Holder must go.

Today, Lamar Alexander suggested Eric Holder resign.

"(Holder's) doing a better job of interrogating CIA employees than he is of interrogating terrorists, and he's not making a distinction between enemy combatants and terrorists flying into Detroit trying to blow up planes and American citizens who are committing a crime. He needs to go to Congress and say I made that decsion, and here's why. And based on that perhaps he should step down."

I have to say that I couldn't agree more.

Holder joined this administration on the strength of his performance in the Clinton administration, where he distinguished himself by brokering pardons for Mark Rich and the FALN terror gang.

Since joining this administration as the first black Attorney General, Holder has further demonstrated his incompetence and arrogance (nothing new for this group) by:

1. Lecturing Americans on race
2. Refusing to pursue intimidation tactics by the New Black Panthers during the 2008 elections
3. Pushing Obama to close Gitmo, then failing to present a plan to close Gitmo (though, maybe this is a sign of competence)
4. Releasing to our enemies the "torture" memos of Bush administration lawyers who gave opinions on the legality of enhanced interrogation techniques.
5. Pushing to have KSM tried in a civilian court in NYC.
6. Allowing the underwear bomber to be mirandized.

I am sure I could come up with more if I actually researched.  But, let's face it, this guy is incompetent.  Some are even arguing that his actions are impeachable.  At the very least, he has made two critical decisions without the President being given a chance to overturn them - to Mirandize Abdulmutullab, and to treat Gitmo detainees as criminal defendants.

Eric, don't let the door hit you on the way out, and take Janet Incompetano with you.

Elitist Broadway Reviewer Frank Rich: Fat Man Calls John McCain "Unpatriotic"

Via NewsBusters, Frank Rich Fulminates: 'John McCain Epitomizes the Unpatriotic Opposition': "
"New York Times columnist Frank Rich can shamelessly declare that opposing Obama’s agenda is unpatriotic – even if you’re John McCain. Rich wrote on Sunday:

'If [Harry] Reid can serve as the face of Democratic fecklessness in the Senate, then John McCain epitomizes the unpatriotic opposition. On Wednesday night he could be seen sneering when Obama pointed out that most of the debt vilified by Republicans happened on the watch of a Republican president and Congress that never paid for ''two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program.''"

 Elitists like Frank Rich epitomize the problems with Obama and the Democratic Party.  They don't get that the American people know better than they do who is patriotic and unpatriotic, and calling John McCain unpatriotic is about as stupid and out of touch with the American people as one can get.

But, Frank Rich is wrong pretty much on everything, so why not add this, too.

Pelosi Travels in Style. You go coach.

Seems Nancy Pelosi has been living high on the hog at our expense. But, you already knew that.

Doug Ross has the receipts from Madame Speaker's many excellent adventures:

Un-frickin-believable: U.S. Military Serving as Chauffeurs, Babysitters for the Pelosi Kids: Receipts That Will Blow Your Mind

Obama: Wrong on Supremes. Wrong on Law. Wrong Period.

In the State of the Union address, Obama created a little dust-up by criticizing last week's Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case, saying, the court “reversed a century of law to open the floodgates – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections.” This caused Justice Alito to shake his head and apparently mouth the words, "that's not true."

For an alleged Constitutional Law Professor, he should know better, and, as a president delivering the SOTU, he should save his political arguments against SC decisions for another venue.

Politifact.com has already gotten into the act, and proclaimed Obama's claim to be "Barely True." And, that's being generous. The majority opinion maintained that the court was not specifically overturning the barrier to foreign campaign spending, codified in 2 U.S.C. 441e(b)(3), This was outside the scope of the opinion, and Justice Kennedy, writing for majority, stated as much. Politifact's conclusion, "our experts agreed that Obama erred by suggesting that the issue is settled law."

The Heritage Foundation's Senior Legal Fellow, Hans A. von Spakovsky posts today that Obama is wrong on both the law and the facts in this case. Spakovsky points out, "In 1907, Congress passed the Tillman Act that banned direct contributions by corporations to federal candidates – there was no ban on independent political expenditures in the law." In other words, the Tillman Act (sponsored, by the way, by a segregationist to prevent corporations opposed to segregation from giving to Republican candidates. Rich irony there.) prevented corporations from giving money directly to candidates, not to make their own independent expenditures.

He goes on to point out:

"Congress did not ban independent political expenditures by corporations and labor unions until 1947. For three decades after the passage of that law, the Supreme Court went out of its way to avoid upholding its constitutionality, and the Court actually struck down a separate ban on independent expenditures as well as a state law prohibiting corporate expenditures on referenda. It was not until 1990 in the Austin case that the Court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld a state ban on independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation (a trade association) in a case completely at odds with prior precedent. The actual electioneering communications provision at issue in the Citizens United case was part of the McCain-Feingold amendments to federal campaign finance law in 2002."

So, that "century" old law is actually from 1947.  In the arguments for this case, the government did not defend the 1990 decision, and ultimately, it is the 2002 McCain-Feingold stupidity that precipitates this decision.

On the foreign corporations angle, von Spakovsky is less generous than Politifact:

"2 U.S.C. § 441e bans all foreign nationals from directly or indirectly contributing to a federal candidate or a political party. It also bans all foreign nationals from making any independent political expenditures – and this ban was not overturned by the Supreme Court."

"Foreign corporations are prohibited from participating in American elections. But their domestic subsidiaries that are American companies, employ American workers, have American officers, and pay American taxes, are able to participate in the American election process to the same extent as other U.S. companies as long as all of the money and all of the decisions are American."

Finally, "The Citizens United decision did not even consider this ban on foreign nationals. So the President was completely out-of-line when he made the claim that foreign corporations would be able to spend without limit in our elections, a claim that seems to have become a talking point for critics of the Supreme Court’s decision."

Read the whole thing, and learn something.

State if the Union: It's Campaign Season, Y'all! (In other words, a repeat of already broken promises)

Tonight's SOTU speech was long (we watched the DVR'd American Idol while it was going on and when we finished, Bam was just exiting the building), and, according to Fox News and the blogosphere, was a return to campaign mode for Obama.  Victor Davis Hanson gives you all you need to know.

Obama would have a lot more credibility if he didn't practice such massive hypocrisy.  Calling for earmark reform when he signed bills with over 9000 earmarks doesn't help.  Calling for lobbying reform when his administration is full of former lobbyist, does not help.  Calling for more drilling offshore and clean coal when he's pushing AGW accords that would kill our economy, does not help.

I am amazed, in the aftermath of this, at how tone deaf he is politically.

Every president this century has understood that the engine of commerce in this country is the availability of cheap energy.  And, the cheapest source of energy has been, and remains, fossil fuels, primarily in the form of oil, coal, and natural gas.  In the early days, we were largely self-sufficient in these sources, and were pretty much the largest driver of demand.  In the '60s and '70s, the environmental movement succeeded in placing restrictions on drilling for oil in this country, but, as long as there was plenty of fuel available from overseas sources, this really didn't matter to the economic engine of the US.  The first fuel crisis of 1973 exposed our vulnerability to foreign sources of oil, and prompted Nixon to propose the first of many "energy independence" initiatives.  Since that was pre Three Mile Island,  the nuclear industry still held great promise as an environmentally friendly, albeit expensive, supplement to coal and gas.

However, Nixon's initiatives went nowhere in the aftermath of Watergate, and we failed to take decisive action when we were warned.  This led to the second energy crisis in 1978-1979 and the Carter effort to establish energy independence.  Ouch.

Reagan re-established the natural order of things, and with strong, decisive leadership, the Middle Eastern sultanates knew it was better not to piss off the United States, the obvious eventual winner in the Cold War (hey, those guys know nothing better than a winner).  Bush 1 used his influence with Saudi Arabia to essentially ensure a steady flow of oil from that country, and we wouldn't be seriously pressed with another energy crisis until the combination of neglect (lack of domestic drilling and refining capacity, and the degradation of our nuclear industry) and increased demand from India and China brought the demand side of the equation up to levels that forced the price of oil from dirt cheap to just cheap.  But, with no end in increased demand in sight (driven by those countries), the focus now has to turn to increasing the supply of energy to retain prices where we need them to be to ensure continued economic growth.

Which brings me to this administration.  Sure, we have an economic panic that is financial industry and not energy driven.  But, we have largely weathered that storm now.  But, if this admin persists in strangling our economy through anti-energy policies like cap and tax, and EPA regulation of CO2, and pushing cars that no one wants, well, then, we are due for a slow recovery, if we have one at all.

The time is now to increase domestic production of energy.  Perhaps the O admin realizes it.  We'll know they are serious when cap and tax is scrapped, and production actually increases.

Bad to Worse for Obama - Random Thoughts

• Frank J (over at IMAO) says Obama is going to announce a freeze on any new Democrat representatives.
• Tacking to the center, Obama will ask Congress to repeal "Don't ask, don't tell" in SOTU
• Michael Bloomberg (Mayor of New York) says no to terror trial in lower Manhattan.
• Can't wait to see Eric Holder up on the Hill testifying about the interrogation and subsequent Mirandizing of underwear bomber.
• World class cretin John Edwards and wife split .  Didn't see that one coming.
• Apple introduced the iPad today.  Just a big iPod Touch?  For $499 you get a big MP3 player and an ebook reader, plus it is promised to run iWorks, so you can work on the thing.
• Republicans have been warned:  No "You Lie" moments.  Jay to Bam: Try not lying.

Bam to Moon: "Been There, Done That"

The Orlando Sentinel reports today that the Obama administration plans to propose cutting funds for further manned moon exploration.

As you may know, a key part of NASA's post-Space Shuttle plans involved a return to the moon, using the Ares booster as part of the Constellation project.  It has been controversial, with a recent commission headed by former Lockheed CEO Norm Augustine, saying NASA's plans were significantly underfunded.

As a conservative, and in a time of great budget pressures, the cancellation of a return to the moon is probably a good decision, if it hurts national pride somewhat, and means that people in Florida, Alabama, and Texas will lose jobs, well, what does Bam care about those red staters, anyway.

On the other hand, as I have posted before, I'd rather us spend $787B on space exploration and defense projects than what Stimulus 1 spent it on (ummm, nothing useful).  To reiterate, nothing would show the Chinese who the biggest, baddest kid on the block is than sending men back to the moon, and building a 600 ship Navy.  Take that, China!

Instead, Bam wants NASA to focus on measuring the effects of global warming.  Now, that's useful.

Anyway, a pretty sad day.

Gibbsy on FoxNews Sunday. LOL Funny!

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs (aka "Washington Bob") was on FoxNews with Chris Wallace today (just now!) and, boy, is he a funny guy!

First, does this signal the war on Fox is over?

The administration knows nothing other than campaigning, Gibbsy had these whoppers:

• Regarding Bernanke's reappointment: Let's not upset the applecart.  The latest "bashing" Gibbs calls "the taxpayers getting their money back."  Does Gibbsy not know that the latest bashing isn't designed to get our money back, the banks are paying the money back (with interest).  It is designed to punish the banks and play to populism.  It's the MO of this administration.  Yesterday's bogeyman - Fox News.  Today's bogeyman - "Fat cat bankers."  He's right about the investment firm/banking separation, though.  Needs to be done.  However, the tax on banks is just pure populism, and destined to hurt the economy.
• State of Union - More populism will be heard.  "Washington is about the special interests and not about them."  Again, all about the banks.  Wallace slams him on back room deals on Health Care.  Gibbsy has rambling response that goes nowhere.  Wallace brings up the more spending on "stimulus." Gibbsy has this great line, "The recovery plan, in a transparent way, put money back into the economy."  Haha.  Transparent.  The hallmark of Obama.  But wait, there's more, when Wallace points out that (despite Gibbsy's protestations that we've "saved or created more than a million jobs") jobs are still shedding, he says, "What we inherited when we walked into the door....[bash Bush!]...on the the verge of creating more jobs."  On the verge!  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!  There will be more blaming Bush.  Gibbs smartly reminds people that Obama "put his hand on the Bible."
  
• As for Health Care.  Wallace shows Obama contradicting himself and blasts the administration for not being able to get together with Congress on this one.  He tries to claim the administration has "always been focused on jobs."  Yeah.  Got it. 
• Then we turn to the MA election.  Wallace shows Obama's LOL statement that the MA election was the same sentiment that elected him (i.e. blaming Bush for a republican winning The Teddy Kennedy Memorial Senate Seat).  Wallace then shows the Brown platform, and asks Gibbsy, there was no secret here that he was the "41st vote against health care" and was opposed to ALL of the Obama agenda.  Here, Gibbs offers statements that are outrageously hilarious.
• He contends that the vote in MA is a vote FOR Obama.  Seriously.  He claims that "more people voted to express their support of Barack Obama than to oppose him."  Now, if that is true, than how popular can Obama be?  Seems like the kind of polling data you'd want to suppress, when in MA, you can't get supporters of this most Liberal president to get his candidate to victory.  I guess they're saying that without Obama, Coakley loses worse.
• "People are angry that we haven't made more progress on the economy."  Duh.  
• Wallace screws up here. People DO want health care reform.  They don't want this health care reform and they don't like the way this was done.  Anyway, Gibbs brings up the special interests here again.  Spin.  One of the lessons of the MA election is that HCR highlights the influence of special interests in Washington, and, in this case, it's all left-leaning special interests.
•  Wallace is holding back laughter at this point and turns the attention to the return of 2008 campaign director David Plouffe.  Is Axelrod soon finished?
• Osama Bin Laden's latest tape:
• Best whoppers are here.  Gibbs reiterates that he's (Bin Laden) a coward and even uses the word "terrorist" who will "hopefully, soon be brought to justice."  Interesting, that he doesn't reiterate the Obama campaign pledge to hunt him down in Pakistan, if necessary.  Great opportunity for Gibbsy, but he punts it.
• Wallace points out that none of the DHS and Intel leaders knew of the decision to Mirandize and treat as law enforcement activity, the underwear bomber.  And, that after 50 minutes of questioning, he was Mirandized.  Folks, in Gibbs' reply here, is why we need to fear the leadership of Barack Obama.
• Was the president informed before or after?  Stuttering from Gibbs.  "That decision was made by the Justice Department and the FBI by experienced interrogators.  And make no mistake, valuable intelligence was gotten."  Uh huh.  So, the administration has decided to throw DoJ under the bus, and most likely, to spare Obama's AG (Eric Holder), you'll see the FBI blamed for this one.  Gibbs decides to stick with the "valuable intelligence was gotten" meme.  (Aside:  If you want to learn why this is such a dangerous position, please get a copy of the January 25th National Review, and read Andrew McCarthy's story, "Enemies, not Defendants."  It's a primer on why we need to NOT treat this like a law enforcement activity).
• Wallace, incredulous: "You really don't think if you'd interrogated him longer, you'd have gotten more information?"  Gibbs, again tosses the FBI under the bus, "FBI interrogators believe they got valuable intelligence and were able to get all that they could out of him."  Again, get a copy of that McCarthy piece listed above (email me if you can't get it).

Just wow.  Wow.

Jack Cafferty is going to follow Lou Dobbs out of CNN if he keeps this up

What is wrong with CNN's Jack Cafferty?

I used to hate to watch his commentary, so opposed to Bush and conservatism he seemed, but, maybe he's just in a bad mood all the time, because, he is really pushing his luck over there at CNN with these recent commentaries:

• Today, he slammed the Pentagon's politically correct report on the Ft. Hood shooting:
  "It’s a joke. No mention in the report of the suspect’s views of Islam- none- in fact, the 86-page report doesn’t even once mention Major Nidal Hasan by name. "
• Just a couple of days ago, he hit Obama for breaking his promise of transparency in health care negotiations.  Like Joe Wilson, Cafferty has concluded Obama is a liar.
• A week ago, he called Nancy Pelosi a "horrible woman."
• The same day, on CNN.com, he questioned Global Warming orthodoxy!
• Back in December, he was one of the few outside Fox to call attention to Climate Gate.

What's wrong with this guy?

Krauthammer Riffs on Mass Results

Charles Krauthammer's Friday WaPo column is up, and, as usual, it is must reading (except for Liberals, please ignore any and all analysis he provides you people).

So, according to Krauthammer:

• After Coakley's defeat, Obama pretended that the real cause was a generalized anger and frustration "not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."
  Let's get this straight: The antipathy to George W. Bush is so enduring and powerful that . . . it just elected a Republican senator in Massachusetts? Why, the man is omnipotent.
• The reason both wings of American liberalism -- congressional and mainstream media -- were so surprised at the force of anti-Democratic sentiment is that they'd spent Obama's first year either ignoring or disdaining the clear early signs of resistance: the tea-party movement of the spring and the town-hall meetings of the summer. With characteristic condescension, they contemptuously dismissed the protests as the mere excrescences of a redneck, retrograde, probably racist rabble.
• Independents, who in 2008 had elected Obama, swung massively against the Democrats: dropping 16 points in Virginia, 21 in New Jersey. On Tuesday, it was even worse: Independents, who had gone 2-to-1 Republican in Virginia and New Jersey, now went 3-to-1 Republican in hyper-blue Massachusetts. Nor was this an expression of the more agitated elements who vote in obscure low-turnout elections. The turnout on Tuesday was the highest for any nonpresidential Massachusetts election in 20 years.
• "If you lose Massachusetts and that's not a wake-up call," said moderate -- and sentient -- Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, "there's no hope of waking up."
  
  I say: Let them sleep.

I agree.

Teddy Kennedy's Seat in GOP Hands.

Beginning to look a lot like Scott Brown will take "Ted Kennedy's" seat in the Senate. (As I wrote this, the AP called it for him).

The Demorat recriminations have already begun.  The Choakley camp blames the national Democrats. The national Democrats blame Choakley.

Obama is "frustrated."  Obamacare may be dead.  Keith Olbermann is standing there beside himself.  Rachel Maddow may commit suicide on camera.  Chris Matthews has to keep his Blackberry in his pocket to get a tingle up his leg.

Commentary's Jennifer Rubin reports :

"CNN’s [John King] says Democrats were shocked by the 'rage' that has now turned against them. Did they not see the tea party protests? Ah, no. They were busy mocking. Did they not watch the two gubernatorial races in 2009? Nope. They were spinning. That’s why they’re shocked now."

I have to ask myself, just how clueless are these people, let's review what has happened since Obama's election:

1. Saxby Chambliss held the GA senate seat in a run-off.
2. Al Franken had to steal the MN senate seat
3. Arlen Specter switched to the party he belonged to, perhaps assuring the GOP of grabbing this seat in 2010
4. Joseph Cao won a special election in LA
5. Chris Christie took the state house in NJ
6. The Dems lost the VA state house to Bob McDonnell
7. A narrow victory in a special election in NY-23 because of GOP stupidity
8. AL rep.Parker Griffith switched to the GOP
9. Scott Brown won the "Teddy Kennedy Memorial Senate Seat"

So, the Dems have managed to steal a seat, get a horrid RINO to switch parties, and, in actual elections, are 1 and 5, and the one was due to GOP ineptitude.  Not to mention, in local elections (NY, PA especially), the GOP has been defeating Dems in traditional strongholds.

When will the Left realize that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have far overreached and are turning Obama into a one year president, much less a one-term prez?

Keith Olbermann: What Passes for Rational Thought on the Left

The reaction of the Left to the potential loss of a Massachusetts Senate seat ("Ted Kennedy's" seat) to the GOP, and a repudiation of the Obama agenda, is fun to watch.

On Hardball, Chris Matthews was losing his tingly feeling tonight as he and his panel of "experts" were lamenting what the Dems are going to do to keep their agenda going when they only have 59 seats.  At least Matthews was engaged in honest debate.

Tonight, Keith Olbermann (who is watched by more on the right to see what nutty thing he is going to say next, than anyone else), did what Keith Olbermann does.  Since he can't actually defend the Left's candidate, nor the Left's agenda, he stoops to childish name-calling about Republican candidate, Scott Brown, to wit:

“In short in Scott Brown we have an irresponsible homophobic racist reactionary ex-nude-model tea-bagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees. In any other time in our history this man would have been laughed off the stage as an unqualified and disaster in the making by the most conservative of conservatives. Instead the commonwealth of Massachusetts is close to sending this bad joke to the Senate of the United States.”

Normally, I would embed the youtube video here, but, I detest this POS (Olbermann) so much, you can just link to The Right Scoop and read their comments and watch the most unqualified and most disgusting, worst person in the world there.

To any of my readers on the Left - if you have any dignity at all, you will pray for the salvation of this sad little man.

I pray that Scott Brown wins tomorrow, so that the rest of the Olbermann's of the world will have to accept the fact that some of us are sick of a government that accepts no limits, that condescends to the American people, and that cares not one iota for the economic system that made this country the greatest in the world.

BTW, Keith, on what planet is Heather having two mommies "normal?"

Idiots the lot of them.

Here's hoping the pollsters are right, and Coakley is toast.

Dick Morris: MASSACHUSETTS IS THE GAME CHANGER

Today on DickMorris.com , Dick writes:
 
Beyond a pleasing sight for the heart, what would Ted Kennedy's seat going Republican really mean?

A lot.

First, there would be the psychological effect.  On Democratic donors -- it would discourage them from opening their checkbooks.  On Republican donors -- the impact would be electric in kindling their interest and generosity.  On Democratic incumbents seeking re-election -- it would make the beaches and golf courses that await them in their Florida retirement homes (and the lucrative lobbying jobs in Washington) infinitely more attractive.  On Republicans considering running for the House and the Senate -- it will help them see the truth: That their time is at hand!  (It might even help our esteemed Party Chairman Michael Steele, realize that we can capture both houses this year!)

But in the Senate itself, it would really signal the end of Obama's legislative dominance.  He'll probably be able to pass health care either by Democratic dithering in certifying Brown's election or by ramming through the bill while he's en route to Washington on the shuttle.

But, beyond that, the prospects of getting 60 votes on the remaining items in Obama's legislative agenda:  cap and trade, union card check, and immigration reform would slip away with the Massachusetts result.

He cannot govern through reconciliation (passing bills with 51 votes by pretending they are just budget bills).  If it were that easy, why would Harry Reid have worked so hard - and so successfully - to bribe Senators Landrieu (D-La), Lincoln (D-Ark) and Nelson (D-Neb)?  Why would he have caved in to the demands of Connecticut's Joseph Lieberman and discarded the public option much to the chagrin of his House colleagues?

A victory for Scott Brown would represent the Gettysburg of the Obama Administration - its high water mark, its tipping point.

But even more corrosive for Obama and the Democrats is the knowledge that nobody is safe from Republican assault.  If the GOP can win a Senate seat in the People's Republic of Massachusetts, it can win anywhere, anytime, against anyone.  Long term Democratic incumbents from largely Republican districts would have to rethink their loyalty to Reid and Pelosi.  Particularly in the House, it will be ever more difficult to round up majorities for Administration bills.  Politicians will start running for cover and hiding in the cloakrooms.

Democrats will try to spin their defeat by blaming their candidate, Martha Coakley, for not campaigning hard enough.  They will say that they lost because their base did not turn out and that the solution is to pass ever more radical legislation in the hopes of rekindling their fervor.  But losing Massachusetts, on top of Virginia and New Jersey, will convince even the most loyal Democrat that the handwriting is, indeed, on the wall.

For all of these reasons, please make an effort today to telephone or e-mail any friends, family or colleagues you know in Massachusetts to urge them to come out and vote for Scott Brown.  There is so very much at stake!

As for me, I rarely give money to candidates, but I sooooooooooooooooooo want to see Ted Kennedy's seat go to the GOP and drive a heart through the hopey-changey crowd, that even I ponied up some cash for Scott Brown.

You still can, and if you live in Massachusetts, please go vote for Brown.

Audio: Ed Schultz advocates cheating to defeat Scott Brown

This is what the left is willing to do to win. We always knew this, thanks to Ed Schultz for his honesty.

Audio: Ed Schultz advocates cheating to defeat Scott Brown:

Via Radio Equalizer…

Schultz: "I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I’d try to vote 10 times. I don’t know if they’d let me or not, but I’d try to. Yeah, that’s right. I’d cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. ‘Cause that’s exactly what they are."

Hume suggests Tiger find God! Leftist world stops turning.

Kathryn Jean Lopez (of National Review Online) writes about Brit Hume's entreaty to Tiger Woods to "...turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world."  Granted, Hume was saying that the Buddhism that Woods claims to sometimes practice may not offer him the same kind of forgiveness that is offered through Jesus Christ.  I don't know anything about Buddhism, so, I can't speak to the truth of this statement, but, I know that Hume's promise re:Christianity is 100% true.

This has the secular Left apoplectic. Left-wing automaton Keith Olbermann warns, "the worst examples of that are jihadists, not to mention, you know, guys who don’t know their own religions or somebody else’s religion, like Brit Hume.”

Methinks Hume well understands his own religion, Keith (I already stipulated that perhaps Hume doesn't know Buddhism, I know I do not).  What he does understand is that God's forgiveness is unconditional, given as Grace through Christ, is available to all, only for the asking, and that it frequently provides Peace to the broken, and, that it works for him. It doesn't make us perfect, it only makes us forgiven our imperfections.

You would think a former sportscaster might be accustomed to high profile individuals expressing their religious faith openly, seeing as how so many athletes openly show their thanks to God after a great play.  You would think, if Olbermann had a whit of compassion, he might hope for whatever it takes to repair a man like Tiger Woods.  If that's Christianity, so what?  Hume's advice is just that, advice.  That it is offered by a political commentator is new, and, apparently news.

I realize guys like Olbermann are violently opposed to the marriage of church and state, but, this is not that.  There's no prohibition against journalism and Church, it just doesn't often happen.  That Hume had enough compassion for Woods to suggest that a turn to Christ might offer something he's missing is refreshing.

If you don't like it, well, so be it.  Christians have been persecuted for 2000+ years, you'd just be joining a crowded room.

Pedal Powered Submarine? Ummm, yeah...

The Russians, unable to defeat our nuclear powered submarine technology, have turned to pedal power.

Story here...

Kuydlow predicts decent growth in 2010

While Americans, in general, are not bullish on the economy, at least one esteemed supply-side economist, Larry Kudlow, is, sort of.

Kudlow sees unemployment easing in 2010 and growth of 4-5%.  As he states, not as good as coming out of the 79-82 recession, but, given all the pressures on the economy, and the massive deficits being rung up, not awful, and certainly not a double dip recession.

Part of Kudlow's optimism rests on fiscal conservatism ushering in a markedly different Congress in 2010.  I hope he's right.  Also, he expects the coming (in 2011) significant tax increases on the top 5% of wage earners to cause changes in their spending in 2010 (on this he is certainly correct), thus driving up some 2010 numbers artificially.

Conservatives and the GOP would be foolish to bet their fortunes on the failure of the US economy.  As I have posted before and elsewhere, the economy is larger than what the President, Congress and even the Federal Reserve, can do alone.  The American People are still the drivers of this economy, and, despite all attempts by the Obamacons, we still drive this ship.

For a completely pessimistic view, check out Vox Populi, who sees plenty of bad news, largely due to the expanding federal debt and deficit.

Full Body Scanners - Available Today, but not from this administration...

Full body scanners are the supposed answer to finding the kinds of explosives hidden by the Christmas Day crotch bomber.

While I think a little profiling is in order, Reuters reports that the use of full body scanners could begin tomorrow, if only the White House would give in to the ACLU and allow it.

I'm not buying this ACLU garbage, "If a celebrity goes through a scanner that kind of image could end up on the Internet," said Jay Stanley, an ACLU privacy expert.

Well, Jay, sure it could.  But, wouldn't that be illegal?  I mean, if we can't trust the (mostly) government employees of the TSA, who CAN we trust??  Maybe Jay is looking ahead to the day when the TSA is unionized (as Obama wants) and it will be next to impossible to fire anyone who leaks say, Brad Pitt's full body scan to Playgirl.

Economist poll: Obama ends year at all-time low 45-47%

Ouch!

Economist poll: Obama ends year at all-time low 45-47%: "

The Economist: This week’s Economist/YouGov poll

"Barack Obama’s approval rating at the end of 2009 marks an all-time low for him in the Economist/YouGov poll, and it is the first time more Americans disapprove than approve of the way he is handling his job. Mr Obama began his term with a 61% approval rating, while only 17% of Americans disapproved. As 2009 ends, only 45% approve of the way Mr Obama is handling his job, while 47% now disapprove."

ABC (not the network) gives his take on Bam/Cheney fight...Bam loses.

Clifton (Another Black Conservative) has it right in his analysis of the current dust-up between Dick Cheney (aka, "The Dark Lord," "Darth Cheney," "Satan") and the Bam admin.

Cutting to the chase:

"Dan Pfeiffer makes mention of the various things Obama said as proof of Obama’s understanding we are at war. However, it was Obama’s actions that Cheney had questioned."

Read the entire post.  You'll be rewarded.

Tiger dumped by AT&T

So, AT&T is the latest sponsor to drop Tiger Woods, joining Accenture. Buick dropped Tiger a year ago in the midst of the GM bankruptcy.

With respect to Tiger, my personal feeling is that I like to watch Tiger play golf.  I only watch golf when Tiger is playing.  The truth is, Tiger doesn't play enough.

While I find the fall from grace precipitated by the Tiger Libido interesting as tabloid fare, I really don't care that much.  I am not a golfer, so, I am not buying the Tiger products anyway.  I certainly wouldn't have bought a Buick because of him, or consulted with Accenture, or even used an AT&T cell phone because of him.  AT&T can go sponsor Ernie Els or Vijay the Cheater or Phil Mickelson or some other oft-shown golfer to get the AT&T logo on TV.

I would personally like to see Tiger play more tournaments, and some of the lesser ones.  So, since he's going to be minus a ton of cash now, perhaps he'll deign to play in some of the more obscure events.

I like Lee Trevino's idea - make the pros play every tournament every three years, or pull their card.

But, that's just me.