government money what they may and may not do. What could be more reasonable?
Neighbor, I hope that was the change you believed in when you cast your vote for Obama, because that’s the change you’re in for.
Please note that the “news” reporting of this “controversy” follows the tried and true mainstream media formula of, “Congressman Jones, your Democrat opponents accuse you of eating small children for breakfast. Many Americans are wondering whether you put ketchup or tobasco sauce on them.”
From the self-appointed guardians of the first amendment we hear not a peep of principled defense for free conscience, free thought or free speech, much less common decency. Too bad for Miss CA that she wasn’t burning Old Glory, or ranting against the U.S. Military. She wouldn’t want for pop culture or big media defenders then.
I would suggest that no movement excels homosexual activists in dealing in hate. Not the Skinheads, not the Feminists, not even President Obama negotiating with Chrysler’s Corporate Bond holders. But of course, this is the GOOD hate. After all, homosexuals are an oppressed minority. The law prevents them from marrying the person they want to. Well, welcome to the real world you bunch of crybabies. None of us boys got to marry Raquel Welch, even though we grew up wanting to, and now that we are married men, the law prevents us from marrying the old gal, even if she wanted to. One of your swishy icons, Mick Jagger, made the point pretty well when he croaked, "you can't always get what you want."
Rick Santorum didn’t go far enough, commenting on the Lawrence decision, because he only noted (albeit correctly) that having established a constitutional right to perversion, the Court had left no permissable legislative barrier to bigamy, bestiality or even Liberalism (ok, I may have added that last part myself).
Santorum accurately identified the legal stakes, but the real rest of the story is the TOTALITARIAN character of homosexual activism. Not only may we not pass laws to restrict the practice of homosexual perversion, but we may not even THINK thoughts against the practice, propagation and celebration of homosexual perversion. On the contrary, as illustrated by the Miss California episode, we are not merely forbidden by the homosexual activists to think counter-revolutionary thoughts, we are required to think favorably about the mainstreaming of their abomination.
How then can we continue to identify as "Liberal," the political philosophy which, by both silence and affirmation, countenances such thought control.” Just what about such a political philosophy is Liberal? A more accurate term might be Radical Secular Socialist Totalitarianism – is that too much of a mouthful? How about, The Totalitarian Political Philosophy Formerly Known As Liberalism. My Dad always loved a good acronym, maybe that would help. Something like Liberalism Is More Precisely Radical Secular Socialist Totalitarianism or LIMPRSST (pronounced Limp Wrist).
William Bennett famously wrote of “The Death of Outrage.” A decade later the coroner's report on our side is inconclusive, but you can be certain that Outrage is alive and well among homosexual activists, and what outrages them is not the dishonoring of the hallowed institutions of our civilization, but anyone daring to disagree with them.
For the sake of our vanishing free republic, I pray that Carrie Prejean would have a spine of steel, and that God would graciously grant an Ollie-North-Moment, when a little person, targeted for routine destruction, speaks truth to power, and the veil is momentarily blown aside, allowing the American People a glimpse of the Leftist Beast. They won’t like what they see.
Two Americans, Carrie Prejean, Miss California, and Barack Obama, President of the United States, have something in common. They have expressed IDENTICAL views on same-sex marriage: they both say that they believe marriage ought to be between a man and a woman.
The tolerant, dissent-is-patriotic, free-thinking, lovers of free expression who speak (unrepudiated) on behalf of the same-sex marriage movement, have reacted to the two rather differently, but the really big difference between the President and Carrie Prejean is that the American People now know so much MORE about Miss California's background than they know about Barack Obama's.
Peggy Noonan takes the occassion of Senator Jim Demint's remark, that he "would rather have 30 good and reliable conservative senators than 60 unreliable Republicans," to mock Social Conservative Republicans for having a "shrink to win" political strategy. Noonan is too smart to unintentionally miss Demint's hyperbole, wherein she is behaving like a Liberal, pretending to be outraged in order to win an argument.
But, who started the "shrink to win" talk anyway? Social Conservatives are merely counter-attacking against the Washingtonian -- Peggy Noonan, Kathleen Parker, George Will -- Republicans who called for Social Conservatives to disappear from the GOP, beginning with their snide dismissal of Sarah Palin before the election and continuing into the post-election finger pointing.
The sleight of hand is that the call to purge Social Conservatives from the Party is couched in an accusation that Social Conservatives are trying to purge Moderates from the Party. This simply does not compute. 78% of Conservatives voted for John McCain, the Poster Boy of Moderate Republicanism, which means that most Social Conservatives supported McCain -- hardly a purge of ideological impurity.
The endlessly repeated "ideological purity" riff doesn't pass the Laugh Test. For heaven's sake, Arlen Specter was hardly a loyal Republican, who crossed the aisle from time to time; he regularly vexed the GOP Senate Leadership and dispicably leveraged his vote for personal advantage whenever possible. Is there no point short of voting for GOP-led organization in the Senate at which Republicans should draw the line and say an elected official is disloyal to the Party? After all, Mitch McConnell can win Minority Leader with or without Senator Specter's vote. Moreover, relief at the departure of a canker like Arlen Specter is hardly the Inquisition of Ideological Purity that the pundits claim motivates Conservative Republicans.
Social Conservatives are not arguing that the GOP should win by purging Moderates, rather that the GOP should win by persuading swing voters who ought to identify with the Republican Party by the power of Conservative ideas, not by me-too adoption Liberal ideas to pander to those voters.
When Moderates had their way, Republicans spent decades as the minority Party in the House of Representatives, and most of the same period as minority in the Senate. Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich were able to grow the Party to majority status by wooing Social Conservatives, among others, to the Republican Party through the power of Conservative ideas, so wouldn't it be fair to describe GOP Moderates’ insistence that Social Conservatives take a hike as a shrink to win strategy? Peggy Noonan et al should take a look in the mirror.