I'm on Twitter! More Must Reads

    follow me on Twitter

    Thursday, January 28, 2010

    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.

    Wednesday, January 27, 2010

    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.

    Sunday, January 24, 2010

    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.

    Thursday, January 21, 2010

    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.

    Tuesday, January 19, 2010

    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?

    Monday, January 18, 2010

    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.

    Saturday, January 16, 2010

    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."

    Friday, January 15, 2010

    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.

    Sunday, January 3, 2010

    Pedal Powered Submarine? Ummm, yeah...

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

    Story here...

    Friday, January 1, 2010

    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.

    Wednesday, December 30, 2009

    The Problem with PresBO's Bomber Response

    Rob provides some perspective on Obama's timing on his public statement to W's on the Shoe Bomber. He has a point on the timing of publicly addressing it. (original Politico article).

    I have some further comments of my own (my own, not lifted directly from a sheep herding right-wing web site):

    I don't find the 72 hours a real problem. People who think the President ever stops working are idiots. I realize the "Bush took more vacations than anyone else, ever" meme is very popular with the Olbermann crowd, but, let's concede that the apparatus of government follows the President everywhere.

    I can't speak for Representatives Hoekstra and Pete "I love the cameras as much as Chuck Schumer" King, but, I don't see anything wrong with a press release stating that the President is being briefed regularly, etc., then sometime later the POTUS giving a short statement, as Obama did here.

    My problems with Obama's response to this are: 
    1. He was briefed at noon Hawaii time. That was 3 hours after the incident occurred. Why so long?
    2. The words themselves, and
    3. A little thing I didn't think about - the lack of a tie.  
    On the actual words, I found his "alleged" language and all the law enforcement crap to be emblematic of this administration and their approach to the GWOT. I wonder how long it will be until the DoJ files an Amicus brief with the bomber over the loss of his gonads due to the quick actions of that Dutch passenger? This administration treats these acts as law enforcement matters. Period. They are acts of War. This guy should have been taken into custody by the military, shipped to the closest military hospital, treated, and then interrogated, as he was being detained as an illegal combatant, destines for..........Gitmo. But, I digress.

    The lack of a tie was a conscious decision on someone's part. I guess the impression was meant to be sent that Obama was rushing away from his vacation to make this statement and we were supposed to be impressed by this (and by his quick return to the golf course). I didn't really pay it much attention at the time, but, I like my presidents to have ties on when addressing the nation, unless they are literally doing it from the golf course.  

    Would Ronald Reagan have addressed the nation without a tie? No.  

    In general on the terror war, Obama has a credibility gap, and appearing blase' or disinterested, does nothing to help that.

    Trotting his incompetent DHS Secretary (Janet Incompetano) out to say, in Animal House fashion, "All is well!" further lampoons this administration.

    You can opine about the good old Bush days all you want, but, guess what, you bought it, you own it now.

    What? Me Veto? Obama breaks yet another promise...

    Back in August, the Commander-in-chief told the VFW:

    "If a project doesn't support our troops, we will not fund it. If a system doesn't perform, we will terminate it. And if Congress sends me a defense bill loaded with that kind of pork, I will veto it."

    This week, the Earmarker-in-Chief decided to blow that popsicle stand and broke his promise as he signed into law the 2010 Defense Appropriations Bill .  The price tag: $636 billion of appropriations and $4.2 billion of pork.

    Worthwhile projects in the defense appropriation?
    • $5 million for a visitors center in San Francisco
    • $23 million for indigent health care in Hawaii
    • $18 million for the Edward Kennedy Policy Institute in Massachusetts
    • $1.6 million to computerize hospital records in Oakland
    • $47 million for anti-drug training centers around the country
    • $20 million for the World War II Museum in Louisiana
    • $3.9 million grant to develop an energy-efficient solar film for buildings
    • $800,000 for minority prostate cancer research
    • $3.6 million for marijuana eradication in Kentucky
    • $2.4 million for handicap access and a sprinkler system at a community club in New York
    While Mary "Name Your Price" Landrieu and John "Effing" Kerry boasted of their earmarks, Congress cut $300 million from a successful counterinsurgency program used by Army field commanders.

    Among actual military appropriations that the services did not ask for:
    • 2 destroyers the Navy doesn't want
    • 10 C-17's the Air Force doesn't need
    • Development of a new jet engine that no one cares about
    This is what "change" is all about.  Seems the usual business is what we're getting.

    Monday, December 28, 2009

    Krauthammer Rips Obama’s “Flaccid, Meaningless” Words On Iranian Freedom Protests (Video)

    From Gateway Pundit:
    Krauthammer Rips Obama’s “Flaccid, Meaningless” Words On Iranian Freedom Protests (Video):

    "This is a moment in history and he’s missing it.”

    On Special Report tonight Charles Krauthammer ripped President Obama for his “flaccid, meaningless” words on the Iranian freedom protests.

    Krauthammer: “The regime is weakening. This is a hinge in history. Everything in the region with change if the regime is changed. Obama ought to be strong out there in saying it’s an illigitimate government; we stand shoulder to shoulder with the people in the street. When he talks about diplomacy he should be urging our Western allies to that have relations to cut them off. He ought to be going into the UN every forum denouncing it. This is a moment in history and he’s missing it.“

    Another Black Conservative Bashes Moron Janet Napaolitano

    This guy is quickly turning into one of my favorite bloggers. From Another Black Conservative, Napolitano: “The system worked”. WTF?: "


    "For Napolitano stopping terrorism isn’t at Homeland Security issue, it is more a matter for criminal justice. Well, if that is the case what the hell do we need Homeland Security for? The FBI, CIA, local police and fire can do the job without her.


    "Early in this blog I labeled Napolitano a clown. Michelle Malkin and Pundit and Pundette appears to agree with me. Jonas Goldberg at the National Review is suggesting Napolitano be fired and I could not agree more."


    Thursday, December 24, 2009

    Merry Christmas!

    To both my readers (you know who you are!), I want to say Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

    I know 2009 has been a tough year for many, but, remember, we're Americans.

    Thanks for reading!

    Jay

    Wednesday, December 23, 2009

    Economy Re-Tanking. Thanks Dems.

    Back on December 20th, a fellow sub-blogger posted about how the "recovery" is just around the corner and how the Right would ignore it.

    Among his proof, he cited:
    • Foreclosure filings falling 8% in Novermber
    • Slowing unemployment increases
    • GDP improvement
    • Narrowing Trade deficit
    • Stock market rising
    Just this week, we have these new numbers:
    • November new home sales sank an "unexpected" 11%.  Seems these days there's a lot of "unexpected" bad news in the Obamedia.  Existing homes sales were up, though. 
    • Even those foreclosure numbers were qualified.  Much credit was given to government programs that will eventually run out.  Still, not foreclosing is a good thing.
    • That "GDP" improvement was revised downward from the original 2.8% to 2.2%, with 1.45% of that attributable to Cash for Clunkers.  So, without the artificial CARS program, growth was 0.75%.  It's growth, but it's rotten growth..
    • Since that December 10th post, the latest jobs figure showed new jobless claims still growing faster than expected.
    • Not sure where Rob gets his trade deficit numbers.  In Q3, the US trade deficit rose by $16.2B.  Almost a 20% increase.That's actually taken as a good sign - that more Americans are buying foreign products.  It can also reflect fluctuations in the value of the dollar.  The dollar has generally been tanking for the last year. 
    • The stock market.  Hard to understand the market except in light of the fact that it precipitously crashed and is slowly getting back to its correct level.  I will also add that it was way overvalued at 14,000 and due a crash, so a recovery is not to be unexpected.  I would posit that there is relative safety in the established companies that are traded on the Dow and NASDAQ (to a lesser extent).  These companies will mostly benefit from the Fascist policies of the Obama administration, as opposed to small businesses, who will suffer and I think the market understands this.
    • Comsumer Sales - this is good news - consumer spending is up significantly.
    So, the economy is a mixed bag. The economy is also responsive to things other than fiscal policy.  So, it's not ALL about Obama, though he certainly has much influence, though barring absolute major policy initiatives (like health care and cofiscatory tax rates), there may not be that much he can do besides tinker.  it is a long held belief that the Fed via monetary policy, wields a much larger stick, and, of course, the participants in the economy asolutely determine its direction.

    Right now, we seem to be enjoying decent consumer spending, though not on the big ticket items (cars, homes) that are going to sustain any recovery.  Unemployment remains way too high with no real decreases in sight.  Deficits threaten to force the Fed to launch more money into the economy to increase the money supply and use inflation to pay off debt.  The massive regulation (at the least) or complete takeover (at the worst) of the 1/6 of the economy that is health care is not going to help, especially funded as it is by increased taxes and a reduction in doctor payments for Medicare patients (a reduction that will not happen, adding some $500B to the deficit over time.

    Cap and tax is, fortunately, most likely dead, so that won't drag the economy down.  But, the EPA's decision to treat CO2 like a pollutant may do the same thing.

    So, the administration is taking bold steps. Bold steps to throttle a fragile economy.  People have a right to be scared and apprehensive, and until the people see the light at the end of the tunnel and are willing to become entrepreneurs again, the turnaround won't happen, or, we're in for another lost decade, just like the Japanese are suffering through.

    The answer is something completely different.

    Sunday, December 20, 2009

    Vietnam and their deal with the Russians...

    The Vietnamese, concerned about China's growing navy and amidst tensions over the Spratley and Paracel archipelego, have agreed with the Russians  (I think this is the best link for info I have found, despite the "Kilo" class submarine misidentified in their photos) to buy 6 Kilo class subs and some aircraft.

    What does this mean for us?

    As we cultivate our relationship with the Indians, and affirm it with the Japanese, we need to also be looking at other regional powers to counter the Chinese.

    Hopefully, the Obama administration has some adults in the State and Defense departments who can see past the fact that China is bankrolling the American Left's Spending Spree, and we will act with something other than complete deference and kow-towing to the Chinese.

    We shall see.

    Economic Growth under O: Will be Anemic, Weak, and Lame...

    Last week, some actual decent economic news came out and fellow sub-blogger, and resident O-apologist, Rob, put a short post out on how the Right would never give the Big O credit for anything.  

    Well, I don't really think O deserves any credit, since his policies are all geared towards achieving no actual economic growth, and are designed only to encourage more statism, but, I will give the American people some credit. I think it's worthy of a cross posting:

    There is no doubt that eventually, the American, and World economies, will recover. And these items are all good signs. Of course, last week's announcement of a greater than expected additional 475,000 new jobs lost, doesn't point to much of a jobs recovery. Furthermore, experience and History are not on Obama's side. Expect a very weak recovery, and unemployment may slide slowly back to 8-9%. I doubt we'll see much better than that. With the passage of health care "reform", and the eventual promised elimination of the top end of the Bush Tax Cuts, and should cap-and-tax pass, we will have plenty of new tax and fee burdens on the American economy. The business cycle is controlled by much more than the president's fiscal policies. The Fed is doing all it can to pump money into the economy (which will ultimately lead to inflationary pressures), while the President seems intent on taking it out again. That could be a vicious inflationary cycle. What the country needs, is a little less government, and a little more entrepreneurship. But, this administration has decided to side with corporatists and the big players in the corporate world, and small businesses be damned. So, while Obama himself and Pelosi and Reid certainly lean socialist, the actual governing model they follow is that of Mussolini's Italy.

    Saturday, December 19, 2009

    Steyn, Hoaxenhagen. Read...

    It is not possible to read a Mark Steyn column without a couple of gems that you should use on your own.  Today, my favorite Canadian riffs on the results of the Hoaxenhagen conference, and you should read the whole thing.

    Teasers:

    • "The City of Copenhagen distributed cards to every hotel room showing a lady of the evening at a seedy street corner over the slogan 'BE SUSTAINABLE: Don’t Buy Sex.'  'Be sustainable'? Prostitution happens to be legal in Copenhagen, and the “sex workers” were understandably peeved at being lumped into the same category of planet-wreckers as Big Oil, car manufacturers, travel agents, and other notorious pariahs. So Big Sex decided they weren’t going to take it lying down"
    • "Even making allowances for the stupidity of youthful idealism, the protesters in the streets of Copenhagen seem especially obtuse. Far from sticking it to the Man, they’re cheerleading for the biggest Man of all: They’re supporting a new globalized feudalism in which Prince Charles, Prince Al, Prince Rajendra, and others 'very high up in climate change' jet around the world at public expense telling the rest of us we need to stay put."

    ESPN: No More Green Propoganda

    Joe the Plumber is against ESPN's "Green Games" and since he took the time to actually compose a post and give you something to do, I will pass it along in its entirety.  Let me note - I cancelled my subscription to Sports Illustrated when they ventured into the realm of "client science" and decided to basically take Al Gore down their throat.

    I probably can't live without ESPN, but, Rupert Murdoch, are you listening???

    Anyway, here's from "Our Country Deserves Better" and Joe the Plumber:


    Today ESPN broadcast the "Green Game" a college basketball game featuring two of the best men's college basketball teams:  Kansas and University of Michigan.
    Friends, the broadcast was shameful.  Throughout the entire game the announcers, ESPN crew and college officials were focused on trying to shove down the viewers throats the hoax of climate change, featuring propaganda footage and biased commentary from the sports announcers declaring the need for Americans to reduce carbon emissions or risk devastation to the environment.

    The broadcast took place the week that the Copenhagen Climate Summit is taking place - yet another propaganda-driven effort to impose socialistic government regulations and government-control on the economy (and on the actions of individuals) and using the hysteria of climate devastation as the means to advance their propaganda.

    We call on ESPN to issue an apology for neglecting their responsibilities as a sports broadcaster and instead entering the territory of advancing propaganda on supposed climate change and to never again broadcast a "Green Game" or any other similar propaganda.

    We need to speak out and have the voice of consumers who don't buy into this junk science to be heard.  We have obtained the email addresses of 3 of ESPN's highest ranking executives.  We need you to contact them ASAP and register your protest for their shameful climate-change propaganda:


    Vice president: rick.alessandri@espn.com
    Programming Senior VP: Len.Deluca@espn.com

    And next we need you to sign the petition protesting ESPN for engaging in climate change propaganda.  We also need you to send this link on to dozens of other friends to get them to sign and share it with others as well: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/shameonespn/

    Plugged in appliances draining energy...puhhhllleeeeze

    Forced to suffer through the end of the "Green Game" here on ESPN, I learned all about the need to keep my hair dryer unplugged to save a bunch of energy (please, a hair dryer?).  Who has these fancy hair dryers that are constantly draining power???  Seriously.

    For those of you who want to save a few bucks a year, feel free to go around disconnecting your VCR's, satellite receivers, cell phone chargers, whatever.  Better yet, switch all your outlets to make it easy for you.

    Want to really save some money, replace all your windows with modern double pane, gas-filled ones, and have some ridge vents installed on your roof.  If you want a really cheap way to save big bucks, buy a programmable thermostat for $25 and set it up to turn the heat down at night and when you're not at home.  Close your fireplace flue.

    Go around turning off appliances, if you want.  But, if you're doing that and $300/month of heat is going out your windows and roof, you're an idiot, and don't call yourself an environmentalist.  Call yourself cheap, because that's what you are.

    Anoither Victim of ClimateHoaxsters: Wikipedia

    Over on Heliogenic Climate Change, the authors reveal how the ClimateGate emails show that the fraudsters were also erasing the evidence of inconvenient truths about the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming Period on Wikipedia.

    There's a reason your kids teachers warn against using Wikipedia as a source - but, I bet most of these teachers would approve in this case.

    Full text of the post below:

    Wikipedia is controlled by RealClimate: "'How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles

    The Climategate Emails reveal something else, too: the enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the world — Wikipedia — in the wholesale rewriting of this history. ...

    One person in the nine-member Realclimate.org team — U.K. scientist and Green Party activist William Connolley — would take on particularly crucial duties.

    Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

    All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

    The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy. With the release of the Climategate Emails, the disappearing trick has been exposed. The glorious Medieval Warm Period will remain in the history books, perhaps with an asterisk to describe how a band of zealots once tried to make it disappear.' 'Wikipedia’s climate doctor' prior posts here"

    Jay to ESPN: Shut up and call the games

    So, I flip over to ESPN to watch the Michigan-Kansas basketball game, and I find we're being lectured about the environment and all we need to do to protect it (I suppose this has a tie-in to the conference over in Copenhoaxen).

    Apparently, this is ESPN's "green" game.  Other than the on-air moralizing (announcers arriving in hybrids, they probably turned the temperature in the stadium down to 68, etc), there doesn't appear to be much on ESPN's web site, other than to call this "The Green Game."

    My advice to ESPN - shut up and call the game.

    Because of this, I won't be watching some game I really don't care about anyway.  It's Antiques Roadshow for me, baby!

    Saturday, December 12, 2009

    Legacy Media deserves no viewers...or CBS News still sucks...

    Granted, Saturday is probably the day the least people watch any form of network news, but, after the Army/Navy game (won by Navy 17-3!!), I lingered on CBS News for a while, and in only 10 short minutes, CBS had shown two "stories" on issues where they decided to slant the coverage as far Left as possible.

    In the wake of the capture of 5 Muslim-American students seeking to join jihadists in Pakistan, the first, they lamented the fact that terrorism is becoming increasingly an "American" problem (i.e. Muslims in American are being radicalized).  While CBS mentioned the mosques in Virginia that these students and Fort Hood scumbag Islamofascist Nidal Hassan frequented, they then used the Council on Islamic/American Relations (CAIR) as their source for a bunch of hooey about increased attacks on Muslims in the States, and on increased discrimination against Muslims worldwide.  CBS News then went on to portray CAIR as some kind of moderate organization, mentioning in passing the accusations that it is a front group for Islamoterrorists, bent on the destruction of the United States from within.

    I guess as these news organizations sink to nothingness, they don't care if they take the rest of the country with  them when we're all practicing Sharia law.

    In the second story, CBS blatantly focused on the "protestors" at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, or, the Big Lie Show.  I thought they might focus on those protesting the use of faked data and intimidation tactics by scientists to support Anthropogenic (Man-caused) Global Warming (AGW), but, nooooooooooooooooooooo, they chose instead to waste air time on those protesting to get an agreement ("any agreement") on climate change.

    I guess if Bishop Desmund ("Don't Mess With My") Tutu is there, it must be a cause celebre amongst the network's Saturday news teams.

    With reports like these, on two issues where one means the death of Western Civilization through violent jihad, and the other means the death of Western Civilization through the slow bleeding of our economies, CBS comes down firmly on the side of the Leftists.

    Do you people need anything more to convince you that the Legacy Media cares not about this country????

    Disgusting.

    Fight.

    From Erick Erickson at Redstate (and lately on TV). This is critically important and you need to pass to your GOP senators, that we expect a fight. Republished in its entirety.

    Fight.: "

    “If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”— Winston Church

    The Founding Fathers created a Republic, but 60 Senators are poised to take it away. With the pending disaster of the passage in the Senate of a bill nationalizing one sixth of the U.S. economy and our entire healthcare system at a cost of over $2.5 trillion, we are faced with a crucial question: are the Republican senators using every means at their disposal to stop this looming, tyrannical abuse of power? Unfortunately, the answer appears to be “no.”

    The Senate, unlike the House of Representatives, has parliamentary rules and procedures that give the minority the ability to stall legislation. In fact, unlike the House, the minority have the ability to virtually paralyze the Senate. Doing so is not something we would want or expect for every bad bill that comes through Congress, but the proposed healthcare legislation is probably the worst piece of legislation ever considered by the United States Congress. It is the most intrusive, most damaging, most costly, most dangerous bill to the economic and personal freedom and liberty of individual Americans that Congress has ever considered. If there is any bill that deserves being stopped by shutting down the Senate, it is this one.

    There are a whole series of parliamentary maneuvers that could be used by Republican senators to stop this bill. There is a hard backstop to the current process (Christmas). The Republicans’ goal should be to prevent Reid from passing the bill before that time. If he goes past Christmas and is forced to adjourn or recess, the momentum will shift in favor of those opposing the bill.

    How could this be done?

    To start with, they should stop constantly agreeing to “unanimous consent” requests from the Democrats. Senate Republicans, to date, have allowed Democrats, by unanimous consent, to process 10 amendments. The amendments that have been accepted – Democrat amendments – did not make the over 2000-page atrocity any better. The Republican strategy of trying to pass their own “message” amendments carries no message unless you consider “no strategy to kill the bill” a message. There are no amendments that could possibly make this bill a palatable piece of legislation – and any amendments the Republicans get passed that supposedly make the bill “better” may just make it easier for the Democrats to get final passage. If the Republicans want the news media to cover what they are doing to educate the American people even further about the atrociousness of this bill, they have to create drama on the floor of the Senate. And the only way to do that is through an all-out fight with no holds barred. They need to look like Braveheart, fighting to the end to save freedom. Because, in fact, it is our very freedom and liberty that is at stake.

    The most powerful words in the Senate are “I object.” Senate Republicans should have been shouting those two words on the Senate floor early and often from the moment this bill was considered, instead of the complete silence we have heard – other than to constantly agree to conduct business through unanimous consent. Here are just a few ways those words can (and should) be used in a very effective way:

    The rules of the Senate require that a quorum be present to transact business. A quorum is 51 Senators. In most instances, outside of roll call votes, there are no more than 4 Senators on the Senate floor. If a Republican Senator suggested the absence of a quorum, Democrats could not transact business on the bill. It is a common courtesy to allow the quorum call to be dispensed with, without requiring 51 members to show up on the Senate floor (to get 51 Senators to appear without a roll call vote is very time consuming). When the Democrats ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with, the Republican should immediately shout “I object.”

    In 1988, when the Democrats were attempting to pass campaign finance reform, and Republicans refused to help them make a quorum, it took 53 hours for the quorum call to be dispensed with. If at any moment at least 50 Democrats are not on the floor, a Republican Senator could again suggest the absence of a quorum and start the process over again, causing huge delays in the legislative process being able to move forward.

    No amendment can automatically or without substantial delay receive a roll call vote without every member of the Senate agreeing. Again, the Senate generally operates on collegial courtesy, but a $2.5 trillion courtesy is too much. Once an amendment is pending, it only takes one Senator to step in front of this freight train. If a Senator objects to ending debate on the amendment or having the amendment set aside, the majority must file cloture on the amendment. First cloture has to ripen and it cannot ripen until the next day’s session of the Senate, so that kills a day of the majority’s time. Assuming 60 Senators vote in favor of ending debate, the Senate is then required to spend 30 hours of its session time before voting on final passage for the amendment. Suffice it to say, if the Republicans had continuously objected from the start, the ten amendments they allowed the majority to process would have taken more days than Harry Reid has on the Senate calendar.

    Senators have an obligation to protect the Constitution and the budget and points of order can be raised on both. Many constitutional scholars have pointed out that numerous bill provisions, particularly the individual mandate, are unconstitutional. Under the Senate’s rules, constitutional points of order are debatable. The Republicans should be constantly bringing up constitutional points of order, one after another, on every questionable provision. Reid would presumably be forced to file cloture on the points of order and another three days could be burned up on each one.

    The healthcare bill violates § 425(a)(2) of the Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of any legislation that contains an unfunded intergovernmental mandate in excess of $69 million per year. If the point of order is raised and sustained, a simple majority may vote to waive the point of order. But the waiver is debatable and thus would presumably require 60 votes to cloture the motion to waive. This would require them to produce 60 votes at a time when they do not have their deal wrapped up yet, once again burning up three days.

    On every vote, including on constantly raised points of order, the Republicans should be objecting that the vote total is incomplete – the Democratic Chair will rule that it is complete and the Republicans then appeal and once again force a vote, delaying the process again and again.

    The Republicans should be offering one amendment after another on all of their favorite issues such as guns, abortion, elimination of the death tax, ending the TARP program, and gay marriage in the District of Columbia. Nothing connotes trench warfare like non-germane amendments on hot-button social issues. When you look back at all of the great filibusters of past decades, they almost always involved non-germane, explosive amendments on contentious social and other issues. Republicans should be offering hundreds of such amendments on every topic and using the rules to force votes on every single one. And the Republicans should be forcing the reading of the bill and every single amendment, not consenting to waiving that requirement.

    Some might argue that Republicans should not look “obstructionist.” But they are wrong – the vast majority of Americans don’t like this bill and don’t want it to pass. The Tea Party movement was the upheaval of millions of ordinary Americans who are scared and angry about the out-of-control growth of the federal government, federal spending, and the national debt. They want to see the Republicans obstructing passage of this bill and if they think the Republicans are not fighting with every tool they have at their disposal, then any advantage that the Republicans think they will get in next year’s elections from such a bill being passed will evaporate. Conservatives will mount challenges to what they see as weak Republicans, just like what happened in New York’s special congressional race, helping Democrats eek out wins. And other conservative will stay home (like they did in 2008) rather than support GOP incumbents who did not fight.

    The view coming out of the Senate of the Republicans has the appearance of business-as-usual – colloquies, speeches, and unanimous consent agreements. It does not convey the sense of urgency that should come with an issue of this magnitude and it does not provide any assurance to the public, including most especially the conservative base that is the heart of the Republican Party, that Republican Senators are willing to do everything it takes to stop this bill. If they don’t starting acting forcefully quickly and immediately, not only will they allow the country’s future to be unalterably damaged, they will be hastening the end to their own careers in the elections coming down the road faster than they can imagine.

    Finally, I often hear that Senators express frustration when we dare to tell them how to fight, and that their frequent refrain is “we just don’t understand how the Senate works.” Actually some of us understand better than they do how it should work (whether they agree with every particular parliamentary tactic described), and the current frustration they feel with us will be nothing like what they may feel if they don’t stop this bill at all costs and act to preserve our Republic.


    “A Republic, if you can keep it.”


    — Benjamin Franklin

    "

    Wednesday, December 9, 2009

    Russian Bulava SLBM: Epic Fail

    The Russians just can't seem to get their latest SLBM, the Bulava missile, right.  Another failed launch today, as seen from Norway, it spirals out of control before being destroyed in the atmosphere.


    Sunday, December 6, 2009

    Bam's Afghan Adventure


    This week Obama walked into "enemy territory" (or, at least that's how "thrill up my leg" Chris Matthews described the United States Military Academy) and delivered a speech that was neither inspiring, decisive, nor terribly thoughtful.

    If you want insightful commentary on Bam's speech, read either Charles Krauthammer's take on it, or Mark Steyn's.

    If you want something a little more amatuerish and about as will thought out as the Obama administration policy on Afghanistan, keep reading me!

    Bam has decided to send 30,000 more US troops to Afghanistan.  At the same time, NATO allies have agreed to send an additional 7,000.  Together, this gets us pretty close to the 40,000 that Obama's hand-picked leader, General Stanley McChrystal, had asked for to carry out the counterinsurgency strategy that the administration had settled on in May 2009.

    The real problem, from my perspective, with O's speech, is the continued politicization of the war that was the candidate's "necessary war."  As Steyn points out in his column, Obama invokes Afghanistan as the central battleground of the War on Terror (well, he doesn't use those EXACT words) for the entire WORLD.

    Yet, he gives a timeline of 18 months to start a withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.

    Huh?

    This is the central front of the most important war of the world, and we are going to leave in 18 months because....well, because Obama's left-wing nutroots demand some timeline to end all wars, and this is what Obama has chosen to give them.  As Steyn points, out, "Hey, Taliban, just hold on for 19 months, and all is well!"  I agree, if I was an Afghan strongman, I'd be working my best deal with the Taliban, rather than supporting an American initiative against them, when I knew the Americans would be departing in 18 months, leaving me and the Taliban (still) behind.

    We will not successfully carry out a counterinsurgency operation without winning over the people who control security in every part of Afghanistan.  Just as in Iraq, the success of a COIN strategy rests with winning over the local population, and yes, the tribal (and often militia) leaders who control those parts of the country.  It is only with our backing, and the sure knowledge that we will be there to provide security for those same people against the Taliban, that we will win them over to our side.

    A timeline is the worst possible thing Obama could have done, yet he did it.  A sop to his political left-wing (as if there could be a wing left of Obama).  He further mixed domestic concerns into his speech.  He can't make a speech without tying it somehow to his aggressive domestic agenda.  At least now, we won't have to hear Democrats complaining how much the War costs and how it's bankrupting the country, since they're doing a fine job of that with their out of control money and power grabs.

    So, we on the right know that Obama has likely cynically given this promise to his Left.  He weaselly says the withdrawal will "begin" in 18 months.  Those on the right expect that in 18 months, he'll be reneging on that promise, should conditions require more troops, or the same strength.  In the winter of 2011, as the 2012 campaign is gearing up, does Obama want to be remembered as the President who lost Afghanistan?

    We don't think so.  But, what if Obama faces a primary challenge from his left in 2012?  A Kucinich (laughable) or perhaps a Feingold (more credible to me)?  In that case, he might feel compelled to make good in some substantive way on his promise.  And, that could lead to disaster in Afghanistan.

    I think, though, that it's more likely that Obama, in late 2011, will be facing a primary challenge from his right. As the economy continues to struggle (we're already in the midst of one of the weakest recession recoveries in recorded American history), I think the odds of a Hillary Clinton resignation and subsequent attempt to unseat Obama becomes more and more likely.  Especially if the GOP fails to bring forward a credible candidate, or, if the GOP candidate appears to be a far right conservative (Palin).  In this scenario, Hillary will see herself as not just the savior of the Democratic party, but of the country as well, and she may have a case.  If Bam's approval ratings continue to sink into Bush territory, even his uninidicted co-conspirators in the Legacy Media will leave him, and will relish the opportunity to be the ones to resurrect Hillary.

    Possible?  I make it up, you vet it.

    Sunday, November 29, 2009

    Ditherer No More… President Moves Swiftly to Investigate Party Crashers

    Via Gateway Pundit:

    Ditherer No More… President Moves Swiftly to Investigate Party Crashers: "

    President Obama jumps into action– Orders full review of party crashers who made him look stupid.

    Jules Crittenden has the scoop:


    Decisive presidential action as O leaps into action, orders a full review of how the reality TV crashers managed to take over his party, make him look silly… We haven’t seen this kind of into-the-breach rapid response since Obama accused Sgt. Crowley of “acting stupidly.” No, make that since Obama called for the Beer Summit after he accused Sgt. Crowley of “acting stupidly.” No pussyfooting around, he wants action. It’s impressive. Very decisive. Very presidential-like.* No messing around with, “I’ll review it when I feel like it. After I review the review. No wait, I want a full review of the review of the review.” I’d call this a pretty positive development.


    More here.

    Friday, November 27, 2009

    Michael Moriarty speaks out against Law & Order; for Beck, Palin, Red Eye

    Michael Moriarty, formerly on Law & Order, was interviewed by Alicia Colon for The Irish Examiner(You can read the full piece here.)

    Mr. Moriarty, who now lives in Canada, has a lot to say about how f'd up the US has become.

    Alicia Colon (AC): If you were still with L&O would you have objected to the season opener trashing the Bush administration over torture? What is your opinion on Gitmo?

    Michael Moriarty (MM): From your description of the L & O program which I DIDN’T see, it sounds typically classic NBC. A Variety magazine article years ago described NBC as the most obedient network to governmental demands. It is now embarrassingly sycophantic. I’m not a fan of either of the Bush Presidents … but this judicial assault upon Guantanamo in a time of war that is still going on is approaching treason. Leave the suspects in Gitmo until the Islamic extremists cease and desist. Welcoming them into our country is suicidal … but then so is the entire Progressive Program for a New World Order. …

    AC: Do you think that your pro-life position on abortion makes it more difficult to find work in Hollywood?
    MM: Obviously yes … so I’m completely retired.

    AC: What made you want to run for president last year? What made you drop out?
    MM: The same passionately common sense that drives Glenn Beck is what drove me to run for President. To inject a little OBVIOUS common sense into a profoundly corrupted, two-party system. If you knew how hard that is you would admire Beck's strength even more than you might now. The title of his new book, ARGUING WITH IDIOTS, is immensely exhausting, particularly for an old man like me.
    I dropped out of the 2008 election in order to recommend another candidate, Mr. Fred Thompson, also an alumnus of Law and Order. Sarah Palin was then barely a political reality. However, when she hooked up with McCain I supported the Republican ticket entirely because of her.

    AC: What is your assessment of the Obama administration?
    MM: Beyond a disaster!! In light of what Obama swore to at the inauguration - "to uphold the Constitution of the United States" - it's a grotesque charade, a lie, a black comedy of immensely ominous implications for individual freedom in the world. Obviously Obama will be obliged to claim that at the inauguration the Chief Justice was putting words in his mouth! He never had any real obligation to uphold the silly principles contained in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights!
    All the President's so-called plans and achievements are as forbidding as Chamberlain's concessions at Munich.
    But, as we "Drunks" say, "Let go, let God!"

    AC: What do you think of Glenn Beck? Have you seen RedEye? What do you think of the grassroots tea parties?
    MM: Glenn Beck? A Godsend to America!! The Tea Parties? Long overdue! Red Eye? Very New York! Very Manhattan “Chic”! Very welcome because of its point of view: looking down on those East Coast Progressives who look down on us!!

    Thursday, November 26, 2009

    Name Change for Sleepy-Eyed Whiners. YOU decide.

    I initially started this as a reply to an ongoing feud between myself and someone calling himself "el.sid" who disapproves and thinks Sleepy-eyed Whiners is a pejorative.
    The comments are scattered all over the place, but the latest is in this thread.

    El.sid, first, the correct link to the story for those who want to read it. At least we have established that you think some self-deprecating humor, in the form of this blog's name, is somehow disrespectful to the submarine force, or shows a lack of respect from the author (me) or others for the dangers that lurk for submariners. The genesis of this was a shipmate, who, in response to the CO's assertion that we were all "steely-eyed killers" correctly pointed out that we would more accurately be described as "sleepy-eyed whiners," since that is what most of the 19-24 year old crew was. Knowing something about sailors and soldiers and airmen (not so sure about Marines), my feeling is that most of us, especially in that age group, are more about the whining than the killing. I think that's more of an American trait. Look, we like to complain about things, but, when the chips are down, we will get the job done. See the beautiful dichotomy in that? I do. I think it's great. To help you out, check out this from the Onion News Network, as they try to bring the reality of war to a generation raised on Halo:

    Those of us who spend some time here in the sublogoshere do it out of our tremendous respect for the men we served with and seek to take the silent service out of the dark, silent world it was in for much of the Cold War (and earlier). You haven't spent much time on MY blog, or on those linked to the right, if you think ANY of these people (most of them retired, but a few still surreptitiously blogging on active duty) do this out of anything other than a love and respect for what they did, and for what good, intelligent, and dedicated men still do today.

    You, my friend, have way missed the boat on that. You know, for a brief moment, I thought I'd poll this community, and see if others feel as you do, and I'd change the name if the consensus was it was disrepectful. I might still do that, if enough active sub bloggers felt that way. But, my argument remains the same. Submariners tend to be a cynical and humorous group (you, excepted). Like any group of men living in close quarters for long periods of time, at great danger to themselves (for us, it is the ever present crushing sea depths, not to mention the possibility of an actual enemy attack) they look for outlets to relieve the stress of those dangers that lurk. Every guy I worked with knew that just outside a thin strip of HY80 stood sea pressures that would quickly kill. We joked about Steinke Hoods (I think those are all gone now, replaced by an ascent system that could actually work) and how those were developed so we could assure our families there was some way we could survive an accident. Every man on my boat (and every other sub I've had the pleasure to ride, visit, or talk to friends and colleagues about) knew and understood well the dangers we faced and the importance of each man doing his job in saving the ship. I served with a Chief who survived the Bonefish fire. His tale of horror is honestly something every submariner should have to hear over and over and over. Believe me, they would approach every fire drill in a different way hearing his words.

    We're not like the surface navy, where there are damage controlmen etc, etc. On a submarine, each man could find himself "in charge" in some space with flooding, fire, or whatever other casualty you can name. The point is, el.sid, that even in the most dangerous situations, where instant death lurks constantly, you can not expect people with an ounce of humanity, to constantly be on edge, waiting for the proverbial next shoe to drop. People need and crave outlets, and they use humor to ease their fears and other emotions.

    I had no doubt that, if the time came, the absolute whiniest guy on the boat (hey, maybe that was me) would jump instantly into action in the event of a casualty and do his duty, and there would not be one word of complaint. You see, that's the beauty of the silent service, and military life in general. The ability to look around you, to laugh at the crazy bureaucracy that surrounds, the silly rules, the (seemingly) constant drills, the people who are wound perhaps one turn too tight; and yet, still know, that in a time of crisis, every one of those guys, from the one who created the stupidest rule to the one who bitched loudest about it, would, when called, rise instantly, head to his station, and do whatever was necessary and use his training and skills, to save the ship, your life, and his own. I am sorry you're offended by the title. Maybe guys don't complain anymore. Maybe the Navy has become such a utopia that they feel no need. I can't believe guys at sea for long periods of time are all rah-rah all the time. I find that impossible to believe, in fact.

    I will extend my offer. If the joke goes too far, and if enough sub bloggers who I respect (and that would be nearly all of them), side with you and tell me so, I'll consider changing it.
    How's that for a compromise?

    Wednesday, November 25, 2009

    Places to be thankful for...

    As an amateur historian (meaning I like and study history), I thought I'd share a few places that I have been that I think every American should visit to truly understand this country, and the sacrifice of the men who made this country great on this Thanksgiving holiday.  I'll close with a few places I'd like to visit and then open it to anyone to share their places to visit ideas.

    1. Gettysburg - Every American should be required to visit the battlefield at Gettysburg.  Walk the fields.  See the views from Big and Little Round Top.  Walk up to that big tree where Pickett's Charge was turned back (especially moving for someone who's heritage was on the losing side) and ponder the fate of a nation was sealed that day.  Do as I did as a kid and memorize Lincoln's short Gettysburg Address and you will be forever moved.   I first went as a 12 year old kid.  I've been back twice since as an adult, and the place never fails to make me cry like a baby.
    2. Pearl Harbor - While this one is tougher to get to for everybody, it is a must see place.  If you're military, take the Navy's private tour (vice the Park Service's, h/t Blunoz).  At a time when the free world's fate hung in the balance, this vicious attack spurred our country into action.  Freedom was saved and events that wouldn't work themselves out for another 50 years (the Cold War) were set into motion.  The Arizona memorial, like Gettysburg, is another cry your eyes out site.  It's especially difficult these days knowing how many WW2 vets we're losing every day.  These guys are national treasures.
    3. Independence Hall - The place where our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution would be forged and signed is another must see for Americans to truly get a feel for the debates and discussions that framed our country.
    4. Washington DC monuments, Capital Building and the White House - If a visit, taken within a historical frame of mind, to our nation's capital, doesn't move you to patriotic thoughts, you're not an American.  Among the memorials you must put on your list (but may be tempted to miss) - the Iwo Jima memorial, Arlington Cemetary, the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial and close-by Korean War memorial.  Walk the halls of Congress and make an effort to visit what is your house after all.
    5. The Alamo - The first four are required, this one is interesting, and demonstrates what freedom loving men are capable of achieving against long odds.  The Alamo was a loss for the Texans, but, it provided time for Sam Houston to achieve victory and has given us legends (true and untrue) that persist to this day.  
    6. Civil War/Revolutionary War Battlefields - if you live on the East Coast, you can probably, wherever you are, get to one of these in an hour's drive.  Make it a point today to commit to a visit, learn the history and take your kids.  Pack a picnic lunch.  Talk about it.
    Places I need to visit:
    1. Ground Zero - I put this in the Pearl Harbor/Gettysburg vein.  It is above all others.  I haven't been to New York in years (obviously), but this is a trip I am remiss in making.  
    2. Normandy Beach and the Cemeteries at Normandy - another one in this class of must see's.  
    3. Iwo Jima - made more famous by recent books (The excellent Flags of our Fathers) and movies, it is a place I would like to see before I die.
    Any recommendations of yours are encouraged and requested.  And, if you've been to any of these, what were your thoughts and emotions?