Terry McAuliffe is Slipperier Than an Eel in Olive Oil

Surely this raises some sort of ethical question. Right?

Sphere: Related Content

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

Sphere: Related Content

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

Sphere: Related Content

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

Sphere: Related Content

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

Sphere: Related Content

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?"

Sphere: Related Content

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."

Sphere: Related Content

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.

Sphere: Related Content

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.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama NOt The Only One Apologizing

Sphere: Related Content

Dr. Obama

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

Sphere: Related Content

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?

Sphere: Related Content

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.

Sphere: Related Content

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.

Sphere: Related Content

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

Sphere: Related Content

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.

Sphere: Related Content

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

Sphere: Related Content

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.”

Sphere: Related Content

Picture Friday IV

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

Sphere: Related Content

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.

Sphere: Related Content