What's in the Bill? Taxes go up on Over the counter meds

Obama promises that the more we learn about the bill, the more we will like it.

 

One of the things in the bill is the end of being able to pay for many over the counter (OTC) medicines using pre-tax dollars via a Health Savings Account (HSA) or Flex Spendign Account (FSA).

 

This amounts to a tax increase equivalent to your state and federal income tax brackets, so, anywhere from 10% to 40% (or more) for some people.

 

While I actually just learned about this in 2010 (unfortunately, or I would have added more money to my FSA over the last few years), it is too bad for those who need a lot of meds that were formerly prescription only (allergy meds and many others have gone OTC over the last few years).

 

This is a fine example of the kinds of behavior we don't want to encourage in "bending the cost curve" as we chase tax dollars.  For some people, faced with a large tax increase on an OTC med, they will choose instead to get a prescription for a likely more expensive drug, but one that gets some insurance coverage and that they can use their HSA/FSA to pay out of.  That doesn't bend the health care cost curve, but it brings some cash to the government.

 

As we learn more great stuff about this bill, I'll share.

Repeal, Replace with something that'll work and not cost zillions of $

As if you didn't know Obama's goal was a single payer, nationalized health care system, here was an exchaneg with a heckler today, as reported by AP:

Challenged by a young man in the audience who shouted several times, "What about the public option," a liberal-backed proposal for the creation of a government-sponsored plan to compete with private insurers, Obama said: "We couldn't get it through Congress."

"This legislation is not perfect, as you just heard," the president said. "But what this is, is a historic step to enshrine the principle that everybody gets health care coverage in this country, every single person."

So, a first "step" to the "perfect" legislation.

The real problem with Obamacare isn't just the bad policy items within it, but the over-regulation of the medical insurance industry and it's the creation of a new entitlement that will be difficult to repeal, and nearly impossible to reform.  The best chance to fix this is immediately, before it has sunk its tentacles into the middle class, and we get really rolling on that long march to permanent second rate nation status.

Mark Steyn on Toasters

If you don't read Mark Steyn (you can find his syndicated columns on the internet), you should.

 

In this week's National Review (print edition), Steyn pens a typically funny and despairing at the same time, picture of America, circa, 2020 or so… against the backdrop of the overregulation that has brought us, in California, the Bureau of Electronic and Appliance Repair, Home Furnishings, and Thermal Insulation.  And, yes, it's real.

 

As Steyn says, "By the time you've got a Bureau of Home Furnishings, you're getting awful near the limit."  I also like his lampooning the liberal rant to "stay out of our bedrooms" as they regulate the size, type, and cost of the bed you can perform those immoral and illegal acts on.

 

It's so real, that as part of Governor Arnold's cost cutting, they are closed 3 Friday's a month, saving Californian's millions of dollars in unenforced regulations and public servant salaries!  Just imagine what California could save if they were closed the other 20 or so days of the month.

 

Anyway, you probably can't read all of Steyn's gems, but I'll share a few:

 

·         Back in January, Steyn noted that "Europe's somewhat agreeable decline had been cushioned by America, and that the problem with American decline is that this time round there's no rising power volunteering to do the cushioning.  Because of the American security blanket, countries like Germany were able to transfer military spending to social programs.  Lacking that option for Obamacare, Democrats propose to 'control costs' by refusing to acknowledge them: Medicare reimbursement levels will be 'capped,' which means an ever greater number of doctors will cease to perform services for which they are not properly renumerated."

·         "The Age of Entitlement Insolvency will hit sooner, rather than later, and pimply burger flippers will rebel or flee rather than prop up entire Florida retirement communities.  Faced with a choice between unsustainable entitlements and an armed forces of global reach, the United States will, as Europe did, choose the former, and toss the savings into social spending.  That will make for a more vulnerable America that will wind up having to fight them over here, because we no longer can fight them over there."

·         "From the state-licensed, SEIU-staffed bake sale to Armageddon – in nothing flat."

·         "We have regulated our bed, and we will have to lie in it."

 

As always, pure genius.

 

March. Madness.

Well, it's NCAA tourney time, and although I failed to fill out a bracket, it's just as much fun watching games and seeing upsets.

Today Northern Iowa beat everyone's favorite, Kansas.  Let's hope tomorrow's health care vote has as much success as the Big O's NCAA bracket (it's not looking too good now).

The Big East has turned into the Big Easy, with Villanova, Georgetown, Marquette, and Notre Dame all going down.  Of course, with about the entire conference in the tourney, the Big East has plenty of chances remaining.  The ACC has been just ok, 3 of the 4 teams advanced to the second round, and Wake is stinking it up against the best team remaining (Kentucky) in the tournament.  My alma mater, Georgia Tech, played one their best games of the year to nudge Oklahoma State, and has to face Ohio State (the best 2 seed) next.  If OSU gets past Tech, it should be smooth sailing for them to the final four. Already a ten seed, St. Mary's (knocked off Villanova), and an 11 seed (Washington) have advanced to the sweet sixteen.  Cornell (12), Missouri (10) and GT (10) remain high seeds with a chance to advance.  I give Cornell the best chance, with Tech having an outside shot.  I think West Virginia will be too much for Mizzou.

So, a pretty good tournament so far.  Of these high seeds, I give St. Mary's the best chance to make it to the final four.  They have to get past Baylor, and then the top half of that bracket, while intact, is the weakest of the four, with Duke an (undeserving?) one seed.

Enjoy the games!

Mr. Obama - A Poem

My 17 year old son's a budding musician who wants to be featured on this blog.  He had to write a poem for school, so he settled on political commentary.

To wit:

Oh, Mr. Obama, I dislike you so
Your taxes and policies taking my dough
You closed down the jail that imprisoned my foes
Oh, Mister Obama, I dislike you so.

Hey Mister Obama, you're not very cool
I don't like your idea of big government rule
The people who voted for you must be fools
Hey, Mister Obama, you're not very cool.

This Mister Obama, we can't even bear
It's getting so bad, so far from repair
Let's pray they don't pass this stupid health care
This Mister Obama, we can't even bear...

Bam Pulling out all the bribes (oops, stops) to pass Obamacare

The time has come for Obama to get tough and get his signature piece of legislation passed.  Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts at the absolute 11th hour, and his pledge to be the 41st (and filibuster sustaining) vote against it helped get him elected even in far-left Massachusetts.

Yet, rather than read this in a Clinton-like manner, as an indictment against the scale of the growth of government (bailouts, buyouts, pork, stimulus) and the massive regulation of 1/6 of the economy, and tack to the center, Obama is displaying his true colors, which is to strike as the iron cools and get his signature piece of legislation, and democrats Holy Grail of a massive new middle-class entitlement, passed.

For years, Democrats have considered FDR their model of the successful Dem president, yet, it was WW2 that cemented FDR's greatness, as most of the New Deal was an abject failure by 1939.  Yet, they continued to press on with social policies that would continue to enslave us and march us down the path to European-style socialism (indeed, the model for most Leftists is Fascists Italy).  LBJ used the Great Society programs to create Medicare and Medicaid which has led to a government takeover of 50% of the health care industry.  Unlike FDR, who needed a war to save the country economically (and his place in history), LBJ needed social change to mask his own ineptness in fighting a war in Vietnam.

So, these two put into place most of the social programs that are threatening our financial stability today (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid), and Republican presidents and Republicans aided and abetted them.  So, we're not to blame if we decide that Medicare and Medicaid need more customers, and that the rest of the health care industry needs some over regulation from a government already incapable of managing any part of the economy.  We asked for it.

But, despite the fact that we deserve what we're going to get, we still don't really want it. And, despite the fact that we really don't want this POS legislation known as Obamacare, the Dems want to force feed it to us, for our own good.  Kind of like taking a bitter pill. Except, in this case, the patient knows it is going to be very hard to swallow, will probably lead to nausea down the road, and is going to resist with every fiber.

In these circumstances, how do you get it passed?

Well, if you're from Chicago, you used old fashioned arm twisting and outright graft.

Rep. Jim Matheson (a rare Utah Dem) voted no the first time.  So, Obama has given his brother a lifetime seat on a federal bench.  Wonder if Rep. Matheson will have the courage of his convictions, or loyalty to his brother and the man who hooked him up for life?

Another, Rep. Eric Massa, a D from NY and a Navy veteran, is being forced out of office for using "salty language" and allegedly sexually harassing a male staffer.  Maybe there's some truth to this, but, interesting the timing, replacing a "no" vote at the last minute.  In a Congress where Charlie Rangel holds on to power until basically the smoking gun evidence is in front of the Ethics Committee, some guy who calls a staffer a name is forced to resign.  What do you want to bet if Rangel had been a no vote, the Ethics Committee would have worked a hell of a lot faster.

Another "Yes" vote, Alan Mollohan (D, WV), just had a Justice Department investigation into his shady deals where he was earmarking to non-profits he was working real estate deals for, dismissed by Eric Holder's DoJ.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

So, the Dems have eliminated one vote against, perhaps switched one to Yes, and saved one.

Updated: Corrected Mollohan to WV.

Krugman Agrees with Senator Bunning

With a h/t to NRO.

Paul Krugman continues to contradict himself.

James Taranto writes:

Former Enron adviser Paul Krugman takes note in his New York Times column of what he calls 'the incredible gap that has opened up between the parties':

Today, Democrats and Republicans live in different universes, both intellectually and morally.
'What Democrats believe,' he says 'is what textbook economics says':
But that's not how Republicans see it. Here's what Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, had to say when defending Mr. Bunning's position (although not joining his blockade): unemployment relief 'doesn't create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work.'
Krugman scoffs: 'To me, that's a bizarre point of view--but then, I don't live in Mr. Kyl's universe.'
What does textbook economics have to say about this question? Here is a passage from a textbook called 'Macroeconomics':
Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. . . . In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker's incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of 'Eurosclerosis,' the persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European countries.
So it turns out that what Krugman calls Sen. Kyl's 'bizarre point of view' is, in fact, textbook economics. The authors of that textbook are Paul Krugman and Robin Wells. Miss Wells is also known as Mrs. Paul Krugman.

---

"

Random News Comments...Good economic news, Senator Bunning, belated comments on Health Care Summit

Economy Gaining Strength
How will Obama reconcile the reports today that the economy is showing some strength?

For weeks now, he has been telling us that passing health care reform is imperative if we are to fix this economy and return the nation to a strong financial footing and that it must occur now! Why a bill that doesn't take effect for 4 years needs to pass now! is beyond me, but, hey, the Oracle has spoken.

Anyway, today, I predict that Obama and his media sycophants will be trumpeting these reports and claiming that the stimulus has turned things around.  Despite the rise in unemployment that is going to occur, they'll say that consumer spending is going up, factory orders are up, and that increases in unemployment is only due to bad weather.  Encouraging signs in the economy are good news for all of us.  Housing remains a serious problem, as home sales continue to lag.

If that's so, then what's the case for the health care reform bill?


Senator Bunning Says "No"
Senator Jim Bunning said "no" this week to increasing the deficit by $10B to extend unemployment benefits yet again.  Despite many economists who say that extending these benefits tends to increase long-term unemployment, Democrats and Republicans continually extend these since it's politically popular.  In today's USA Today, Senator Bunning says

"If the Senate cannot find $10 billion to pay for a measure we all support, we will never pay for anything."

He's right, and he's also a fine example of why we need term limits.  If we had more senators who didn't always have to suffer a political price (Senator Bunning is retiring) for requiring common sense in passing legislation, we might have legislation that is passed less on its ability not to be demogogued and more on its actual usefulness.  And, we might also have a Congress who obeys its own rules.  So, despite the fact that Senator Bunning is a hypocrite on this particular issue (he has previously  of course voted for these kinds of things), he is still right, and he's at least amongst Republicans, figuring out the lessons of the tea-party movement.

Obama at the Health Care Summit
It's stale now, but, the only thing to comment on about Obama at the health care summit is Obama himself. It is now obvious that, as expected, the summit was a charade intended to give the impression that there was an attempt made at bipartisanship, and that was what the American people wanted, and that with this, the Democrats now have the political cover to ram the current bill through under reconciliation.  The reality is that ramming the bill through misreads Scott Brown's victory and makes me wonder what the administration is thinking.

Anyway, the Republicans had to play, and they did a decent job presenting their side and putting the lie to the argument that there are no other ideas.  Paul Ryan and Lamar! Alexander stood out and the GOP came out about as good as they could.

But, my opinion of Obama really sank (as if it could).

Having been associated with the Navy for 20+ years, spending most of the rest of my life in corporate America, and a Master's Degree in management, I have some thoughts on Obama's leadership/management of the summit.

First, I liked that Obama asserted that he was President, therefore, he got the microphone more.  Good point.

But, should Obama have even been seated at the table at all?  No.  I realize that the White House staged this, and wanted Obama there to give the air of bipartisanship, but I also think this was a mistake.  For me, the president should have kicked off the session, given his goals, stated unequivocally that he expected both sides to present their thoughts and opinions, and left it to someone else to chair the session.  He could have said he was going to spend the rest of the time listening, or left (to do this, he would have, politically, have set that as the expectation).  I think his staying was a mistake, because like all things Obama, this becomes all about him.  Even if he had said he was going to listen, he would still have dominated the time.  So, that would have been a dangerous strategy with the narcissist-in-chief.

Anyway, if Obama is shooting to be a highly-paid PWC consultant, I guess this was a decent performance.  He kept things moving, he kept the side that was paying him in control and let them dominate the discussion, he solidified his own bona-fides with his constituencies (which is what all consultants want to do), and he let the opposition speak just enough to let them feel decent about themselves and, more importantly, to let the paying customers feel good, and to let the consultant (Obama) feel great about the job he has done.  Now, just like a good consultant, the people paying for his services can ram through what they wanted to do anyway, and can say in their own good conscience that they listened to the other side, albeit at the 11th hour.

But, that's how these things work in the corporate world, too, in many situations.  That's not how they work in companies that seriously want to examine what they do and make changes, but, that's how they work in a lot where the management really doesn't care what anyone else thinks.

So, Obama has a future as a management consultant.

As a leader, not so much.

No more just guys on subs. It's official.

In case you missed it, the Navy plans to allow women to serve on submarines.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates notified Congress on Monday that the Navy intends to change its policy. Congress has 30 working days to object.

They'll first go on SSBN's, where they can more easily be accomodated, and, officers first, since you only need 3, I guess.

DVR Blogging Idol: 12 Girls Perform

Ok, this post will be a little delayed since I am starting the DVR blogging at 9:15ish.  With almost an hour of commercials, this is the way to watch.

I have no preconceived notions on the girls tonight, since Idol has done such a lousy job introducing them to us (contrary to what Kara says).  Pretty much same for the guys.

Katie draws the coveted anchor slot.  She's one of the odds-on favorites.

1. Paige Miles - It's Alright Now - Drawing the crap first slot.  Honestly, I think the song stinks, and she seems very nervous and off key to me.  And screaming. That's just me. Simon thinks she has the best voice.  Hated the song.  Kara thought the song was brilliant.  Randy didn't like the song.  Great job.  Ellen - adds little to this.  4 judges is one too many. Now 10 minutes of commercials.  
2. Ashley Rodriguez - Happy - The microphone is bugging me.  Doesn't sound like she's in sync with the music to me.  Forgettable song, forgettable performance.  Dreaded number 2 spot.  Kara - nice moments with a big song, and some not great moments.  Randy - it was Leona Lewis, not Ashley.  Ellen - same comments as Randy and Kara.  Simon - clumsy, thinks she's going backwards.  In trouble tonight.
3. Janell Wheeler - What About Love - After another 5 minutes of commercials.  When you have 24 minutes of songs, 24 minutes of comments, you got to fill the time somewhere in a two hour show.  The judges want to be rid of her I think.  She's off key (maybe I am tone deaf).  I think the song is too big for her, and she seems disconnected from the music.  Get ready for a reaming.  Randy - not good song choice, but he likes her voice.  Ellen likes it.  Ellen even caught the off-key notes.  Ellen is the new Paula, for sure, without the drugs.  Simon liked her voice at times.  Kara likes her and agrees the song was way too big.
4. Lily Scott - Fixin' a Hole - She's weird and this is a weird choice.  Let's be honest, she can't win this competition, she's going for the top 10 and to get some recognition, because she is not the kind of commercial artist that Idol produces.  Will she make it there?  Ellen likes her song choice, and her distinctive voice.  I agree with that.  Simon likes her best so far and isn't feeling the "star power."  Kara - "believable."  Thinks she'll be remembered.  Randy - she's an Indie artist.  "Great."
5. Katelyn Epperly - Oh Darlin' - Another Beatles song.  I think her voice is the best so far.  Potential winner.  Simon - likes her. "Quirky, interesting."  Kara - she knows what she's doing, and she liked the way she improved the song.  Doesn't like the makeover.  I agree - looks like a lounge lizard.  Randy like it.  But, he's a pervert.  But, he liked it and her vibe.  Ellen found it interesting.
6. Haeley Vaughn - I Wanna Hold Your Hand - Ok, I really find her upper lip horribly annoying. I hope the nose piercing ruins her voice. She's screaming, the arrangement is awful.  It's definitely not an improvement over the original.  Let's see what the judges have to say.  Kara - technically there were issues, and you have fun. (Hey, Sanjaya also had fun).  Randy - unpredictable.  There's something wrong at the high notes.  Ellen - you have so much presence on stage.  Simon - being honest, verging on terrible (as usual, Simon and I agree).  A complete and utter mess.
7. Lacey Brown - Landslide - Last year, Lacey lost out to Meghan Corkrey (awful!).  So, does she suck as much as Meghan?  Yes, but in a different way (hopefully we won't have to see the odd dancing).  I thought it was simply horrid.  Let's see what the judges say...Randy - terrible.  Ellen - "if you're back again next week."  Simon - "depressing, indulgent, boring."  Kara - felt forced.  
8. Michelle Delamor - Fallen - Dangerous choice.  I thought the first half was good, but fell off after that.  I find myself asking, "who is she?"  Ellen - fantastic, but seemed easy, safe.  Simon - not as good as the original. No "wow." Kara - moments it wasn't great.  Believability lacking.  Randy - tough song, pretty good job.  Take some risks.
9. Didi Benami - The Way I Am - Who?  What?  Huh?  Running out of time, are we? Simon - dreary, indulgent.  No spark.  Kara - Song good.  Thanks for the changes to the song.  Simon - no one will remember it.  Randy - no star factor.  Ellen - not the song for a first impression.
10. Siobhan Magnus - Wicked Game - Another "who"? And another nose ringer. Singing one of the all time great songs in 90 seconds. A song that tells a story and really can't be distilled to 90 seconds.  I kind of like her, and think she could do something.  I'd like her to do the 4 minute version.  Kara - quirky girl, a little nasal.  Likes the connection she makes.  Randy - tough song.  Liked the second verse. Ellen - forgot for a minute this was a singing competition.  Simon - not nearly as good as her Hollywood week song.  
11. Crystal Bowersox -Hand in my Pocket - Have I ever said how much I hate Alanis Morrisette?  I think she and Taylor Hicks may be the only Idols ever to play the harmonica on stage.  The judges will love her "authenticity."  Randy - one of my faves. He uses "honesty" vice authenticity.  'k?  Ellen - big fan.  Glad she's here, adds something fresh.  Simon - good, we like you, your story.  Truth is there are thousands of you doing this outside subway stations.  Kara - thinks you have greatness in you.  Don't be just a coffee house performer.
12. Katie Stevens - Feelin' Good - With the coveted final slot is Katie.  There's a reason she's going last tonight.  Potential winner.  Ellen - didn't like the conservative nature of the song.  Be current.  Old.  Simon - agrees with Ellen (Simon hates the old stuff).  Pageanty  Kara - at the end of the day, you have a natural gift.  Randy - you got a big voice with a great talent.

 Ok, before I leave this post, let's check out dialidol.com.  They have Katie Stevens way ahead.  However, I wonder if this year dialidol may not be that great at predictions.  The number of actual calls seems way down, and the busy percentages are way down as well.  Certainly that hurts the model.  They have Katelyn and Siobhan in last.  Hmmmmm.

Joesph Stack: Left Wing Whack Job Terrorist (or, why Rob is wrong, again)

I know it is a massive temptation for the Left to make Austin flyer Joseph Stack into a product of white man’s rage and the Tea Party movement. Rob attempts this today with his post, but, it’s just not a correct reading of the article he links, and is a complete misrepresentation of the totality of the lunacy of Joseph Stack. He may have hated the IRS because of what he perceived as a personal attack against him, but, his political views (such as they were) , trended Left, and this may better explain his daughter’s “hero” remark.
Recall that in Stack’s manifesto, he railed against the current medical system. Sounding a lot like Representative Alan Grayson, he wrote, “the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple…It’s clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don’t get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in.”

He certainly was no fan of GW Bush, “The recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies in their eight years certainly reinforced for all of us that this criticism rings equally true for all of the government,” and he closed with “The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.”

In fact, the truth is that his daughter left the states for Norway not because of high taxes, but because she lost her job while pregnant and Medicaid would not cover her (so she claims). In fact, she does pay higher taxes in Norway and she gets more from them, like this health benefit. Of course, as a NATO member, Norway is largely protected by the United States, so her taxes don’t fund too much defense, but that’s another story.

Calling her father a hero was wrong, and she later recanted and offered her condolences to the the victims. But, again, painting Joseph Stack as an angry, white, IRS-hating, teabagger, is also wrong, and misses what he truly was – an angry man with two failed marriages, a ton of debt, not too swift a businessman, a Left-leaning lunatic, and finally, a murderer.

Is Samantha Bell a hypocrite? Despite that charge losing all its punch coming from the Left’s overuse of it, I don’t think so. I think her actions are exactly what the Left would have their haters of capitalism do. Escaping from “capitalist greed” to a model Euro-Socialist state like Norway? Why, that’s just what the doctor ordered. If Samantha Bell’s father wasn’t a murderous psychopath, the Left would be using her in TV ads demonstrating all that is wrong with the American health care system, with words like “the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple…It’s clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don’t get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in.”

You tell me who’s messed up here?

CIA preventing former engineer from writing book on K-129 salvage

David Sharp, now 75 and one of the CIA engineers behind the Glomar Explorer's attempt to raise the Soviet submarine, K-129, has been trying to write a book about the mission.

The CIA has been denying him the ability to tell his story based on "security" concerns, although most of the details of this story have been revealed already.

You may have read and seen it in Blind Man's Bluff, but there have been several documentaries about this, as well.

Hopefully, Mr. Green will get to write his book, and tell us something new about this exercise.  Sounds like his angle is the engineering challenges this project faced.

Austin Flyer a Left-Wing Idiot Influenced by Common Leftist Memes

The Left has already begun their association of Austin murderer Joseph Stack with the Right and the Tea Party movement, cherry picking quotes from his manifesto/suicide note that describe his hatred of the IRS.

Another Black Conservative posts the entire screed here

First, and foremost, this guy was nuts.  He had one failed marriage, and, apparently, like a lot of software engineers, he seemed also to lack a whit of business sense, but, he was an equal opportunity lunatic.  Sometimes he sounded like the Unabomber:

• He hated the Catholic Church, in a section regarding tax laws that favored the Catholic Church, he "zeroed in on a section relating to the wonderful 'exemptions' that make institutions like the vulgar, corrupt Catholic Church so incredibly wealthy."  Later, "except that we weren’t steeling [sic] from our congregation or lying to the government about our massive profits in the name of God."  And, "The intent of this exercise and our efforts was to bring about a much-needed re-evaluation of the laws that allow the monsters of organized religion to make such a mockery of people who earn an honest living."
• He bought into the Left's line that the wealthy live under a different set of rules, "I learned that there are two 'interpretations' for every law; one for the very rich, and one for the rest of us."
• He lamented over the shabby treatment of the common man from the big corporations. Regarding a neighbor in his college years,  "Her husband had worked all his life in the steel mills of central Pennsylvania with promises from big business and the union that, for his 30 years of service, he would have a pension and medical care to look forward to in his retirement. Instead he was one of the thousands who got nothing because the incompetent mill management and corrupt union (not to mention the government) raided their pension funds and stole their retirement. All she had was social security to live on."
• Like many on the Left, he blames Bush, "The recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies in their eight years certainly reinforced for all of us that this criticism rings equally true for all of the government."
• Then he closes with these,
  
  "The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
  "The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed."

Much of the post is rambling and incoherent.  But, to claim this guy was an angry, white, teabagger, is false.

Submariners needed for VFW and the USS Triton

I haven't done a lot of submarine related posting for a while, so here are a couple of items for you to chew on.

First, from the Norwich (CT) Bulletin, comes this item about the Ledyard VFW pinning its hopes of increasing membership with younger members on submariners.  Specifically, submariners with Strategic Deterrent Patrol Pins.  Now, those of us who served on boomers can join the VFW, while our fast attack friends will have to sit on the outside.  Sorry guys.

And, the Associated Press notes that on this date in 1960, the nuclear-powered radar picket submarine USS Triton (SSN-586) departed New London, Conn. on the first-ever totally submerged circumnavigation by a vessel, a voyage which took nearly three months. Order Around the World Submerged and read Edward Beach's first hand account of this awesome feat by a unique submarine.

Hayworth v. McCain. Tea Party vs. Establishment. Palin vs. Palin.

I admit I like John McCain. I voted for McCain in the GA primary and for president.

He's a naval officer and a true American hero.  An honorable man who has been mostly conservative in his years in Washington.  He's been a tireless advocate against government waste and corruption in Washington.

But...he's been too willing to roll over and play nice with liberals, and his McCain-Feingold legislation was largely unconstitutional and simply an incumbent protection program.  It knee-capped freedom of speech, and should have been overturned long before specific provisions were ruled unconstitutional this year.

Furthermore, he fell into the Anthropogenic Global Warming lie, and, with Joe Lieberman, attempted to foist a cap and tax scheme on us to reduce greenhouse gases a few years ago. This was at the same time he was playing with Teddy Kennedy (and G.W. Bush) on immigration reform that would have led to a general amnesty.  Add to that his participation in the "gang of 14" and there's plenty to disagree with on McCain.

So, now we have J.D. Hayworth, who was defeated in 2006 for his House seat, mounting a primary challenge to McCain.  Hayworth is a High Point, NC native who attended NC State.  He was a sportscaster in Greenville SC, before moving to Phoenix to be a sports anchor there, before serving in the House from 94-06.  has been hosting a radio show since his defeat and is a favorite of the Tea Party movement. He's a rock-ribbed conservative and the kind of primary challenger we should seek out and support, if we're serious about removing some of the old timers in Washington.  As old timers go, McCain is one of the few who hasn't become a porkaholic, but I think his other transgressions make him a suitable target.  Plus, his age (73).  The Democrats are the party of old men and old ideas (Harry Reid, Jay Rockefeller, Ben Nelson, etc., ad nauseum).  The GOP needs an injection of new, young blood, who know how to articulate conservative positions.  Hayworth's lifetime ACU rating was 98, vs. McCain's 83.  There should be no doubt who the conservative is here.

Hayworth will be a provocateur, but, isn't that what we want from our Arizona senators?  He'll be pitted against another Tea Party movement darling, Sarah Palin, who has pledged to support McCain, for sentimental reasons.  For all you leftists and Palin haters, here's a chance to poke a finger in her eye and support my guy at the same time.

Drop a dime on Hayworth now.

John Brennan: Latest Obama Admin Idiot

John Brennan is apparently just another buffoon in the Obama administration.

According to Brennan, a 20% recidivism rate for returned terrorists is "pretty good."

Obama Imperial Presidency Getting Into Full Swing

As we dig out here in the South from Snow-a-palooza, I read this NYT article about Obama's plans to use Executive Power to push forward on much of his agenda.

Would the use of Executive Orders be anything new?  Of course not, as the NYT points out, Clinton and Bush used it fairly regularly.  And Obama vowed to overturn most of Bush's executive orders.

Obama was critical of Bush's "signing statements" (note: Link contains some disputed sections, Wikipedia being overrun by Leftists) when he signed bills into law (these allow the executive branch to state their Constitutional concerns, etc., and make statements about their enforcement intentions), yet has continued to use them himself.  Quite honestly, I think the use of signing statements should be a standard practice whenever the executive branch intends to enforce the law perhaps differently than Congress intended.  If I were Congress, I'd want to know what the executive was up to.

The best thing about Obama? Two days (3/10/09) after saying this, "There is no doubt that the practice of issuing such statements can be abused," he issued a signing statement on the omnibus budget bill and has issued numerous since.

Anyway, the other important thing to learn from this article is, despite having 59 Democrat senators and 240 odd House members, apparently, Mitch McConnell is now running the senate.

So, what's really at play here?

This administration is wedded to an agenda that is so opposed by the public at large, that they realize their chances of accomplishing anything through legislation is nil, and probably won't get enough Democrats to go along to get a majority .  Therefore, they will threaten the use of recess appointments to get nominees through the process, they will threaten signing statements to re-interpret laws passed by Congress, and they will use executive orders to regulate by fiat.

Brennan. Another incompetent who needs to resign. USA Today takes to task.

It is political.  The latest Obama admin dimwit to go on a Sunday show, Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security, John Brennan, needs to be fired.

I previously posted about Brennan's appearance this weekend.

USA Today weighs in:

"Ever since the botched Christmas Day plot to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner, the Obama administration's national security officials have struggled to assure the public that they know exactly what they're doing.


"So far, they're achieving the opposite."

This, they write in an op-ed headlined, "Our View: National Security Team Fails to Inspire Confidence" in which the administration (including Mr. Brennan) is taken to task for their handling of the underwear bomber.  It's pretty damning coming from the notoriously right-wing, nation's newspaper [that's called sarcasm]. 

In his "Opposing View" Brennan maintains, "Immediately after the failed Christmas Day attack, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was thoroughly [his words] interrogated and provided important information."  How thoroughly interrogated was he, since we learned last week that he was now providing more "useful" information?

Brennan doesn't want people "misrepresenting the facts to score political points" but, what facts are getting misrepresented? An extremely important fact is that the entire leadership team, Dennis Blair (National Intel Director), Leon Panetta (CIA Director), Janet Napolitano (DHS Sec'y), Bob Mueller (FBI Director), and the elected President, knew nothing of the decision to Mirandize the exploding crotch man until after the fact.  It's not political grandstanding, nor is it scoring political points, to recognize that the public has a right to know how the hell this all happened without their knowledge.   Mueller blames his own field agents.  Well, if this was the right decision, let's get these guys names.  The Left will lionize them (they can be their very own Ramos and Campean).  However, everyone else just sits around and has a "Duh! moment," as written by USA Today.

Brennan reminds us that in the Obama administration, "There is little difference between military and civilian custody, other than an interrogator with a uniform. The suspect gets access to a lawyer, and interrogation rules are nearly identical."  Maybe Mr.Brennan should have his own "Duh! moment" here, and realize that with this administration's throwing enhanced interrogation techniques to the wind, that statement is more damning and evidence of this administration's own naivete' than it is comforting. Mr. Brennan is tone deaf to the political lesson of Massachusetts, but, that's par for the course in this group of political neophytes, and I don't blame him for being clueless to the political winds.

Brennan continues, "Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda."  I'm not sure where he was during the Bush years, back when politically motivated criticism was "patriotic dissent," but USA Today reminds that on his weekend appearance, he "chafed at the criticism the intelligence community is getting. He said it was demoralizing and urged cheerleading instead."  They pointed out that "cheerleading doesn't get problems fixed, and it's undeniable that there are plenty to address."

Our political leaders, elected and appointed, have one most important Constitutional requirement, and that is the protection of the American people from enemies foreign and domestic.  In this case, the administration has failed miserably, saved only by the quick thinking of a (Dutch) passenger.  We could only say this is not a political issue if we all agreed on the politics of Mirandizing unlawful combatants and trying them in civilian courts.  We don't.  Therefore, it's political, and it requires a political change - either in heart of those currently in power, or in their work location.

No Smoking Gun on GOP briefings on Panty Bomber. Sorry Rob.

Rob, who keeps me apprised of what they're doing over at the HuffPo and Daily Kook web site, has a post up today about GOP congressmen being briefed about the Panty Bomber.

Responded over there, but my reply is cross-posted below:

Working Link to Politco article about this.

Weak.

Brennan never told the GOP members whether the suspect had been Mirandized (in fact, if we believe the timelines we're hearing, he was already Mirandized by this point).

Brennan assumes (you know what THAT means), "I explained to them that he was in FBI custody. That Mr. Abdulmatallab was in fact talking, that he was cooperating at that point. They knew that 'in FBI custody' means that there's a process then you follow as far as Mirandizing and presenting him in front of the magistrate."

I am not sure it's fair to assume they knew all THAT from 'in FBI custody.' That sounds like a huge dodge to me.

Regardless of what GOP congressmen knew and didn't know and when they knew it, the decision to Mirandize and treat this SOB like a shoplifter and not like the illegal combatant he is, was WRONG.

Rob, this is what is wrong with the left. You think you have some kind of "gotcha" moment here, but the America people know that the treatment the panty bomber got was wrong, is wrong, and will remain wrong, and the people in charge - the Obama administration - will be held to account for it.

Better start learning the lessons of Massachusetts or suffer a lot of them in November.

Cancer Lady: Insured and Cremated. Does the media or Obama vet what he says?

Yesterday, I posted about a St. Louis woman and Obama campaign worker, who recently died of breast cancer and was called out by President Obama because one of her last wishes was to be buried in her Obama t-shirt.

Turns out, the woman referred to in this post (and elsewhere on the Internets), Melanie Shouse, was a St. Louis business owner who, contrary to what Obama told us,( "She didn't have insurance"), actually had health insurance - a catastrophic policy with a $5000 deductible. Turns out she wasn't buried in her Obama t-shirt, but maybe she was cremated in it. JustOneMinute has more details and takes the MSM to task of their failure to provide ANY meaningful fact checking on this story.


Look, I understand that Ms. Shouse had a new business and, like many business owners, had maxed out all her available credit, but...why did she pay for a health insurance policy at all if she wasn't in some way prepared to do whatever it would take to cover the $5000 deductible? I mean, if she considered this her "hit by a bus" policy, even that would likely eat up $5000. I know people roll the dice on health insurance, but, when you're a middle-aged woman and you find a lump in your breast, get it checked out. Please.

And, if Democrats hadn't been blocking GOP efforts to extend Health Savings Accounts, perhaps Ms. Shouse could have contributed to an HSA for a couple of years, and had the money to pay her mammogram costs, or to cover any of her deductibles for just such a catastrophe.

So, I blame Democrats for this woman's death.

I blame Obama for lying about it.

It's settled science: Global Warming was a fraud

In light of the ClimateGate emails, the lies in the IPCC report (melting Himalayan glaciers, shoddy temperature data), and the record cold winter (Atlanta's is the coldest since 1983 and one of the 10 coldest since the 30's), can we now declare that the only thing that is settled is that AGW is a fraud?

Cancer? No insurance? Don't expect the Obama campaign to provide it...

I guess it doesn't matter to the universal health care crowd that this a woman who was "very active" in the Obama campaign had breast cancer and no health insurance, but, at least she will be buried in her Obama t-shirt.

From Moonbattery, Moonbat Burial Shroud:

"At a Democrat fundraiser in Washington DC, Zero informed his Cult that true devotion to the Leader extends beyond life, and into the grave.

'I got a letter - I got a note today from one of my staff -- they forwarded it to me -- from a woman in St. Louis who had been part of our campaign, very active, who had passed away from breast cancer. She didn't have insurance. She couldn't afford it, so she had put off having the kind of exams that she needed. And she had fought a tough battle for four years. All through the campaign she was fighting it, but finally she succumbed to it. And she insisted she's going to be buried in an Obama t-shirt.'"

Ripley riffs on Glenn Beck. Leftists prepare the assault on Ripley's Porch.

One of my faves in the sublogosphere is Letters from Ripley.

An Alabamian who has spent many years in Europe, he brings a great perspective.

Read his post today, Observations of TV.  He's really onto something here.  READ IT!

After you read his post, here are my thoughts (posted over there in the comments, too):

Ripley has gotten to the root of why the Left hates Glenn Beck so much. It's not Beck's over-the-top (but, oh-so accurate) characterizations of the Left and their Maximum Leader, it's the thought that people listening/watching him might feel challenged to actually consider and research the thoughts of the men who founded this nation.

THAT scares the Left more than anything - not that you or I would get our validation from Beck or Limbaugh, but that we should get it from Madison, Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Adams, et.al.

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.