It's Gonna Be Infotainmenty!

Here are some of the things we’ll learn during tomorrow night's ABC Obamacare infomercial:

- We can’t afford not to act.

- If you like your current health plan you can keep your plan.

- People who are against this plan want to “do nothing”.


That’s going to be the gist of it. It just doesn’t seem fair that for an overhaul of the health care industry this massive, ABC will give Obama a stage from which he can spout reliable talking points for an hour, while no dissenting voices will be present to expose the true, single-payer consequences of Obama’s multi-trillion dollar reforms.

Instead, the opposition must hope that one of the civilian questioners stumps Obama with a tricky question (unlikely). Or that Charlie Gibson and Diane Sawyer call Obama on some of the inconsistencies present in his efforts to explain the plan thus far (much more unlikely).

Nope. Tomorrow night you can expect another MSM/Obama love fest, filled to the brim with health care sob stories and meaningless reiterations from Obama on how his plan is not “socialized medicine”.

But if there’s a sleeper in the audience tomorrow. If somehow an above average policy mind sneaks into the taping and gets to present the President with a question, here’s what it should be:

“Mr. President, you’ve repeatedly stated that if you like your current health insurance coverage you can keep it. But, most people get their health insurance through heir employer. So what’s going to stop the employers from dropping their coverage in an effort to save money and simply encouraging all of their employees to take the “public option?”

Now, we already know the answer that Obama will give to this question. He’s going to say that there will be a fine on employers who don’t cover their workers. What he wont say is how high that fine will be. If the penalty is less than the savings that can be reaped by dropping the company health plan, then America is in for a permanent, expensive government funded health care debacle, courtesy of the spendyest President to ever take up residence in the White House.

- Dan

"Bitch Thinks She Cute!"

This Father's Day, Thank A Boomer.

This Father's day, don't let liberal guilt go to your heads dads.

This Boomer Isn't Going To Apologize

By STEPHEN MOORE
Last weekend I attended my niece's high-school graduation from an upscale prep school in Washington, D.C. These are supposed to be events filled with joy, optimism and anticipation of great achievements. But nearly all the kids who stepped to the podium dutifully moaned about how terrified they are of America's future -- yes, even though Barack Obama, whom they all worship and adore, has brought "change they can believe in." A federal judge gave the commencement address and proceeded to denounce the sorry state of the nation that will be handed off to them. The enemy, he said, is the collective narcissism of their parents' generation -- my generation. The judge said that we baby boomers have bequeathed to the "echo boomers," "millennials," or whatever they are to be called, a legacy of "greed, global warming, and growing income inequality."

And everyone of all age groups seemed to nod in agreement. One affluent 40-something woman with lots of jewelry told me she can barely look her teenagers in the eyes, so overcome is she with shame over the miseries we have bestowed upon our children.

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that graduation ceremonies have become collective airings of guilt and grief. It's now chic for boomers to apologize for their generation's crimes. It's the only thing conservatives and liberals seem to agree on. Mitch Daniels, the Republican governor of Indiana, told Butler University grads that our generation is "just plain selfish." At Grinnell College in Iowa, author Thomas Friedman compared boomers to "hungry locusts . . . eating through just about everything." Film maker Ken Burns told this year's Boston College grads that those born between 1946 and 1960 have "squandered the legacy handed to them by the generation from World War II."

I could go on, but you get the point. We partied like it was 1999, paid for it with Ponzi schemes and left the mess for our kids and grandkids to clean up. We're sorry -- so sorry.

Well, I'm not. I have two teenagers and an 8-year-old, and I can say firsthand that if boomer parents have anything for which to be sorry it's for rearing a generation of pampered kids who've been chauffeured around to soccer leagues since they were 6. This is a generation that has come to regard rising affluence as a basic human right, because that is all it has ever known -- until now. Today's high-school and college students think of iPods, designer cellphones and $599 lap tops as entitlements. They think their future should be as mapped out as unambiguously as the GPS system in their cars.

CBS News reported recently that echo boomers spend $170 billion a year -- more than most nations' GDPs -- and nearly every penny of that comes from the wallets of the very parents they now resent. My parents' generation lived in fear of getting polio; many boomers lived in fear of getting sent to the Vietnam War; this generation's notion of hardship is TiVo breaking down.

How bad can the legacy of the baby boomers really be? Let's see: We're the generation that spawned Microsoft, Intel, Apple, Google, ATMs and Gatorade. We defeated the evils of communism and delivered the world from the brink of global thermonuclear war. Now youngsters are telling pollsters that they think socialism may be better than capitalism after all. Do they expect us to apologize for winning the Cold War next?

College students gripe about the price of tuition, and it does cost way too much. But who do these 22-year-old scholars think has been footing the bill for their courses in transgender studies and Che Guevara? The echo boomers complain, rightly, that we have left them holding the federal government's $8 trillion national IOU. But try to cut government aid to colleges or raise tuitions and they act as if they have been forced to actually work for a living.

Yes, the members of this generation will inherit a lot of debts, but a much bigger storehouse of wealth will be theirs in the coming years. When I graduated from college in 1982, the net worth of America -- all our nation's assets minus all our liabilities -- was $16 trillion, according to the Federal Reserve. Today, even after the meltdown in housing and stocks, the net worth of the country is $45 trillion -- a doubling after inflation. The boomers' children and their children will inherit more wealth and assets than any other in the history of the planet -- that is, unless Mr. Obama taxes it all away. So how about a little gratitude from these trust-fund babies for our multitrillion-dollar going-away gifts?

My generation is accused of being environmental criminals -- of having polluted the water and air and ruined the climate. But no generation in history has done more to clean the environment than mine. Since 1970 pollutants in the air and water have fallen sharply. Since 1960, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles and Pittsburgh have cut in half the number of days with unsafe levels of smog. The number of Americans who get sick or die from contaminants in our drinking water has plunged for 50 years straight.

Whenever kids ask me why we didn't do more to combat global warming, I explain that when I was young the "scientific consensus" warned of global cooling. Today's teenagers drive around in cars more than any previous generation. My kids have never once handed back the car keys because of some moral problem with their carbon footprint -- and I think they are fairly typical.

The most absurd complaint of all is that the health-care system has been ruined by our generation. Oh, really? Thanks to massive medical progress in the past 30 years, the chances of dying from heart disease and many types of cancer have been cut in half. We found effective treatments for AIDS within a decade. Life expectancy has risen and infant mortality fallen. That doesn't sound so "selfish" to me.

Yes, we are in a deep economic crisis today -- but it's no worse than what we boomers faced in the late 1970s after years of hyperinflation, sky-high tax rates and runaway government spending. We cursed our parents, too. But then we grew up and produced a big leap forward in health, wealth and scientific progress. Let's see what this next generation of over-educated ingrates can do.

Mr. Moore is senior economics writer for The Wall Street Journal's editorial page

Is it Just Me.....

.......or is Iran ripe for regime change? We all know how much President Obama loves "soft power". Well now would be a great time to use it. Even if not initially successful the Administration could show the Iranian people that America truly stands with the Muslim world by supporting what very well could be the majority that voted for Mr. Mousavi, rather than setting up some kind of moral equivalency between the United States and treacherous Islamic regimes as Mr. Obama did in his Cairo speech. A public show of support for what's happening in the Iranian streets would give us just as much leverage and is far more in keeping with our values than sitting down and talking to a Holocaust denier. Here's a good one from The Weekly Standard that expands on this theory and another article from Neoavatera that defines the missed opportunity very succinctly.

Meanwhile, On The East Coast....

First of all I want to thank everyone out there who made Saturday's posting such a hit. Especially Michelle Malkin who is the heart and soul of the conservative blogosphere.

Now, while I was undercover in L.A. on Saturday, Byron York was openly observing one of the Obamacare meet-ups in Northern VA. Notice the similarities to what I described in my last post. In other words, Obamabots are the same wherever you go.

Digging in for Obama’s health-care offensive
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
06/09/09 12:05 AM EDT

It's hard to tell whether this meeting, at a La Madeleine restaurant in a sprawling shopping-center complex just outside Washington, is the start of a historic movement or just a strangely wonkish group-therapy session.

About 20 people from Northern Virginia have come to this faux-rustic French café on a Saturday morning to discuss health care reform. That alone makes them unusual; after all, there are a lot of other things one could be doing to begin the weekend. But they have answered the call from Organizing for America (OFA), which is basically the 2008 Obama campaign operating under a new name.

"This is the political issue I care about most, apart from the war," declares one woman, who says she was born and raised in Canada and favors a Canadian-style, single-payer health care system for the U.S.

"It's a moral issue," says another woman, who identifies herself as a nurse.

"It's criminal," says a woman who is from France and envisions a European-style, single-payer system for this country.

This meeting, and others like it -- OFA says there were thousands all across the country -- is the beginning of the hand-to-hand phase of the health care reform fight. After months of buildup, the White House is planning an all-out campaign to pass its reform package, whatever that turns out to be.

Organizing for America prepared a video to accompany the meetings. Much of it is news clips of Obama stressing the need for change. But the second part is a message from Addisu Demissie, the Canadian-born political director for OFA. "We cannot and we will not compromise" on Obama's principles for health care, Demissie says.

Sitting in front of an "I Stand With Sotomayor" poster, Demissie tells participants to "practice sharing your personal health care story." He stresses the need to "be able to articulate what this effort means to you -- your story is the most valuable tool in your arsenal as you talk to your friends and neighbors about the urgent need for reform."

The striking thing about the group at La Madeleine is that most of them don't really have personal health care stories. When the leader goes around the table, none of them has a terrible illness. No one is uninsured. In fact, nearly everyone begins by saying they don't have a problem with health insurance; they have it through their jobs, or in their retirement arrangement, or can afford to purchase it.

But they have their concerns. One woman tells of watching as her mother, and then her younger sister, developed Alzheimer's disease. She is clearly worried about what is next. "I'm by myself," the woman says. "When I walk out of my job, I don't have health care."

A few are nurses who say they've seen patients in dire straits with no coverage. Others are a little, well, quirky. "I'm kind of into alternative, integrative medicines," says one woman. One man appears to be there looking for business opportunities. But many are just people who care a lot about the issue -- and want to win the political debate.

You've heard Republicans warning about a "government takeover" of the health care system. It's safe to say that's exactly what a lot of these people want. Although it's not on the agenda -- "The purpose of the meeting wasn't to discuss policy," the group leader tells me -- in the world of Organizing for America, the most intense debate is among those who want Obama to seek a single-payer government plan now and those who prefer such a plan but believe it is not politically possible at the moment.

A few weeks ago, GOP strategist Frank Luntz conducted research suggesting that Republicans should oppose a government takeover of the health care industry but at the same time acknowledge that the system has serious problems that must be fixed. Seeing this group would be a good companion lesson for the GOP.

Listen to the woman worried that she'll develop Alzheimer's and you'll see why Republicans should have their own plan. But listen to those who just seem to relish the fight and you'll realize they really don't have much of a case for the nationalization of health care. You can help the worried woman without blowing up the system.

Luntz showed Republicans how to make the argument. But as the battle begins, can they match Obama's organization?

My Day At An Obama Health Care Meet-Up

Being a conservative Republican, I originally only signed up for a profile on Mybarackobama.com in order to examine the site and write about the various ways in which Obama used social networking to entice young people to help his campaign. I never though that this research would lead me to the house of a middle aged woman named Sandra Cuneo in North Hollywood, California.

Mybarackobama.com listed Sandra’s house as one of hundreds of meet-up locations around the country where Obama supporters could get together and discuss their strategy for selling the president’s health care plan to the nation. “Brainstorming Sessions” was what the literature created by the Obama administration and distributed to the meetings' participants, called it.

While this type of grassroots organizing worked exceptionally well for Obama in the fall election, I was skeptical that the same excitement and willingness to hit the pavement would exist among the activists when it came to an issue as complex and controversial as health care reform.

So there I was, undercover, on a Saturday afternoon, sporting a name tag that read “Al”, eating organic sushi and vegetarian burritos with some of Obama’s most loyal supporters, listening to a woman discuss the difficulties she had in putting a Barack Obama Fathead sticker on her apartment wall.

After the group of roughly twenty people had arrived and taken their seats to watch a special video from the President, the first thing I noticed was that besides myself (and obviously, I didn’t count) there was only one individual at the meeting who could have possibly been under 30 years of age. Where were Obama’s legions of young supporters whose energy had helped Obama win the election? Perhaps they were hung-over from Friday night benders. Perhaps they were at other meetings and just not this particular one. Perhaps they don’t care as much about health care policy because they rarely get sick. Whatever it was, the median age at this particular event was clearly somewhere in the 50’s.

As the discussion began, the meeting's participants immediately began firing off questions about the details of the health care plan to Sandra and the other woman who was leading the event. For all of their enthusiasm, these group leaders were completely incapable of describing the particulars of the Obama plan in any coherent way. What they did understand however was that Obama’s “public option”, the government-run insurance program that Obama wants to create to compete with the private insurance companies, was the first step towards the entitlement that almost everyone in that room (based on the raising of hands at the beginning of the meeting) was really longing for: a European style “single payer” health care system. They also understood that part of their job as grassroots activists promoting the plan was to assure people that the plan was not going to result in “single payer”. How Obamaesque.

Sandra and our other esteemed leader explained to the group that the primary focus of the administration's efforts to sell the health care plan was going to be in emphasizing “personal stories”. So, for the next few months, we can expect a steady stream of sob stories about some guy named Raymond who has Lupus and has to subsist on cat food in order to pay his skyrocketing health care bills. The Obama administration knows that the majority of Americans will not be able to grasp the consequences of this complex plan and therefore, as liberals tend to do, they plan to play on the emotions of the American people in order to sell the massive bureaucracy which this plan will inevitably spawn.

In keeping with the community organizer code, we eventually broke into groups where we were to “brainstorm” and think of events we could hold that would raise awareness of Obamacare.

In my group, we sat in a circle and each of us read one of the talking points listed in the Obama health care packet. This practice struck me as being similar to grammar school, where we would go around the classroom and each student would read a certain portion of a given text. Why one person couldn’t have read the entire paragraph I have no idea. We were then each asked to share our ideas for raising awareness and gaining support for the Obama plan.

Some of the ideas that came out of this pow-wow were:

-Going to a busy L.A. intersection and holding up signs saying “Honk If You Support Barack Obama’s Health Care Plan”.

-Sitting in front of grocery stores and having people signing petitions showing their support for Obamacare.

- Holding another meeting.

-Setting up a table in front of a Metro station and having people take a quiz created by the Obama campaign that posed difficult multiple choice questions such as:

“How important is it for you to choose your own doctor?”

a) Very
b) Somewhat
c) Not At All

The correct answer of course being:

“The third principle of President Obama’s health care reform is that everyone have a guaranteed choice of doctor, hospital and insurance plan”

So if you answered that personally choosing your own doctor didn’t matter to you at all, you would be wrong.


There was one very good suggestion made during the group meeting. It was to go to a local mall and hand out a list of the e-mail addresses and phone numbers of the Blue Dog Democrats whose votes will determine whether or not the bill passes. Passersby would be urged to contact these legislators and inform them of their support for the president’s plan.

Halfway through making this suggestion, I realized that I was being far too helpful.

I came away from this meeting with a renewed confidence that Obama will not be able to rely on his loyal activist army to sell nationalized health care. While these individuals are passionate and are perfectly capable of handing out flyers and talking about “hope” and “change” during an election cycle, they are clearly grossly under-prepared to answer questions from concerned citizens about an issue as complex as health care.

Perhaps I’m wrong. I’ll find out on June 27 when the Obama army takes to the streets and we see the results of the brainstorming sessions in action. However, the entire time I was at the meeting, for all of the talk of “health care for all” and how “meaningful reform can’t wait” there was not a single question about or mention of the program's potential costs to the taxpayer. If these well-meaning activists are under the impression that they won’t be confronted by individuals who are already incensed with Obama’s proclivity to spend large sums of money and his failure to propose any realistic way of paying for it all, then they have another think coming.

Concerned citizens have a good chance of killing this ill-conceived health care overhaul. I’m convinced of this after seeing first-hand those who Obama has fighting for him on the ground.

-Dan Joseph


Fathead Obama

Terry McAuliffe is Slipperier Than an Eel in Olive Oil

Surely this raises some sort of ethical question. Right?

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Repeal

In the world of liberal theory, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” is a very simple issue. It is a choice between equality and “bigotry”, plain and simple. However, in the real world, the world in which our military men and women serve and in which human nature is realistically disseminated, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” is far more complex than the left and the gay lobby would like you to believe.

Today’s California Supreme Court ruling aside, the gay rights movement has had some victories of late involving the gay marriage issue. In reality the entire gay marriage debate is over the meaning of the word “marriage” and the consequences of our nation moving towards one side or the other will not have any tangible impact on anyone whatsoever. If the gays are denied the right to “marry” they will be upset, but will still be permitted to spend their lives with whomever they wish and pending some sort of civil union legislation they will enjoy the same legal rights as any other couple. If gays are given the right to “marry”, those who believe that marriage should remain between a man and a woman will be upset, however the fact that gay weddings are occurring will in no way directly impact their lives or weaken the significance their own traditional marriage. If God is upset by gay marriage then he can sort it out in his own time.

Allowing gays to serve openly in the military is a far more sensitive issue and one that could have real consequences that impact America’s most important government institution in a very real way. Ironically, gay marriage is the controversial issue over which the nation is split, while the American people overwhelmingly support allowing gays to openly serve in the military. What this should tell us is that the American people are viewing the issue through the lens of liberal theory and are not aware of the arguments being made by many who actually serve in the armed forces, where opinion is still on the side of keeping “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” intact.

Liberals argue that gay individuals serve in our military with honor and distinction and fight with the same ability and love for country, as do straight soldiers. I have no doubt that this is true.

Liberals also argue that dismissing soldiers from the military once they have come out of the closet has cost the military nearly $300 million dollars over the fifteen years, due to increased recruiting efforts needed to replace them. While I find it amusing that liberals are suddenly touting the benefits of saving government money, while at the same time supporting the spending binge that has thus far defined the Obama era, there is no doubt that dismissing gay soldiers has its costs. These costs are not only monetary. Gay soldiers also serve as specialists in vital areas and the armed forces is undoubtedly weakened every time one of these individuals outs themselves and is subsequently dismissed.

These consequences are unfortunate, but they are not consequential enough to warrant undertaking what would essentially be a social experiment with unknown results in an institution responsible for protecting our lives and the lives of countless others throughout the world..

What many liberals and gay activists are overlooking here, either willingly or out of ignorance, is that while the enlightened among us, including many who are in favor of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, harbor no ill will towards homosexuals, there are still people in our society who do. There are still those who are incredibly uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality, viewing its practice not only antithetical to the laws of God, but also to the laws of nature. The gay movement has itself made the argument that these views and those who would act on them in a violent or other wise hostile way towards homosexuals are still so prevalent in our society that special legislation is necessary in order to protect gays and lesbians from these people in the form of Hate Crimes laws. Yet, at the same time, they seem to brush aside the fact that individuals with views such as these could exist in army barracks and fox holes.

You cannot change an individual’s heart or mindset by way of legislation, however well meaning. To this fact the gay lobby and other liberals reply “So what?” They assume that if ignorance and bigotry are present, the target of such hateful views will undoubtedly be strong enough to ignore it and the commanding officers will put a quick stop to any unfair practices or rhetoric aimed at the openly gay soldier. The only problem is that no one can guarantee this. Nor can one guarantee an absence of violence or abusive speech from intolerant soldiers towards gay service members. In fact, I’m guessing that problems will arise and will become public knowledge since the American media has an insatiable appetite for stories involving both gays and military matters. The exposure of these internal issues will embarrass both the military and the nation as a whole as well as those who fought so hard to have “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repealed, and who told us that no harm would come from lifting the ban.

Our military is the envy of the world and keeping it that way requires that the men and women who serve in it work together as a unit. Maintaining morale and preventing dissension and infighting in the ranks is essential to maintaining the well-oiled military machine, especially during a time of war. Until everyone is as accepting of those with different sexual preferences as this author, there is far too much risk in pursuing this policy under the banner of social justice.

Unlike many on the left, I trust the military establishment. When our generals make a claim or raise a concern, I take it very seriously. These are not politicians. They are not individuals who are pandering or scrounging for votes. They have no reason to lie or mislead us, nor do I believe that the 60% of active military members who are opposed to repealing “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, are anti-gay. That’s why, when a significant number of generals and other military personnel express deep concern about the prospect of overturning the law, I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt. I can only assume that they have a far better understanding of internal military affairs than gay activists or liberal politicians and I for one am not about to undermine their views by way of legislation until an overwhelming majority of them are confident that overturning “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” would not have any negative impact whatsoever on the day to day internal workings of our military or the public’s perception thereof.

So for now America should keep the imperfect “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy on the books. I can only hope that for most gays currently serving in the military, their service to the United States is more important than openly expressing their sexual preference. If that is the case, then I stand with all open-minded Americans in my hope that someday this policy will no longer be necessary.

-Dan Joseph

An Emerging Presidential Pattern

I was always of the mind that President George W. Bush’s greatest weakness as a politician was at the same time his greatest asset. President Bush had such poor communication skills that while he often had trouble articulating his ideas and actions to the American people, his ability to engage in rhetorical trickery was also severely limited. President Obama's communication skills, on the other hand, are easily his most impressive attribute. In the past few months, it has become clear that Obama has no reservations about using these skills to manipulate public opinion. For instance, alarm bells should have gone off in everyone’s head when they heard the president repeatedly claim that his administration would “create or save” 4 million jobs. To the untrained ear this sounds wonderful, but any remotely astute observer should have immediately questioned how the number of jobs that were “saved” as a result of Obama’s policies could even be determined. If only 4 million Americans are employed at the end of Obama’s first term will Obama take credit for “saving” those jobs?

During a campaign cycle, subtly deceptive reasoning such as this is to be expected and is widely accepted as a fact of political life. However, once a president assumes office it is generally expected that they deal with problems without the fog of rhetoric clouding what it is they’re actually attempting to do. This fog was on full display in the President’s National Archives speech, which he set up to go head-to-head with a national security speech being made by former Vice President Dick Cheney.

In the speech, Obama cleverly disregarded the claims being made by Cheney telling his audience that in having the current debate

"….we have a return of the politicization of these issues."

No one wants that right? Except Barack Obama apparently.

It was Obama’s politicization of these important issues that got him into the debate with Cheney in the first place. Remember when the President signed an executive order closing Gitmo on his third day in office? This wasn’t policy. It couldn’t possibly have been since Obama had no workable plan to close the prison to begin with. It was politics. He got the votes he needed when he said he was going to close the prison during the campaign. He got the applause he wanted when he signed the order, but, as we now see, he put a large cart before a tiny, miniature horse .

Many on the left cheered when Obama released memos highlighting harsh interrogation techniques used on terrorist detainees. But what did this accomplish? Transparency? Such a claim might believable if made in concert with the release of the memos concerning how well the interrogation techniques worked. However, that would negate the political gain that Obama was trying to make by releasing the memos in the first place. When Cheney called him on the matter of the unreleased memos the president developed new reasoning for his decision to ban the techniques.

“Not because there might not have been information that was yielded by these various detainees … but because we could have gotten this information in other ways.”

So now the Harvard-educated lawyer is trying to argue a negative, essentially saying that the techniques may have worked in acquiring information that saved American lives but Cheney can’t prove that we wouldn’t have received the same valuable information had we not used these harsh techniques. This argument is absurd.

I can’t prove that there’s not an alternative universe where it rains gumdrops and in which giraffes sing Neil Diamond songs, , however if I were to claim that there was such a fantastic place I'd better have some evidence to back it up or else people will conclude that I'm an escaped mental patient.

Even without the absurd argument of pertinent information possibly having presented itself had we not used the techniques, Obama's position relies on the false premise that other kinder and gentler techniques were not attempted prior to methods such as waterboarding. This is simply untrue.

But there’s more.

In his speech, Obama reiterated the oft-repeated line among Democrats that Guantanamo,

“...created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained”.

I’ve heard this claim made hundreds of times by Democrats without ever seeing a shred of evidence to back it up. If he was questioned on the claim's validity, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear Obama tell us that we couldn’t prove that Guantanamo did not “create more terrorists around the world.”

See what I’m getting at here?

For Obama this type of sophistry is par for the course. He used it when selling his stimulus package framing the issue as a choice between a trillion dollars in government spending and “doing nothing”. Yet no one was, in fact, advocating, “doing nothing”.

He used it when he overturned the Bush stem cell policy when he labeled those opposed to his decision as

".. those who say, we cannot invest in science."

Who was saying that? I heard people questioning the morality of his decision, but not a single voice questioning the morality of investing in science.

I could go on and on.

I understand that Barack Obama’s rhetorical abilities, his charm and his personality created a whole new generation of young people who are interested in politics, but that does not mean that these new activists are politically savvy.

The Clinton years were a terrific example of how a charming politician can obscure the truth for political gain and never be called on it until the lies become far too egregious to ignore.

During the peace and prosperity of the Clinton era, the president's deceptions were relatively harmless, harming no one other than Clinton himself. But during a time of war and economic upheaval, the stakes are far higher, and the dangers of political grandstanding on matters of national importance should be evident to all.

Obviously, Obama wants to be the anti-Bush and in terms of his communication skills he will undoubtedly succeed in that mission time and time again. I’m sure many women will be happy to warn you of the romantic dangers inherent in falling for a smooth-talking man. However, the dangers of a smooth-talking politician put the nation at risk of far more than an embarrassing one night stand. We must watch closely. All citizens have a responsibility to carefully dissect what Mr. Obama says. I’m fairly confident that with his unparalleled gifts for communication and rhetoric, this president is fully capable of convincing an entire nation to walk off of a cliff. I can’t prove that he’s capable of this. But then you can’t prove that he’s not capable of it.

-Dan Joseph

How "Darth Vader" Beat Obama

Don't Wince. Fight!
Dick Cheney, Most Valuable Republican.
by William Kristol
05/25/2009, Volume 014, Issue 34

When accused of being too aggressive on behalf of the United States at the United Nations, Daniel Patrick Moynihan was fond of repeating a French proverb: "Cet animal est fort méchant, / Quand on l'attaque il se défend." Imagine--an animal so mean that, when attacked, it defends itself!

Dick Cheney is reminding Republicans that they need to defend themselves when attacked.

When President Obama released the Justice Department interrogation memos a month ago, Cheney denounced him for doing so. He explained why it was inappropriate and unwise to release such documents. But he did more. He didn't just defend himself and the administration in which he served. He fought back, and encouraged others to do so.

He challenged the president to release CIA memos evaluating the effectiveness of the enhanced interrogation techniques. He raised the question of whether congressional Democrats--Nancy Pelosi, for one--had known of, and at least tacitly approved of, the allegedly horrifying abuses of the allegedly lawless Bush administration.

Now, a month later, Pelosi is attacking career CIA officials for lying to Congress, and other Democrats are scrambling to distance themselves from her. Meanwhile, the Obama administration has pulled back on threats to prosecute Bush-era lawyers, reversed itself on releasing photos of alleged military abuse of prisoners, and embraced the use of military commissions to try captured terrorists. The administration now looks irresponsible when it lives up to candidate Obama's rhetoric, and hypocritical when it vindicates Bush policies the candidate attacked.

So while some Hill Republicans were fretting about getting a positive message
out and others were launching substance-free listening tours, while GOP operatives were wringing their hands about whether Republicans could recover from the Bush years, and while most senior Bush alumni were in hiding, Dick Cheney--Darth Vader himself, Mr. Unpopularity, the last guy you'd supposedly want out there making the case--stepped onto the field. He's made himself the Most Valuable Republican of the first four months of the Obama administration (ably assisted by a few bold denizens of the Hill like the ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee, Pete Hoekstra).

Of course, this has resulted in some Republican political operatives' doing what they do best: complaining, on background, to the media. "As Cheney Seizes Spotlight, Many Republicans Wince," was the front-page headline in Thursday's Washington Post. Two Republican "strategists" spoke "on the condition of anonymity in order to be candid." Profiles in courage! One of them opined that Cheney is "entirely unhelpful." The other elaborated, "Even if he's right, he's absolutely the wrong messenger.  .  .  .  We want Bush to be a distant memory in the next election."

To have such a juvenile understanding of political dynamics, you'd have to be a prominent "Republican strategist." You might actually have both the Dole and McCain campaigns under your belt. Or perhaps you were one of those who encouraged the Bush White House to assume a fetal position on most issues in its second term and not fight back against slanders or defend their people, because to do so would spotlight the "wrong" issues or people.

But of course an intelligent and knowledgeable advocate--even if he's personally not so popular--can do a lot to get an issue front and center. And the debate of that issue can do political damage to the existing administration and its congressional allies.

The real question any Republican strategist should ask himself is this: What will Republican chances be in 2012 if voters don't remember the Bush administration--however problematic in other areas--as successful in defending the country after 9/11? To give this issue away would be to accept a post-Herbert-Hoover-like-fate for today's GOP. That's why Republicans should listen carefully when Cheney gives a speech this week in which he'll lay out the case for the surveillance, detention, and interrogation policies of the Bush administration in the war against terror.

Now it's of course the case that Republicans have to do more than fight back. They need a forward-looking agenda in all areas. They can't just defend themselves against slanders or point out the flaws of their opponents. But they do have to fight back first.

After all, if you're behind on the scoreboard, and your defense is on the field--there's nothing better than to jam up a couple of running plays, sack the quarterback on a blitz, and force a punt from bad field position. The momentum changes as your offense takes over with a shot at putting some points on the board. Dick Cheney probably won't be the glamour quarterback of the Republican comeback. But he's proving to be a heck of a middle
linebacker.

--William Kristol

Pelosi Knew

The woman who promised to "Drain the swamp" has proven that she is an inhabitant of the marsh. I'm sure that calls for her resignation will come tomorrow. It is unlikely that they will matter. However this instance should be a searing reminder that even with majority status the Democrats continue to politicize just about everything George W. Bush ever did.

From The Washington Post:

CIA Says Pelosi Was Briefed on Use of 'Enhanced Interrogations'
By Paul Kane
Intelligence officials released documents this evening saying that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was briefed in September 2002 about the use of harsh interrogation tactics against al-Qaeda prisoners, seemingly contradicting her repeated statements over the past 18 months that she was never told that these techniques were actually being used.

In a 10-page memo outlining an almost seven-year history of classified briefings, intelligence officials said that Pelosi and then-Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.) were the first two members of Congress ever briefed on the interrogation tactics. Then the ranking member and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, respectively, Pelosi and Goss were briefed Sept. 4, 2002, one week before the first anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The memo, issued by the Director of National Intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency to Capitol Hill, notes the Pelosi-Goss briefing covered "EITs including the use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah." EIT is an acronym for enhanced interrogation technique. Zubaydah was one of the earliest valuable al-Qaeda members captured and the first to have the controversial tactic known as water boarding used against him.

The issue of what Pelosi knew and when she knew it has become a matter of heated debate on Capitol Hill. Republicans have accused her of knowing for many years precisely the techniques CIA agents were using in interrogations, and only protesting the tactics when they became public and liberal antiwar activists protested.

In a carefully worded statement, Pelosi's office said today that she had never been briefed about the use of waterboarding, only that it had been approved by Bush administration lawyers as a legal technique to use in interrogations.

"As this document shows, the Speaker was briefed only once, in September 2002. The briefers described these techniques, said they were legal, but said that waterboarding had not yet been used," said Brendan Daly, Pelosi's spokesman.

Pelosi's statement did not address whether she was informed that other harsh techniques were already in use during the Zubaydah interrogations.

In December 2007 the Washington Post reported that leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees had been briefed in the fall of 2002 about waterboarding -- which simulates drowning -- and other techniques, and that no congressional leaders protested its use. At the time Pelosi said she was not told that waterboarding was being used, a position she stood by repeatedly last month when the Bush-era Justice Department legal documents justifying the interrogation tactics were released by Attorney General Eric Holder.

The new memo shows that intelligence officials were willing to share the information about waterboarding with only a sharply closed group of people. Three years after the initial Pelosi-Goss briefing, Bush officials still limited interrogation technique briefings to just the chairman and ranking member of the House and Senate intelligence committees, the so-called Gang of Four in the intelligence world.

In October 2005, CIA officials began briefing other congressional leaders with oversight of the intelligence community, including top appropriators who provided the agency its annual funding. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a prisoner-of-war in Vietnam and an opponent of torture techniques, was also read into the program at that time even though he did not hold a special committee position overseeing the intelligence community.

A bipartisan collection of lawmakers have criticized the practice of limiting information to just the "Gang of Four", who were expressly forbidden from talking about the information from other colleagues, including fellow members of the intelligence committees. Pelosi and others are considering reforms that would assure a more open process for all committee members.

By 44 Editor | May 7, 2009; 7:29 PM ET Dem. Leaders

Obama Goes Against Instincts, Helps Poor Black Kids

Obama deserves credit for doing the right thing here. But again, if he's admitting that the voucher program has benefits, namely allowing poor black kids to stay in private schools instead of being sent back to violent, decrepit ones, why is he against the program in the first place? Two Words: Campaign Cash.
From The Washington Post:
Education
Obama Offers D.C. Voucher Program Extension for Existing Students
Updated 4:16 p.m.
By Shailagh Murray
President Obama will seek to extend the controversial D.C. school voucher program until all 1,716 participants have graduated from high school, although no new students will be accepted, according to an administration official who has reviewed budget details scheduled for release tomorrow.

The budget documents, which expand on the fiscal 2010 blueprint that Congress approved last month by outlining Obama's priorities in detail, would provide $12.2 million for the Opportunity Scholarship Program for the 2009-2010 school year. The new language also would revise current law that makes further funding for existing students contingent on Congress's reauthorization of the program beyond its current June 2010 expiration date. Under the Obama proposal, further congressional action would not be necessary, and current students would automatically receive grants until they finish school.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan had told reporters that it didn't make sense "to take kids out of a school where they're happy and safe and satisfied and learning," but Democrats effectively terminated the program by requiring its reauthorization. Obama must now convince Democratic lawmakers to endorse a gradual phase out by continuing to include grant funding in future appropriation bills.

The voucher program was created in 2003 and is a Republican favorite, providing low-income students with a maximum $7,500 grant to attend a private or parochial school. All students come from households with incomes below 185 percent of the poverty line, and 8,000 students entered a lottery to participate. But liberal education groups, including the National Education Association, have argued that the experimental program is poorly administered and that voucher recipients have not performed measurably better in their new schools.

In a March 6, 2009 letter to Obama, the NEA president Dennis Van Roekel called the D.C. program "an ongoing threat to public education in the District of Columbia" and urged Obama to "use your voice to help eliminate this threat" by opposing "any efforts to extend this ineffective program."

The Department of Education recently issued a three-year analysis of student achievement under the program that showed limited gains in reading and no significant progress in math. But the White House concluded that moving the children back to public schools amounted to an unnecessary disruption.

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), who has been vocal advocate for the voucher program, praised the move but said it did not go far enough.

"We think it's a worthwhile program," he said. "We should continue. If it's good
enough for these kids, why shouldn't we allow others to get out of failing schools?"

Will.I.Am, Terry McAuliffe To Get Retarded On Campaign Trail

It's always amusing when celebrities get involved in politics. It's twice as funny when rappers get involved. One wonders why a politician would want to be seen with a hip-hop artist since the most glaring flaws of the American education system tend to be on display whenever they open their mouths.

"Grammy award-winning hip-hop artist, producer and actor will.i.am will campaign 5/11 with VA GOV candidate Terry McAuliffe at events in Portsmouth, Hampton, Richmond and Arlington. During the WH'08 campaign, will.i.am's video (above) about Pres. Obama went viral.

"Terry is my good friend and my closest political mentor," said will.i.am in a statement released by the campaign. "He will be a great governor because of his passion to help people and his understanding of the grassroots community. I look forward to joining him on the campaign trail." "

"His closest political mentor." Huh? Is Will preparing for a potential political run himself. Hey, if Al Franken can do it.

Anyway here are some words of wisdom from Mr. McAuliffe's new BFF:

"If I were a painter, I would paint beautiful bodies — I would paint nipples, and I would paint Bibles. Am I going to say, 'I'm not going to paint this woman's neck because people will think I just want to lick on necks?' Please! That's not what art is about." —Will.I.Am on what does and does not constitute art

"It's easy, if you're a poet, to write complex verses like, 'I'm coming after you like VWXYZ.' Just think about that. It's like, 'Yo, V does come after U! That's fucking crazy!' My mind thinks like that all the time, coming up with crazy clever metaphors and rhymery thingies." —Will.I.Am on his creative process

"When I wrote 'My Humps,' I said, 'This is the stupidest thing ever,' but in a good way. I always wondered what it must be like to be a girl, always gettin' pulled on. Maybe she's the smartest genius on the planet, but she's rackin' double Ds with a 26-inch waist and a big ol' ass and no one's ever gonna see her like that because that's the way the world is today." —Will.I.Am on the way the world is today

"It's a fun track. It's about a guy going out to pick up girls and thinking it's true that if your mama's hot, you're hot. And if your mom's busted, then nine times out of 10, you're about to be busted, too. I came up with it because my ex-girlfriend's mom was hot. Everyone knew it." —Will.I.Am on his new single "I Got It From My Mama"

"We planned on being global from the very beginning. And then came the whole brand sponsorship shit. I'm all for it … I was like, 'Dude, I've always liked Dr Pepper, and they're going to let me play my music.' So fuck it."

Gay Lobby, Not Politically Savvy

I consider myself to be "gay-friendly". That does not mean that I necessarily support the agenda that their activists push, but I harbor no I'll will towards gay men or women. The gay community does not recognize this distinction.

Until the majority of the gay community realizes that guys like Perez Hilton DO NOT help the cause, their grievances will not be taken seriously by the rest of American public.

We're Here, We're Queer and We're Hypocrites
By Andrew Breitbart

Greetings, from a poolside cabana at a trendy boutique hotel in Santa Monica. Oh, how I love these overpriced overnight stays. The sleek designs. The ambient music. The uniformly attractive and stylishly dressed young staffs. The plush beds with sheets of an absurdly high thread count. Weird faucets and weirder sinks. I bask in the attention to detail. W is my favorite letter. Philippe Starck is a personal hero.

As a realist, I've built into my mindset that the majority heterosexual population is less than exclusively responsible for creating this and countless other high-end consumer and artistic experiences. Plus, I have a ton of wonderful gay friends - even ones "married" and with children. If gay activists created "A Day Without a Gay" (as they promoted Dec. 10 of last year), I'd be the first to cry "uncle" - even before Cher. So, accordingly, I make philosophical and political accommodations. I'm - as the MTV generation says - "gay-friendly."

But lately, color me "gay perturbed." "Gay-friendly," a term once manifestly redundant, now seems a glaring contradiction.

The gay political-activist community - in my view, a small minority of left-wing agitators acting on behalf of the whole - has been on a binge of bad public behavior, and I'm not referring to the bare-buttocked-chaps look and inappropriately placed sparklers during "pride" parades.

The Mormon community was recently targeted for its support of Proposition 8, the pro-traditional-marriage initiative in California. Donors to the cause were isolated and even exposed on online maps. Businesses were targeted. People lost their jobs.

The latest high-profile act on behalf of the "community" came from the Miss USA pageant. Perez Hilton, the wildly popular Internet gossip and celebrity hit man, somehow got himself placed as a judge of female beauty at the Donald Trump-sponsored event. Not to be judgmental, but the apprentice behind that hire should be fired. But I digress.

At the point in the pageant when the young lovelies are asked questions by those who pick the winners, the flamboyantly gay man (who by day pries into the private lives of stars and scrawls human DNA-spewing phalli under the faces of those he doesn't like) asked Miss California, Carrie Prejean, whether she approved of gay marriage.

It was a setup.

Miss Prejean is a student at San Diego Christian College - the kind of place activist gay leftists are at war with, where Christians preach what they practice.

"Out of all the topics I studied up on, I dreaded that one: I prayed I would not be asked about gay marriage. If I had any other question, I know I would have won," she told Fox News.

Perez Hilton, whose real name is Mario Armando Lavandeira Jr., affirmed Miss California's fear: "She lost it because of that question. She was definitely the front-runner before that." Miss Prejean received zero points from Perez Hilton, who put her on the spot defending her faith. She finished in second place.

On display at the Miss USA event was the activist left's pageant of selective bullying, a concerted strategy to go after low-hanging fruit like Mormons. But the left leaves off its hit list members in good standing of its normal coalition - its "rainbow" coalition. In California, one of the gayest places on the map, blacks and Hispanics - who disproportionately disapprove of same-sex marriage - get a stunning pass from outraged proponents of gay marriage.

Since 9/11, the highly organized gay left has also been deafeningly silent on Islam's anti-modern approach to homosexuality - let alone same-sex unions. The mullahs in Iran somehow get a major pass while the director of the California Musical Theatre in Sacramento is targeted for ruin. This contradiction is not subtle. Indeed, it's obvious and pathetic.

In fact, in the beauty contest that was the 2008 presidential race, Barack Obama - the left's hand-tailored candidate and an icon of "hope" in the gay community - like his vice president, Joseph R. Biden Jr., shares Miss California's stance on gay marriage.

"I'm a Christian," Mr. Obama told the Chicago Tribune. "And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

Why the pass, fellas?

I fear the vicious and hypocritical path that the activist gay left is headed on will eventually be met with a backlash. If it already hasn't. Activism goes both ways and somehow the majority has a way of having its say. Unless the gay community polices itself better and registers its displeasure against these pitiful and selective acts of political retribution, many tolerant Americans who hold the same beliefs on marriage as Mr. Obama and the Dalai Lama are going to begin to register their displeasure at the voting booth and through consumer boycotts against those who employ or support the thuggish tactics of Perez Hilton and his ilk.

"A Day Without a Gay" may become a prolonged and mostly unspoken reality. Trust me, I don't want to throw out all my John Waters DVDs. But if push comes to shove, and if the bullying continues, I'm more than willing to stay at a Ramada.

Man, I wish I was Jonah Goldberg!

April 29, 2009
Obama's Liberal Arrogance Will Be His Undoing
By Jonah Goldberg

The most remarkable, or certainly the least remarked on, aspect of Barack Obama's first 100 days has been the infectious arrogance of his presidency.

There's no denying that this is liberalism's greatest opportunity for wish fulfillment since at least 1964. But to listen to Democrats, the only check on their ambition is the limits of their imaginations.

"The world has changed," Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York proclaimed on MSNBC. "The old Reagan philosophy that served them well politically from 1980 to about 2004 and 2006 is over. But the hard right, which still believes ... [in] traditional values kind of arguments and strong foreign policy, all that is over."

Right. "Family values" and a "strong foreign policy" belong next to the "free silver" movement in the lexicon of dead political causes.

No doubt Schumer was employing the kind of simplified shorthand one uses when everyone in the room already agrees with you. He can be forgiven for mistaking an MSNBC studio for such a milieu, but it seemed not to dawn on him that anybody watching might see it differently.

When George W. Bush was in office, we heard constantly about the poisonous nature of American polarization. For example, Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg came out with a book arguing that "our nation's political landscape is now divided more deeply and more evenly than perhaps ever before." One can charitably say this was abject nonsense. Evenly divided? Maybe. But more deeply? Feh.

During the Civil War, the political landscape was so deeply divided that 600,000 Americans died. During the 1930s, labor strife and revolutionary ardor threatened the stability of the republic. In the 1960s, political assassinations, riots and bombings punctuated our political discourse.

It says something about the relationship of liberals to political power that they can overlook domestic dissent when they're at the wheel. When the GOP is in office, America is seen as hopelessly divided because dissent is the highest form of patriotism. When Democrats are in charge, the Frank Riches suddenly declare the culture war over and dismiss dissent as the scary work of the sort of cranks Obama's Department of Homeland Security needs to monitor.

If liberals thought so fondly of social peace and consensus, they would look more favorably on the 1920s and 1950s. Instead, their political idylls are the tumultuous '30s and '60s, when liberalism, if not necessarily liberals, rode high in the saddle.

Sure, America was divided under Bush. And it's still divided under Obama (just look at the recent Minnesota Senate race and the New York congressional special election). According to the polls, America is a bit less divided under Obama than it was at the end of Bush's 100 days. But not as much less as you would expect, given Obama's victory margin and the rally-around-the-president effect of the financial crisis (not to mention the disarray of the GOP).

Meanwhile, circulation for the conservative National Review (where I work) is soaring. More people watch Fox News (where I am a contributor) in prime time than watch CNN and MSNBC combined. The "tea parties" may not have been as big as your typical union-organized "spontaneous" demonstration, but they were far more significant than any protests this early in Bush's tenure.

And yet, according to Democrats and liberal pundits, America is enjoying unprecedented unity, and conservatives are going the way of the dodo.

Obama has surely helped set the tone for the unfolding riot of liberal hubris. In his effort to reprise the sort of expansion of liberal power we saw in the '30s and '60s, Obama has -- without a whiff of self-doubt -- committed America to $6.5 trillion in extra debt, $65 billion for each one of his first 100 days, and that's based on an impossibly rosy forecast of the economy. No wonder congressional Democrats clamor to take over corporations, tax the air we breathe and set wages for everybody.

On social issues such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research, Obama has proved to be, if anything, more of a left-wing culture warrior than Bush was a right-wing one. All the while, Obama transmogrifies his principled opponents into straw-man ideologues while preening about his own humble pragmatism. For him, bipartisanship is defined as shutting up and getting in line.

I'm not arguing that conservatives are poised to make some miraculous comeback. They're not. But American politics didn't come to an end with Obama's election, and nothing in politics breeds corrective antibodies more quickly than overreaching arrogance. And by that measure, Obama's first 100 days have been a huge down payment on the inevitable correction to come.

Obama NOt The Only One Apologizing

Dr. Obama

In order to balance the federal budget, my administration shall cut the sum of $100 MILLION DOLLARS!

Samira Simone/CNN Blurring Lines On Abu Ghraib

Today, Samira Simone over at CNN posted a story on their website in which Col. Janis Karpinski, who presided over the Abu Ghraib scandal, expresses a feeling of "vindication" due to the information revealed in recently released memos exposing Bush-era interrogation methods.

What the Colonel is implying is that she was not responsible for the atrocious abuses of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, and that the newly released memos prove that the Bush Defense Department gave her soldiers the go-ahead to take part in the outrageous abuses of prisoners seen in the now famous Abu Ghraib photographs.

In describing the memos the CNN story states:

"The memo, by then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee and then-Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven G. Bradbury, allowed the use of such tactics as keeping a detainee naked and in some cases in a diaper, and putting detainees on a liquid diet. One memo said aggressive techniques such as waterboarding, sleep deprivation and slapping did not violate laws against torture absent the intent to cause severe pain."

CNN and Karpinski hope that you're really stupid.

By referring to the technique of "..keeping a detainee naked" during interrogation, CNN is hoping that you associate that practice with the now infamous photos of naked prisoners piled on top of each other at Abu Ghraib. The difference is that what we saw in the Abu Ghraib photos wasn't interrogation. It was a bunch of morons getting their jollies by humiliating Iraqi prisoners. Lynndie England wasn't a CIA interrogator. She was a Private.

Karpinski wants to shift the blame for Abu Ghraib directly to Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush in order to absolve herself of responsibility for the scandal which, I'm sure, has made her life very difficult. However, in this case she is just a pawn of CNN which is trying to confuse its readers into believing that CIA interrogation practices and the degradation of prisoners for fun are one and the same. This is just the latest example of CNN's shift to the promotion a left-wing mythos in the FOX News Era.

Does this look like interrogation to you?

Earth Day: A Holiday For Crazy People

Side Note: Today I was walking past the EPA building and they were having a little celebration. The celebration included a 12 piece orchestra. Your tax dollars at work.

Cheney Proven Right On Memos

If you are morally opposed to all aggressive interrogation tactics used in getting information from violent Jihadists, then that’s one thing. However the dishonest line coming out of The White House and Barack Obama’s supporters in the media has been to imply that the methods not only constituted torture, but that they were ineffective. Today we learned from several sources that this was a false assertion.

First we have the CIA standing by their story that information given to interrogators by Khalid Sheik Mohammed lead to the successful thwarting of a 9/11 style plot to take down a building in Los Angeles.

Tomorrow the New York Times is running a story in which we learn that despite Obama’s claims to the contrary, his own national intelligence director Admiral Dennis Blair penned a memo claiming that the techniques had yielded “High Value Information”.

But that’s not even the worst of it. Apparently the administration that still talks up “transparency” despite it’s failure to live up to its own rhetoric when it came to the unread stimulus package, cut the Admiral’s assessment from the memo that was released to the public.

So in essence Dick Cheney has been proven to be more honest than Barack Obama. This really should be a big deal in tomorrow's news cycle.

So let’s have this debate on the morality of aggressive interrogation tactics, but in order to facilitate a fair debate, Obama and the left needs to be honest about the effectiveness of the tactics used.

We’re talking about saving lives here Mr. President. Pretty talk alone simply won’t suffice in this debate. You must also be honest.

Keep Powder Dry When It Comes To Obama-Chavez

Hugo Chavez is harmless. At least comparatively so. He poses no real threat to the United States, militarily or economically. American animosity towards the Venezuelan president stems not from any fear of his power, but instead from his clownish antics and his use of “Imperialist America” as a straw man with which to sell his socialist agenda to his largely poor and uneducated population. He has lowered himself to amateurish name calling on multiple occasions and is using democracy to acquire permanent and unchallenged power in a fashion similar to Adolph Hitler. However, Hitler he is not.

This is why the cordial meeting between Chavez and Barack Obama this weekend doesn’t bother me all that much. He shook Obama’s hand and gave him some crazy left-wing literature about how all of the poverty and corruption inherent in South American society is the fault of the United States. I’m guessing that Obama might already own the book and agrees with the bile contained within its pages so the net effect of the meeting itself was probably a wash. Chavez will now go back to his own country and once again begin badmouthing America in order to continue leading his nation down the road to pure socialism. In a fashion eerily similar to recent statements by Joe Biden, Chavez will brag about how he looked the American president in the eye and told him the truth about all the injustices that America has brought upon the people of South America in the last two centuries. Whatever. American has more dangerous dictators to worry about.

For example. This weekend Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke at a United Nations forum on racism. Of course public enemy number one at this event-–appropriately boycotted by The United States-–was Israel, a nation that Ahmadinejad has vowed to destroy.

It is one thing for Obama to shake the hand of a harmless jester like Chavez for whom the ultimate goal is securing and advancing his own political power. It is far different for him to sit down with an individual who appears intent on eradicating an ally of the United States.

The Obama administration used Iran's rhetoric at the U.N. meeting as justification for backtracking on its recent promise to meet for talks with the Islamic Republic. It seems Obama has finally found a pre-condition that he believes in.

Add the fact that Iran shows no signs of ending its nuclear program to its Holocaust denial and you have complete justification for keeping Iran cut off from the civilized world.

In continuing to promote feel-good policies of engagement with the worst governments that the world has to offer, Obama is essentially saying that these governments can do what they want without fear of repercussions from the United States. The situation should provide both sides of the American political spectrum an opportunity to reassess their ideas about diplomacy.

Those on the Left who voted for Obama need to do some soul searching and ask themselves if they really believe that a nation as irrational in their actions and rhetoric as Iran can be negotiated into doing anything, especially into ending its quest for nuclear weapons.

Those of us on the Right need to consider saving our powder when criticizing the President for providing little more than a smile and a handshake to a comical goon such as Hugo Chavez and reserving our outrage for matters of life and death such as Obama’s promise to diplomatically engage Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs.

Furthermore, all Americans, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum, need take a good hard look at the world community and decide whether their good will and respect is something that should carry weight in our own political calculations.




We need to keep in mind that anti-Semitism is not limited to the streets of the Middle East. The U.N. leadership is completely backward on matters such as these. It is the U.N. that should be condemned for expressing its dissappointment in those nations that walked out of the Iranian leader's speech. There is a reason we call it “American Exceptionalism”. The rest of the world simply does not share our moral compass or our value for human life.

Obama’s apologies for America over the past few weeks to anyone who will listen is a sign of the president’s weakness and naivete in regards to how the world works and proof of his low opinion of the country that he leads. These feelings have been nurtured in the communities and circles in which he has resided his entire life, from the pews of Reverend Wright’s Trinity United, to the home of Bill Ayers to the primary caucuses of the Democratic party. They should come as no surprise to anyone who paid close attention to the election of 2008. That a U.S President holds views such as these is unfortunate.

It is when these apologies turn into concessions however, that they become dangerous. Those of us who understand this need to keep it in perspective and be careful not to equivocate a clown such as Chavez with a legitimate threat to peace such as Ahmadinejad

- Dan Joseph

Beavis and Boy Cut

In another sign that the political discourse in this nation has sunk to a new low since the left-wing blogs became a political force, here MSNBC's David Schuster and Affirmative Action hire Rachael Maddow sink to new lows in order to mock the anti-tax and spend rallies held on the 15th.




I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when the MSNBC executive actually explained to Maddow what "teabagging" is. I can't imagine that she would have known.

I'm not going to explain it. This is a classy blog. However, there is no excuse for a major news organization, even one mired in third place, to use vulgar, sexual innuendo in order to denigrate other people's political views.

To those folks who thought that Bill Clinton did nothing wrong, that the shoe-thrower was a hero and that "Buck Fush" was a political statement worthy of being plastered on the back of their Hybrid, this kind of stuff is hilarious.

To most of us, this shows how that even with their guy in The White House, the left is still as nasty and vitriolic as ever towards their political opponents.

How The Left Wing Media Treated The Tea Parties

And the left wonders why FNC is kicking their rear ends in the ratings. Take a look at this angry lefty posing as a journalist:

Obama's Words Imply Muslim Ignorance

This past week Barack Obama made two important moves regarding the Middle East. As usual, both were rhetorical in nature and relied heavily on Obama’s own personal appeal in order to distract Americans from the actual implications of the President's words.

First, the President and his administration essentially signaled that they will no longer be using the term “War On Terror” in order to define the struggle between the United States and murderous fanatics who kill civilians. This implies one of two things. Either Obama does not consider what we’re currently doing in Afghanistan and Iraq to be a “war” or he does not consider those who we are fighting to be “terrorists”.

Next, Obama took a page from George W. Bush and emphatically declared that the Unites States is not at war with Islam.

Well, Duh Barry!

All Americans should hope that the change in nomenclature from the “War On Terror “ to “Overseas Contingency Operations” is simply an indication that Obama views the battle against Islamic extremism as a matter of law enforcement as opposed to a war. If this is the case, then we can at least be assured that while the Democrats may be incredibly ignorant as to the motivations of Islamic extremists and the best way to battle them, at least they are not delusional enough to believe that these “criminals” are anything other that ideology-driven soldiers engaged in a “crime spree” against the West as opposed to “freedom fighters” as many on the extreme left like to call them.

Let’s face it. If Obama is implying that those who attacked us on 9/11 are something other than “terrorists” or if his administration is afraid that the word “terrorism” will offend someone who is rational enough for America to negotiate with, then we might as well just put up a big sign at customs that says: “Welcome to The United States. Open to The Idea of Sharia Law Since 2009”.

The President’s declaration of the United States not being at “war with Islam” is different.

At this point, after the Bush Administration bent over backwards in the days and years following 9/11 to convince the world that Islam was a “religion of peace” it is hard to believe that there is still anyone in the world who sincerely believes that the U.S. government is at war with all of Islam.

But through his statement Obama has conceded that there is still a large portion of the Muslim world that believes that America is at war with all of Islam. The only reason for this belief, which is widespread in the Muslim world, is pure ignorance among Islam’s practitioners.

The causes behind this incredible misunderstanding are complex and speak to the dangers that the governments that these naive individuals live under pose to the world in general. Muslims in nations such as Iran and Syria as well as those living under the Palestinian authority and other tyrannical regimes have constantly been told that America is fighting in the region with the goal of eradicating Islam and permanently occupying Muslim lands. This myth is perpetuated through government-run media, a theology-based education system and word-of-mouth on Middle Eastern streets in which the citizens have little access to accurate information regarding anything, not simply in matters of foreign policy. In this country, even those who are adamantly opposed to our actions in the region over the last five decades understand that the issues and goals which have driven our actions do not stem from a desire to destroy the Islamic faith. Obama is correct in reiterating this fact. However there is no reason to believe that those who disseminate the information in the Islamic world will spin the President’s words to our nation’s benefit.

Of course, only the expansion of American-style democracy will completely correct this situation. However, the combination of the unfortunate mishandling of the war in Iraq as well as the knee-jerk opposition that the American left has to pro-freedom foreign policy tactics has severely limited our options for correcting the situation in the Arab world.

The unfortunate reality is that a huge portion of the Islamic world either lacks the capacity or the access to information that would allow them to truly understand the current conflict.

While President Obama is correct in reiterating George W. Bush’s insistence that the United States harbors no ill will towards Islam as a religion or Muslims as a people, the reality is that the Islamic world will only gain the needed perspective once the people of the region are given access to information that accurately portrays the reality of the situation.

Too many in the Middle East still seem oblivious to the fact that the vast majority of Muslims killed in recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan were murdered by fellow Muslims and not at the hands of crusading Westerners.

While I do not wish to give the impression that I believe everyone in the Islamic world is ignorant of the complexity of U.S. actions and goals in the region, clearly a significant portion is. Why else would Obama feel the need to say what he did? Furthermore, the unfortunate reality is that no matter how many times an American president tells the Muslim world that we are not at war with Islam, the leadership of Islamic regimes seem to be hell-bent on making sure that the message does not reach the populace or that if it does, they are made to doubt the sincerity of the statement

-Dan Joseph

False Choices Driving Obama's Agenda

It's so bittersweet when someone writes a published article that mirrors something that I've been saying for weeks. Just knowing that this writer is getting paid for coming to a conclusion that I arrived at 20 days into Obama's administration is kind of discouraging for my unemployed ego. But it makes me feel less lonely in my thinking. THIS ARTICLE HITS THE NAIL ON THE HEAD! Thus far, and even during the campaign, Obama has guided the political debate by using false choices to frame his policy initiatives. This tactic relies on the naiveté of Americans who support him in order to succeed. So far, it's working like magic.

April 01, 2009
Obama’s Childish Vision of Politics
By Ben Shapiro

“In the words of Scripture,” Barack Obama announced at his inauguration, “the time has come to set aside childish things.”

So why does the President of the United States embrace the most childish interpretation of political discourse ever put forward on a national stage?

Politics is about making choices. We either cut spending or we grow spending. We either have less regulation or more regulation. We either strengthen defense or we weaken it. Obama seemingly understands this. He has repeatedly referred to the “hard choices” we face as a nation.

Yet despite his “hard choices” rhetoric, Barack Obama’s favorite political tactic is to claim that no choices need be made at all; all political differences of opinion, he says, can be chalked up to misunderstanding rather than conflicting fundamental values. All choices are “false choices” if we just think deeply enough. Or rather, if Obama thinks deeply enough.

And so Obama claimed in the Chicago Tribune that Americans “need not choose between a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism and an oppressive government-run economy.” That choice, he said, is a “false choice.” It is a false choice as he phrases it -- capitalism isn’t chaotic and unforgiving. But the simple choice between capitalism and a government-managed economy is a real choice -- and it’s the most important choice Americans have faced in half a century. Obscuring the need to make that choice by glossing over it with happy talk does a profound disservice to the American people.

According to Obama, “false choices” aren’t restricted to the economy -- they’re also present with regard to stem cell research. While Obama paid lip service to the moral qualms of the anti-embryonic stem cell research advocates, he then dismissed their intelligence. “Our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values,” he announced while restoring unfettered federal funding to embryonic stem cell research. Those moral thinkers who struggle with the implications of destroying potential human life in order to embark upon decades-long research projects are idiots, according to the president.

We’ve all been suckered by “false choices” on national defense, too, Obama tells us. Determining the future of Guantanamo Bay is easy, he smiles; we shut it down, thereby ending the “false choice between our safety and our ideals.” Again, this is nonsensical: Ask the Sept. 11 victims’ families whether releasing terrorists onto U.S. soil for civil liberties purposes presents a conflict between safety and ideals. American presidents from Washington to Lincoln to FDR to Bush have struggled with the balance between security and civil liberties. But apparently, according to Obama, they were a bunch of dummies -- that choice is “false.”

Obama’s not done with the “false choices.” There are “false choices” with regard to the environment, too. “Throughout our history,” Obama recently stated, “there's been a tension between those who have sought to conserve our natural resources for the benefit of future generations, and those who have sought to profit from these resources. But I’m here to tell you this is a false choice.” Really? Then why do Democrats insist on blocking drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve? After all, the choice between allowing oil companies to profit from resources and conserving natural resources is a false one.

In reality, of course, all of these choices are hard choices. Do we choose the warm feeling of a low-growth, government-managed economy over the dynamism and creativity of capitalism? Do we choose to destroy potential human beings in order to potentially save human beings? Do we stop law enforcement measures to preserve civil liberties or do we fight the threat of terrorism with every tool at our disposal? Do we choose green living over the continued expansion of our economy?

These are the questions around which American politics revolve. These are questions that reflect our fundamental values. And these are the questions President Obama hates, because they strip away the shallow, puerile rhetoric of hope, change, and unity, and instead ask Americans to think more deeply.

And so Obama labels such questions “false choices.” By doing so, he assumes the role of all-knowing prophet, able to solve all political conflicts by declaring them fictitious. While we mortals debate the issues, Obama stands far above them, handing down his judgment from on high, bringing unity where once there was conflict.

This is dangerous stuff. America’s greatness lies in its willingness to argue tough questions in the public square. Presenting such questions as easy calls to be handled by a wise aristocracy is fundamentally destructive of the very basis of self-government. But then again, according to Obama, the choice between rule of administrative aristocrats and the rule of the people is probably just another “false choice.”

Picture Friday IV

"I find the gavel to be much more effective when you hold it this way."

Obama's Insane Budget

Obama’s Budget: It’s Absolutely Insane!
By Peter Ferrara
Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy, Institute for Policy Innovation

At his press conference last night, President Obama insisted once again that he inherited the budget deficit, and “we’re doing everything we can to reduce that deficit.”

But the deficits over the next 10 years that Obama proposed in his budget are not George Bush’s deficits. They are the deficits that Obama has proposed, resulting from the $1 trillion in increased spending he adopted in the no-stimulus stimulus bill, and the $400 billion supplemental spending bill he supported and also adopted the following week, and the $275 billion housing bailout he proposed the next week, and the $1 trillion bank bailout plan his Treasury Secretary just proposed this week, and the $638 billion he has proposed as a “downpayment” on a new national health insurance entitlement. The health insurance plan will be the most expensive entitlement of all — serious estimates are that it will cost at least $1.2 trillion or more. Does this sound like he is “doing everything we can to reduce that deficit?”

The budget Obama proposes for this year increases federal spending by a fiscally insane 34% over the budget adopted for last year, with a total of $4 trillion in federal spending, the highest EVER.


Under the Obama budget, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the national debt will more than double over the next 10 years from 40% of GDP today to a shocking 82%! Ronald Reagan left office with the national debt at 42% of GDP. At the end of World War II, the national debt was just under 114% of GDP. If the economy does not recover permanently next year, as even the Congressional Budget Office (now controlled entirely by Democrats) assumes, Obama could even top that World War II record — spending mostly on welfare and entitlements rather than on fighting the Nazis and Imperial Japan.

Does this sound like we’re “moving from an era of borrow-and-spend to one where we save and invest,” as Obama also said last night?

In fact, there is not one item in Obama’s budget that promotes actual saving and investment. Quite to the contrary, the tax rate increases he proposes for the top income tax brackets, for capital gains, and for dividends will all reduce saving and investment.

The budget Obama proposes for this year increases federal spending by a fiscally insane 34% over the budget adopted for last year, with a total of $4 trillion in federal spending, the highest ever. That spending would equal 28.5% of GDP, an increase in the size of the federal government in Obama’s first year of 42% compared to the postwar average relative to GDP.

The deficit would reach a $1.845 trillion this year, according to the CBO — the highest ever except for World War II. That would be more than 4 times Reagan’s largest deficit, which caused so much howling among liberals and Democrats.

The CBO further estimates that this Obama budget deficit will total an astounding 13.1% of GDP, more than one-eighth of the entire U.S. economy, for the federal deficit alone! That is again the largest in U.S. history except for World War II and more than twice Reagan’s highest deficit as a percent of GDP.

Reagan adopted budget cuts soon after he entered office equal to close to 5% of the federal budget at the time. Even with his defense buildup — which won the Cold War without firing a shot — total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That’s a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%.

Obama last night also taunted Republican critics of his budget, saying, “we haven’t seen an alternative budget out of them.” But next week when Congress starts debating the budget, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, will present precisely such an alternative budget. Then we will see what we could have had if we hadn’t elected left-wing extremists to the White House and to run the Congress.

Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Institute for Policy Innovation, among other posts. He served in President Reagan’s White House Office of Policy Development, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under the first President Bush. He is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School.

What To Do If Jeremy Bird Shows Up At Your Door

If one of the Obamabots shows up at your door, here's what you do. Debate them until they realize that they don't know anything and be sure to take up enough of their time so that they can't push the President's snake oil to your less attuned neighbors.

Here's Some stuff From Michelle Malkin:

Too funny. The Obama Message Machine doesn’t want the Tea Party movement showing them up. So, they’ve sent out a mass e-mail and YouTube video link urging their cultists to go out and gather pledge signatures to support the president’s economic plan. Yep, a top-down, “grass-roots movement” directed by the DNC/Team Obama “because we can’t leave this important debate up to a Washington establishment that doesn’t welcome change.”

Snort.

Well, this will really fire up the Obama-tic troops:

TOTUS

Thanks To: Michelle Malkin

Obama Responsible For AIG Bonus Debacle

Set aside your outrage over the actual bonuses for a second. If I didn’t hear you screaming and wailing over the millions in wasteful pork contained in the stimulus and omnibus packages then you have absolutely no right to complain about this comparatively miniscule amount of taxpayer money going to a few AIG employees. Chuck Schumer I’m looking in your direction

The real significance of this particular mess is that it’s the first Obama screw up where he won’t be able to get away with blaming George W. Bush. This is entirely on him.

Connecticut Democratic Senator and friend of Angelo Chris Dodd has now taken responsibility for adding the loophole into the stimulus package that permitted AIG and other companies that received bailout funds to pay bonuses. But only after lying about it the day before.

Dodd claimed that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner ordered him to add the provision. We can’t be sure why, but it’s important to note that Obama and Dodd were the two biggest recipients of AIG contributions during the 2008 election cycle.
Angry yet?

This is why it’s so infuriating watching Obama feign indignation over the bonuses when all indicators point to the fact that he allowed them to go through in the first place. Now, maybe Obama was ignorant of the loophole. Maybe his anger is genuine. Perhaps, the language that allowed the AIG bonuses to occur, wouldn’t have gotten through had Obama actually READ THE STIMULUS BILL!!! Maybe someone would have caught it had he given Congress and the public TIME TO READ THE BILL!!!!

At this point Barack Obama has a lower approval rating than George W. Bush did at this point in his first term. It’s good to know that Americans are finally using their deductive reasoning abilities and waking up from the rhetoric induced coma of the last six months.

It’s a good thing that it happened now, before other Obama ideas were allowed to be put into place without debate. Such as his short lived plan to drop severely injured veterans from the public health care roles in order to free up cash for God knows what.

I wonder if Leno will ask him about that one tomorrow night?

-Dan

Lily Eskelsen: Standing Between Poor Kids and A Quality Education Since 2008

It’s nearly impossible for your average citizen to differentiate between “teachers” and “teacher’s unions”.

When Republicans attack teachers' unions the response we get usually comes from some middle aged house frau, who voted for Obama because he was a “dreamboat”, and who counters our policy ideas by saying something like:

“Don’t attack the teachers! They teach our children! Children are the future! Teachers, Children, Future! Why do you hate children?!!”

This is why teacher's unions tend to get a free pass from the American public, despite the fact that they are among the most greedy and self-serving institutions in the country.

Not only do they routinely advocate rewarding incompetence, supporting tenure without regard to ability and opposing merit pay, but folks like National Education Association Vice-President Lily Eskelsen have been the nation’s staunchest defenders of the status–quo in our public education system.

Now if you think that our public school system is perfect and is not in need of reform then you can stop reading here.

Truthfully, the vast majority of our nation’s public schools are just fine. The problem lies in the fact that the public schools in America’s poorest communities are a complete mess.

President Bush attempted to address this problem through No Child Left Behind and it worked to a certain extent. If nothing else, NCLB put a magnifying glass over our country’s worst schools and forced them to adopt a structured test-based curriculum which has resulted in vast improvements across the board in the reading comprehension and math skills of kids who would otherwise be looking forward to a future of handling the mayonnaise applicator at their local Hardee's.

It would be understandable if Ms. Eskelsen opposed NCLB because it’s uniformly applied to a state’s schools without regard to demographics or the cultural and economic differences of the given area. Or due to the fact that the tests vary from state to state making accurate, nationwide, comparative analysis impossible. But, that’s not her beef. The problem Eskelsen has with NCLB is that it hampers the teacher’s ability to use “creative” teaching methods. I assume that these are the same “creative” methods that made sweeping education reform a necessity in the first place, but I digress.

To Eskelsen the happiness of the teachers trumps the progress of the students. To her and her ilk the fact that Billy can’t read isn’t nearly as important as the method by which teachers attempt to teach him how to read, regardless of how well those methods work.

Eskelsen is an equally enthusiastic cheerleader for the status quo when it comes to school choice. She’s against it.

With school choice, a student who is attending a gang-infested school inhabited by teachers who are themselves hooked on phonics, would be given a voucher which they could put towards the tuition at a private school. This gives more power to parents who care deeply about their child’s education but who can’t afford to send them to a school where the principal doesn’t moonlight as a stripper.

On its surface, it would appear that only an individual with the conscience of say…Bernie Madoff could oppose such an idea. But in a fashion similar to a Wall Street short seller, Eskelsen has put greed ahead of poor students.

You see, public schools get their funding based on how many students they have, but obviously they don’t spend every penny of the allotted money that they get per student on the student himself. They buy other things with it, like dodge balls and computers and a cappucino machine for the teacher’s lounge. So if Billy takes his voucher and goes to a public school, they can kiss their cappucino machine goodbye. I’m exaggerating of course, but the point I’m trying to make is that the only reason for Eskelsen’s opposition to vouchers is that it forces the public schools to actually earn their government money rather than automatically receiving it, even if Billy is sixteen years old and spells his name with a “K”. No questions asked.

Eskelsen’s solution? Go back to the way things used to be. The good old days when the less academic prowess a school’s students exhibited, the more cash was thrown at the school in hopes that Billy would magically learn his state capitals despite the fact that he was dodging bullets in the lunchroom.

Eskelsen and her teachers' union cronies have enjoyed the naive good-will of the American public for far too long. It is time that folks woke up and realized that unions such as the NEA and people like Eskelsen are the primary obstacle to meaningful school reform in this country. However, as long as politicians like Barack Obama an Ted Kennedy are having their campaign coffers filled by folks like Eskelsen the status quo will remain.

I’ll leave you with one last example of the double standard that is keeping our nation’s poorest children from receiving a chance at a real education.

Here in D.C. we have what is widely considered to be one of the nation’s worst public school systems. Recently two siblings, Sarah and James Parker used an experimental voucher program and escaped a school that was rotting from the inside. With the voucher they began attending The Sidwell Friends School, one of D.C.’s best.

But because of pressure put on Barack Obama by folks like Lily Eskelsen and others at the NEA, these kids are going to be forced back into their decrepit D.C. public school regardless of the sub-par education they will be receiving in D.C.’s violent and decaying system.

President Obama’s daughters are now matriculating at Sidwell Friends. I wonder if he considered placing the First Daughters in a D.C. public school before making the move from Chicago? I’m guessing not. After all he wouldn’t want Sasha and Malia associating with public school riff raff like Sarah, James and Billy.

So Sarah. James. If you are reading this, just remember: when you’re flipping burgers and scrubbing toilets twenty years from now, you have Lily Eskelsen to thank.
-Dan Joseph

"I Could have been president if Lily Eskelsen hadn't taken away my voucher. Oh well, guess I'll go rape some tourists."

Picture Friday 3

Obama, Limbaugh and Failure

Let me be perfectly honest here. I hope with every fiber of my being that 95% of President Obama’s agenda fails to become law.

Do I want the stock market to continue its slide and the economy to remain in the gutter? Of course not.

Am I hoping for another attack on the homeland? God no.

I simply don’t want to see America adopt policies such as Obama’s, which punish success, squash entrepreneurial spirit and force responsible folks to pay for some mother of seven’s mortgage because she lied on her loan application.

You see, all this talk of Rush Limbaugh and “failure” is being used as a straw man by the administration right now, in order to obfuscate the fact that Geitner and Obama have absolutely no clue how to stop the economic bleeding. It also serves as a distraction allowing Obama to push though items, without debate, that have absolutely nothing to due with the current crisis. Things such as health care reform and “cap and trade”.

The fact that Obama and his advisors are spending so much time talking about a radio talk show host, shows us that Obama is running a far more politically charged administration than his predecessor. But then again, he is a Democrat. Let’s look back to 2006 when Democrats were polled about George W. Bush.

A FOX News/ Opinion dynamics poll asked:

“Regardless of how you voted in the presidential election, would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?”

51% of Democrats answered “no” to that question. Keep in mind what the central issue at the time was. Iraq. Essentially what 51% of Democrats were saying was that they wanted enough American soldiers to die in Iraq to force a premature withdrawal, set American foreign policy in the Middle East back to pre-9/11 times and all in order to damage the president politically. Petty enough for you?

The difference between Limbaugh and the majority of Democrats, as well as other Dem operatives such as James Carville who professed that he wanted President Bush to “fail” as far back as 2001, is that while the hopes of Limbaugh and myself are based on the desire to avoid policies that hurt us in the long term, the hopes of the left were simply to destroy a president that they didn’t like. Remember, liberalism is almost exclusively an emotional pursuit. This explains why outrage, hatred and dreams of harm befalling their political opponents are par for the course in Democratic circles. It also explains why Obama is president right now.

The first 50 days of this administration have been very messy, but have been primarily defined by the fact that Obama has been exposed as an individual who will say he’s going to do something and then either not do it or do the opposite. This is the ultimate dog and pony show presidency. One where Obama has falsely framed choices such as : a massive spending package to stimulate the economy vs. “doing nothing” or science vs. ignorance (stem cells). Now he hopes to frame the choice as being between his own political successes vs. the failure of the nation as a whole. This is why politicians who are this charismatic and who garner an almost messianic, albeit politically naïve following are so dangerous.

This poses yet another reason that all concerned Americans should hope for failure on Obama’s part. Perhaps it will lead to a change in this administration’s tactics and in turn give American’s a chance to take a breath, get beyond the fancy rhetoric and actually think about the actual effect that the president’s policies will have on the nation.

But please, no more sanctimonious whining from the left about how we on the right want the country to fail. You know it’s untrue and now you also know how incredibly hypocritical it is.

-Dan