Gravity

Gravity can't be denied, niether can the markets. Economies run on markets and the law of markets is supply and demand. Governments and government officials have since the dawn of history tried to manipulate the market, often by fiat and fraud, but it doesn't work. Elected and appointed officials in a democratic republic like ours are no different. They think they can spend into affluence.... They can, but only by taking what belongs to others and enriching themselves and their friends.

The 'Stimulus' will not work, its not even supposed to stimulate anything but the bank accounts of the left. Spending, debt, taxation and currency manipulation will merely lead to disaster. US bonds are in trouble because those who buy bonds are not stupid, and they will not put up with manipulation for long, nor will they regard unsound currency as a wise investment.

Bond Vigilantes

For the first time since another Democrat occupied the White House, investors from Beijing to Zurich are challenging a president’s attempts to revive the economy with record deficit spending. Fifteen years after forcing Bill Clinton to abandon his own stimulus plans, the so-called bond vigilantes are punishing Barack Obama for quadrupling the budget shortfall to $1.85 trillion. By driving up yields on U.S. debt, they are also threatening to derail Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke’s efforts to cut borrowing costs for businesses and consumers.

The 1.4-percentage-point rise in 10-year Treasury yields this year pushed interest rates on 30-year fixed mortgages to above 5 percent for the first time since before Bernanke announced on March 18 that the central bank would start printing money to buy financial assets. Treasuries have lost 5.1 percent in their worst annual start since Merrill Lynch & Co. began its Treasury Master Index in 1977.

“The bond-market vigilantes are up in arms over the outlook for the federal deficit,” said Edward Yardeni, who coined the term in 1984 to describe investors who protest monetary or fiscal policies they consider inflationary by selling bonds. He now heads Yardeni Research Inc. in Great Neck, New York. “Ten trillion dollars over the next 10 years is just an indication that Washington is really out of control and that there is no fiscal discipline whatsoever.”

Washington is taking us for a ride with our own money, and the only one's to benefit will be them.


"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." - Winston Churchill

Green Jobs

'Green jobs' are nonsense. The only way to create a "green job' is to tax or regulate other people and coerce their creation, by definition they are economically unviable and ultimately destructive. When ideologues tell you that 'green jobs' will help, its just a trick to make you compliant while they steal your money and give it to their friends. If 'green jobs' were viable, they would be created without gov't intervention.

This is not hypothetical, but undeniable, as Spain has learned to its cost:

The central finding of the study is that -- treating the data optimistically -- for every renewable-energy job that the government finances, "Spain's experience . reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created."

Despite expensive and extensive green-job policies, a surprisingly low number of jobs were created. And about two-thirds of those "green" jobs were just to set up the energy source, in construction, fabrication, installation, marketing and administration. Only 10 percent of the green jobs created were permanent jobs actually operating and maintaining the renewable sources of energy.

"Renewable energy" is a laugh. The most environmentally sound source of energy is nuclear power.

Hillary: Baited and Switched

During the campaign even before the nominations were settled, many people, particularly Europeans, said they thought Hillary should let Obama win in exchange for being appointed to SecState. At the time I pooh-poohed the idea, pointing out that the European parlimentary system is radically different than the US Federal system. In the various European nations a Cabinet post has real power and ministers ALSO have seats in Parliment. Ministers set policy and craft government priorities. Whereas in the US, a Cabinet secretary is the employee of the President and subject to his policy goals, and can be fired at will.

I was wrong, Hillary did accept the position of SecState, and had to resign her Senate seat, much to my surprise. The appointment strongly reminded me that in the Liberal mind, the State Department is 'The Chic'. (Pun intended) It seems that the State department is seen as sophisticated and important all out of proportion to its actual power and influence. This has been going on since FDR, at least. Foggy Bottom often tries to pursue its own agenda in oppostion to official Presidential policy, and its professionals see elected leaders as temporary inconveniences which will go away in time. The Secretary of State is a rock star to many on the left, whereas to the right the SecState is important but subordinate - a part of the team.

I wondered if Obama was trying to eliminate her as a threat to his re-election, while my political buddy Brian pointed out that SecState was a power base with many employees to do her bidding...

Dick Morris has chimed in on this very subject:

It may appear odd to describe a secretary of State as marginalized, but Obama has surrounded Hillary with his people and carved up her jurisdiction geographically. Former Sen. George Mitchell (D-Maine) is in charge of Arab-Israeli relations. Dennis Ross has Iran. Former U.N. Ambassador Dick Holbrooke has Pakistan and Afghanistan. And Hillary has to share her foreign policy role on the National Security Council (NSC) with Vice President Biden, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, CIA chief Leon Panetta, and NSC staffer Samantha Powers (who once called Hillary a “monster”)

Ah, so Obama has divided SecState power and put strong egos in charge of fiefs who will fight for their personal preferences. I'd call that Machiavellian, but that elevates the description. I think the proper word is manipulative.

How long will Hillary subject herself to this discipline? Likely as long as Obama is popular. Should his ratings fade, she might move away from the president and could even consider a primary contest against him in 2012. But while he is on top of his game, she’ll stay loyal.

But she is shrinking by the day. Once Obama’s equal — and before that his superior — she now looks tiny compared to the president. She doesn’t look like a president in waiting; she’s more like a senior staff member hoping to rise in the bureaucracy. No longer at the head of a movement or the symbol of rising women all over the world, she has faded into the State Department woodwork. She is much less visible than her predecessors Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, James Baker, Madeleine Albright or Condi Rice. She is even less in the public eye than was Al Haig during his one-year tenure. One has to go back to the likes of Warren Christopher or William Rogers to find a secretary of State as far down the totem poll. This diminished status has got to grate on her and on him. But they are trapped in Obama’s web and cannot easily escape.

Ouch. It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out. The long and the short of this is that the Secretary of State serves at the whim of the President and Obama is now Hillary's boss.

Update!

I finally got some down time here in Washington D.C. to update you guys! My daughter is interning here this summer and I am getting her settled. Yesterday we got a tour of the Fox News studios by Brian Wilson, a fellow Texan. We also met Jim Angle, another fellow Texan. It was so much fun. It's amazing how elaborate the backgrounds look on TV, but in reality they look like painted pictures. Thank goodness for computer graphics, right? The development of Fox News really is an amazing story. It's the little train that could, that became the biggest locomotive in the business.

I'll download the pictures when I get back.

I also did a segment for Smart Girl Politics on PJTV! You can watch it here.

I haven't time to watch the news (and I'm getting a bit shaky from withdrawals...;-) But I was glad to see Pres. Bush finally defending himself while staying gracious, as always.

I'll check back when I can. I don't know what happened to BigDog.

I'm Off To Washington D.C.!

I'll be gone tomorrow through Sunday. I may be able to blog and I may not, but BigDog will once again be filling in for me as well.

"The Case Against Sotomayor"

This is making the rounds from TNR. This is exactly what we expected from Pres. Obama.

The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue."

Ouch. Read the whole thing

More on Sotomayor here.

My Take: To be honest, ever since the Clarence Thomas hearings I have been disgusted with the entire process of the Supreme Court hearings. The Democrats made it into personal despicable smearing. They couldn't find any good personal stuff to smear Alito and Roberts. They were stuck there. I just hope we don't follow suit. I don't want it to be like that. If she has made decisions that question whether she should be on the court, then fine, let that be vetted. But please, no personal junk. Please. Let Thomas be the last one to have endure such a terrible process.

No one Obama is going to nominate will please us. We know that. I just feel that if a nominee is qualified (and I'm not saying she is, we do need to look at her decisions and her past in politics and career), then we need to let a President have who he wants.

Unfortunately, whether we like or not or think it's fair, it won't look good for Republicans to be bashing a Hispanic. Yes, I know the same rule didn't apply to Albert Gonzales. We all know the same rules don't apply to conservatives. We should be used to that by now.

A fair and honest assessment is what we need. Not drama, not bashing. Let the Democrats do that. Let's be above it.

Why can't we all get along?

From The Washington Times:

Two of the peace-loving republics formerly known as the Axis of Evil threw a frightful scare into anyone paying attention Monday, with North Korea exploding a nuclear bomb as powerful as the one that destroyed Hiroshima and Iran telling Barack Obama to get lost (and take his teleprompter with him).

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said he wouldn't accept an invitation to freeze work on his own nuclear weapon and he's not interested in talking to Mr. Obama or anyone else about it. But not to worry. The United Nations Security Council postponed its afternoon tea to hold an "emergency session" to consider options for dealing with developments in Korea. The world is considerably less worried about Iran, since Mr. Ahmadinejad appears to be mostly interested in only killing Jews.

I'm afraid mockery is probably necessary at this point.

Read the whole thing, right up to Obama's coming "second Grand Groveling, Apology and Repentance Tour."

It's too bad that most Americans are paying no attention to these thing.

My kids thought these was hilarious. Enjoy.

A Tale Of Two Women

I think I get what all the liberals were squawking about when talking about "certain woman politician" we all know. You know the one. The one who didn't graduate from an Ivy league college. The one who was a "breeder" of five kids and barely had ANY experience. Imagine her being 2nd in the line of succession the Presidency??! The ridiculous woman who spends $150,000 on her clothes.

Oh, I'm sorry. Did you think I was talking about Sarah Palin? Oh no. I was talking about Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

When I realized the other day that Nancy Pelosi was 2nd in the line of secession to the Presidency, it depressed me sure, but then I got to wondering exactly what her background really was. She graduated from Trinity College in Washington D.C. , an all girl's Catholic college in 1962. She married in 1963 and had five kids.

Interesting thing. I can't find what her major was anywhere. It is not on wikipedia, nor in any of the biographies I read online. I find that strange. If anyone can find that bit of info, I'd appreciate it.

Other than being party chairwoman for Northern California in 1977, she never ran for anything until 1987 when Congresswoman Sala Burton died of cancer soon after winning her second term, having named Pelosi as her successor. Pelosi was then 47 years old when she first ran for office. It would take her another 20 years to be elected to Speaker of the House.

By the time Sarah Palin was 44 yrs old, not only had she had five children, she was running for Vice President of the United States. After a career in journalism and running a small business, she started her career in politics at the age of 28. She was elected mayor and then Governor.

But when you compare this two women side by side, I now find it laughable all the names they called Palin.

Gitmo

Have you ever wondered what the story was behind Gitmo? Have you ever wondered who and ahow many we captured and how it was decided who went to Gitmo? Have you ever wondered about the interrogation techniques used at Gitmo?

All your questions and more are answered here. Read the whole thing. It is fascinating and informative.

via HotAir

As an added bonus read Charles Krauthammer regarding how Obama has adopted Bush's policies on the war on terror. It's excellent. It ends with this delicious truth:

The Bush policies in the war on terror won't have to await vindication by historians. Obama is doing it day by day. His denials mean nothing. Look at his deeds.

Read about our future with cars under Obama

We already have the fuel efficent types of cars Obama has mandated. Want to see what they are like?

Be my guest.

via GOC

"We didn't commit torture"

It's just good.

via HotAir

Full text of Cheney's speech here.

Liz Cheney rocks here as well:

Ignoring The Heat

I wrote earlier how Obama is like the son who thinks his father is an idiot until he becomes a father himself, and see how wise his father really was. This is why Obama is keeping so many of things Bush put into place to keep us safe, but Karl Rove at WSJ really lays out how the "campaigner" Obama is governing completely different than he promised:

Barack Obama inherited a set of national-security policies that he rejected during the campaign but now embraces as president. This is a stunning and welcome about-face.

For example, President Obama kept George W. Bush's military tribunals for terror detainees after calling them an "enormous failure" and a "legal black hole." His campaign claimed last summer that "court systems . . . are capable of convicting terrorists." Upon entering office, he found out they aren't.

He insisted in an interview with NBC in 2007 that Congress mandate "consequences" for "a failure to meet various benchmarks and milestones" on aid to Iraq. Earlier this month he fought off legislatively mandated benchmarks in the $97 billion funding bill for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. Obama agreed on April 23 to American Civil Liberties Union demands to release investigative photos of detainee abuse. Now's he reversed himself. Pentagon officials apparently convinced him that releasing the photos would increase the risk to U.S. troops and civilian personnel.

Throughout his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama excoriated Mr. Bush's counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq, insisting it could not succeed. Earlier this year, facing increasing violence in Afghanistan, Mr. Obama rejected warnings of a "quagmire" and ordered more troops to that country. He isn't calling it a "surge" but that's what it is. He is applying in Afghanistan the counterinsurgency strategy Mr. Bush used in Iraq.

As a candidate, Mr. Obama promised to end the Iraq war by withdrawing all troops by March 2009. As president, he set a slower pace of drawdown. He has also said he will leave as many as 50,000 Americans troops there.

These reversals are both praiseworthy and evidence that, when it comes to national security, being briefed on terror threats as president is a lot different than placating MoveOn.org and Code Pink activists as a candidate. The realities of governing trump the realities of campaigning.

Mr. Obama campaigned on "responsible fiscal policies," arguing in a speech on the Senate floor in 2006 that the "rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy." In his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, he pledged to "go through the federal budget line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work." Even now, he says he'll "cut the deficit . . . by half by the end of his first term in office" and is "rooting out waste and abuse" in the budget.
However, Mr. Obama's fiscally conservative words are betrayed by his liberal actions. He offers an orgy of spending and a bacchanal of debt. His budget plans a 25% increase in the federal government's share of the GDP, a doubling of the national debt in five years, and a near tripling of it in 10 years.

On health care, Mr. Obama's election ads decried "government-run health care" as "extreme," saying it would lead to "higher costs." Now he is promoting a plan that would result in a de facto government-run health-care system. Even the Washington Post questions it, saying, "It is difficult to imagine . . . benefits from a government-run system."

Making adjustments in office is one thing. Constantly governing in direct opposition to what you said as a candidate is something else. Mr. Obama's flip-flops on national security have been wise; on the domestic front, they have been harmful.

In both cases, though, we have learned something about Mr. Obama. What animated him during the campaign is what historian Forrest McDonald once called "the projection of appealing images." All politicians want to project an appealing image. What Mr. McDonald warned against is focusing on this so much that an appealing image "becomes a self-sustaining end unto itself." Such an approach can work in a campaign, as Mr. Obama discovered. But it can also complicate life once elected, as he is finding out.

What I have found talking with people who voted for Obama, but are not political, is they don't really have much of an opinion on national security issues or the emerging big government that Obama is laying before us. They feel that nothing ever really changes no matter who is in power and they just liked Obama. Obama understands this. Which is why he is on TV almost daily just giving his nice soothing spin on things. And as long as the media plays along, we are like the story of the frog boiling in the pot of water. The frog sits in the water while it's cool, and just doesn't notice the heat rising until it's too late and he's boiled.

Hey people, we are being boiled.

Guns On Campus In Texas

On Tuesday a bill that will allow college students and employees to carry their concealed handguns on campus passed with preliminary approval in the Texas Senate.

I'm surprised this has taken this long and why there is any controversy at all, except from strident gun control activists. If the 2007 massacre at Virginia Tech taught us anything at all, it should have taught us that "gun free zones" are nothing but death traps. Imagine if one of the professors or students in that building had had a gun. Imagine all the young lives he could have saved.

You see, the problem is that insane gunmen don't abide by the "Gun free zones" rule.

Opponents of this bill say it would make campuses more dangerous with the potential for typical college disagreements with boyfriend and girlfriends, over grades, during drunken parties. They might have a point if the numbers didn't reveal the opposite. 11 colleges — nine public schools in Utah, the University of Colorado and Blue Ridge Community College in Weyers Cave — that allow concealed carry permit holders to bring their firearms onto campus, but have not experienced any incidents.

In order to hold a handgun license in Texas one must be at least 21 years old and pass a training course and a criminal background check. This ensures maturity and training. I would think this would mainly be used by professors and workers on campus, not students. But having trained students carrying guns isn't a bad idea either. Consider the shooting at Appalachian School of Law in which 2 students were able to retrieve their weapons from their cars and stop a shooter. If they had been allowed to carry guns on campus grounds, they could have stopped him even more quickly.

This isn't a done deal. It needs a final Senate vote before it can be sent to the House. It could die under a legislative deadline. I hope that doesn't happen. People on college campuses deserve to feel safe.

crossposted at Texas Magazine

"Liberty City Six al Qaeda cell convicted for conspiracy to kill Americans"

Kind of important, wouldn't you think?

After a three-month trial, a Miami jury convicted five men of multiple charges that include conspiring to provide material support to the al Qaeda terrorist organization and conspiracy to wage war against the U.S. by discussing and planning attacks on targets in the U.S., including the Sears Tower in Chicago and the FBI building and other federal buildings in Florida.

Read the whole thing here.

Cheney, the middle linebacker

Bill Kristol has an excellent piece over at the Weekly Standard about Dick Cheney hitting the news circuit to defend the CIA, interrogation techniques, and decisions made by the Bush administration on the war on terror. Oops, sorry. I forgot. It's "Overseas Contingency Operation" now.

The Obama administration may call it whatever they wish, but at least it seems they understand the fight enough to keep some security measures from the previous administration, including the dreaded warrantless wiretapping and military tribunals. The Democrats were sure they could keep spinning it their way, but a funny thing happened on the way to avoiding the truth---Cheney happened:

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

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

The Democrats have demonized Cheney for so long, and the media willingly went along, that some think he may not be a good spokesman. I think he is a good spokesman. He is a great part of the reason that we were not attacked again, and for that I will always be grateful. I've written before about the millions he has given away to the poor, and about the unconditional love he has shown for his gay daughter, but I think it is time to point out how clearly important it was for him to make sure we didn't experience the pain and grief we went though on 9-11 again on his watch.

And we didn't.

What Cheney proves to us is that when we come out fighting when we know we are right, then we win. Even if it comes from a unpopular source. If Cheney had not come out to defend the CIA then we would have been left with the leftwing spin and no one would be questioning Pelosi's lies. Now at least, even if the Obama administration won't release the memos that show we thwarted an attack in L.A., at least the American people know about it.

The big picture is always a good thing. Having a fighter willing to force the media to show the big picture is even better. To put a sports metaphor to it, Kristol ends with this:

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

h/t BigDog

My Reluctant Pro-life Journey

Writing about Notre Dame reminded me of a post I written here 5 years ago about how I became pro-life. I went back and read it and decided it might be a good time to post it again. Warning though! It has actual religious content! If that offends you, look away.



When I went to college my goal was to become a trained actress. Growing up in politics, I was sick of it. All I wanted to do was be a movie star one day. I never wanted to even hear the word politics again. When I was 18 my dad made me drive 6 hours from Florida to vote in my 1st Presidential election. MADE ME. And like a good democrat, I voted for Carter.

I had been a Christian for a long time (thank goodness, looking back) by the time I entered college. During my college years I began to be bothered by the abortions my friends were having. Their pain was hard to see. I didn't see relief afterwards. But I told myself that was their decision and had nothing to do with me. Luckily for me, I had decided many years before that I was going to wait until marriage for sex, so I didn't have any worries in the department of pregnancy and abortion. In the late 70's and early 80's the common belief was abortion was performed when the baby was still a clump of cells, not even a fetus. Totally untrue, but everyone believed it. Sonograms were just beginning to be in use in OBGYN offices.

A lot of things happened with friends during those years regarding abortion and none of them good. I finally realized God was trying to tell me something. Now for those of you with faith the following will be probably be something similar that you have been through. For those of you without faith I suppose it will sound silly, but here it is nonetheless.

During my senior year after doing some study into fetal development and other things I finally did decide that abortion was the taking of a life and morally wrong. "There," I said to God, "You have convinced me, thanks for making see the reality of this. I really appreciate it. If I have more friends going through it I will do whatever I can to get them to have the baby. You can count on me. Later."But God wasn't through with me yet. That Hound of Heaven has always done this to me. I want to go one way, He wants me to go the other. We have argued all my life. Seriously. Most of the time I went His way because I'm smart that way, and He was always right. In fact, all the best things in my life now are a result of having gone into pro-life work. My best friends and my children. But I fought going into it the whole way. The very few times I went my way, I always screwed up.

In my early 20's when it became clear that God wanted me to go into pro-life work, I simply refused. "God," I said, "look, I don't want anything to do with politics and this is political now. Isn't this a woman's choice to sin? Just like anything else? Plus, everyone thinks anyone in pro-life is a fanatic. I don't want to do this. Nope. No way. Let's move on, shall we?"

He would NOT leave me alone so I made a deal with him. I told God I would go do ANYTHING else to help his children. In fact, I will do the hardest thing for me. I will go volunteer in a nursing home. There I will be doing good, and politics is totally out of it. So I did. Many days I came home crying. I told my husband how hard it was to see these old people so lost and alone. Some so sick. Why do they have to live that way? It was so much harder than I ever thought it would be, but I had a deal with God and I kept going back.

One day one of my favorite old ladies, Emily, asked me for a glass of water. I got it for her and was sitting there watching her drink it when I felt God speak to my heart. (for ya'll who are rolling your eyes right now, NO, it isn't an actual voice, ok?, but it is clear just the same) First He spoke of the verse in the Bible where Christ says "For I was hungry and you fed me; I was thirsty and you gave me water...." Christ goes on to say "When you refused to help the least of these my brothers, you were refusing to help me." (Matthew 25:35-45) "Don't you see?" I heard God say to my heart. "These people you help are a burden and unwanted by the world, but I love them. They are my children. The same is true for my unborn children. They may be unwanted, but they are loved and wanted by me. You can be my hands, you can be my voice. Go and help the least of these."

As I sat there with tears rolling down my face, I knew that I was going to do exactly what I did not want to do. Get involved in a controversial political issue. One that I didn't feel have anything to do with me. I was an actress and that is what I wanted to do. Not this. But God had always been my strength, my guide. I sounded like a petulant child, but I said to God, "Oh, alright...."And I did.

It was never easy to watch girls walk out of the pregnancy crisis center I worked in and know they were going to have an abortion no matter what I said. A boyfriend was usually urging them to, or a parent. It was never easy to see people think you were some sort of fanatic for being in this work. And it was NEVER easy to explain why. My family came around. They are all pro-life now. But there were years when I know they wanted to put duct tape over my mouth to make me shutup about it. President Reagan wrote an essay while in office called "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation." It was beautiful and expressed perfectly why we should fight for the rights of the unborn. The media largely ignored it and I'm betting you here, all politically aware, have not even heard of it. The media hoped that a blackout of what we were trying to do would make us go away. But we didn't.

Although abortion laws didn't change, abortion rates lowered or stayed steady. Considering that in the last 30 yrs all other societal ills like drug abuse, child abuse, domestic abuse, suicide rates, ect. have increased, I think we have had an impact and that is with NO help from the media or funding.

One night a few years ago, upset at a woman I knew who was pregnant with twins who happened not to be her husband's (who she was separated from but planning on getting back together), was having an abortion that day. I had offered to keep her from her husband until the twins were born and then adopt them ourselves. I cried and cried for those two little ones who would never feel the breeze in their hair, or swing on swing sets. Ones I would never get to hold. In my pain, I asked God what was the purpose here if nothing in the law had changed??? Once again I heard Him speak to my heart. "I never asked you to do anything but what you have done. Men will make and change laws. I wanted you to change hearts and let them know the truth."

You see, God does not care about politics. He cares only for us. Is it just and right that we allow unborn children to be destroyed? No. Of course not. We may never win, but we should never stop being a voice for those who cannot speak for themselves. The truth about abortion was never getting out there and it still isn't in so many ways. I truly don't expect a President to change this law (although I would wish for them to) But I do want a President who understands as I do that what defines who we are is how we treat "the least of these."

Open Mic Night

Last night the Tea Party Society of Houston had fundraisers all over Houston at local pubs for "Open Mic Night." You pay $5 for a five minute rant (with microphone). It was interesting listening to the different views. Some rants were more libertarian and others more tax related. But one thing was clear, we no longer trust our government to do the will of the people.....at all.

I related the story of when I spoke with Sen. John Cornyn and asked him about the all the anger out here with Republicans regarding Arlen Specter. He said he would rather have a Republican that voted with him 80% of the time than a Democrat that voted with him 0% of the time.

Well, guess what he's got now?

You would think Sen. Cornyn would have learned. After all, he is a good conservative. But here he is backing Crist in Florida for the Senate.

The Tea Parties should say, "No more."

This is the main problem. The concerns and desires and vision that libertarian leaning Republicans, blue dog Democrats, and conservative Republicans will never be met or even addressed by Democrats. We only have the Republicans. We are stuck. Talk of a third party is lollipop dreams.

I feel that the best thing the Tea Party protests can do is scare Republicans into being...Republicans. You will notice that most of the pundits and bloggers who tell Republicans they should be more moderate are....Democrats. They are people who will never vote Republican. These are the people who have nothing but scorn for the hard working, tax paying citizens at these protests. Why in the world would we listen to anyone who has nothing but disdain for us?

It's only in places like Texas that blue dog Democrats can be persuaded by the Tea Parties. And in those places we do need to reach out to them.

It's time to let the Republicans know that if they want to be elected or re-elected, then they need to stand strong against this over-reaching government. No more compromising on bailouts or TARP. They need to fight tax increases with every breath in their body. They need to do things like NOT ask Nancy Pelosi to apologize, but to RESIGN. Enough spending. Enough intrusion into our lives. You either act like a true Republican or hit the door.

Also, Republicans need to stop acting like Obama is above criticism. I understood right after such an historic election the need to back off a bit and give the guy a chance. But in this short time Obama's spending is completely out of control and will force our children, and the children not yet born, to carry the burden of this debt. Now maybe the American people don't understand the damage of this, but Republicans in Washington do. It's time to be as critical of this President as they would with any other President.

Republicans lost a lot of credibility in this area with their own spending in the past. It's time to get back their credibility. No more yes votes on any spending. Period.

We recently we got the news that this year the United States will borrow 46 cents for every dollar it spends. That is mind boggling. Then came the annual reports on the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Under current projections, Medicare will be tapped out in eight years. Social Security will be into deficit spending by 2016 and will be unable to meet its obligations by 2037. The latest White House estimates add $89 billion to the current year budget deficit for a total of $1.8 trillion. That’s more than 12 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, the highest percentage rate since World War II.

Republicans have a tough road ahead. But they have good issues, issues that the American people can understand as the unemployment rate hits 8.9 percent.

Republicans have got to grow a spine again. The time is now, or it may be too late.

My Heavy Heart

I'm a positive person. I try not to let things get me down. But after listening to Obama's speech at Notre Dame, I have a heavy heart. It is a heart filled with sadness in how easily so many are fooled by pretty words.

They were certainly pretty words. Once again a pro-choicer asks for us to find common ground on abortion. I wonder if Obama would have wanted the segregationists to find common ground with those who wished to integrate. I imagine a speech Obama might have made when slavery was legal . He would have wanted slave owners to find common ground with the slaves. I mean, we couldn't make slavery illegal because that would effect the economy, and the supreme court has declared that blacks are not fully human, so we should just find common ground to compromise. Allow slavery, but find ways to make slavery less necessary. We should come together to change hearts about slavery.

This is why my heart is heavy. This man understands nothing. He talks of Catholic priests whose faith he admires, yet ignores the core of where our faith comes from.

Bill Clinton talked the same way about abortion. It was all about reducing abortions and helping women in crisis pregnancies (which pro-life groups already do), but no mention of the children who will never see a sunrise, will never run and play, will never experience life on this earth because their life was brutally taken in abortion.

Common ground? How do we find common ground on taking innocent life? We can no more do that than we could find common ground on slavery. Slavery couldn't be tolerated because it took away the dignity and sanctity of human life, just as abortion does.

Pres. Obama says all the right words. It all sounds so reasonable. But deaths of unborn children is just never reasonable, which is why the children are never mentioned in Obama's flowery speech.

Shame on Notre Dame, Shame on Father Jenkins, and shame on all Catholics there who compromised their faith to honor a man who dishonors our beliefs.

I have a heavy heart for how easily we are fooled by charismatic men who talk of God, but only lead us farther away from Him.

It never ends...

I swear, if a Democrat isn't lying (and no, it's not Pelosi this time), he's being dispicable.

h/t BigDog

I really really hope nothing ever happens to Obama

The Vice President no longer has a "undisclosed" secure location. Biden, genius that he is, was making fun of it at a dinner recently and spilled the beans.

Just as well, if something awful happens, we just go to the next in line of succession, which would be........oh God, nevermind.

Big problems

You can forget about Social Security or Medicare.

The National Debt Road Trip. (Everyone should watch this) via NRO

God help us all.

President Palin's first 100 days

Oh, you know it would be JUST like this too.

We will never be silent

This weekend is the big weekend where Pres. Obama is the commencement speaker at Notre Dame and receives an honorary degree.

It is a disgrace on Notre Dame, of course. Obama's total disregard of the sanctity of human life at it's earliest stages and beyond and his promotion and votes that advocate the destruction of unborn children should be shunned, not honored at any Catholic institution.

But the sad truth is that so many Catholics only call themselves themselves Catholic. They don't adhere to, or even really believe (or in many cases, even know) the teachings of our faith.

So, to be honest, I didn't expect ANY controversy over Pres. Obama speaking at Notre Dame. I think Obama charmed those 'in name only' Catholics during the election and they justify their vote and their support of him and ignore their faith while doing it.

So when there actually was controversy, I was shocked and pleased. The notion that many graduates are skipping their own graduation to make it clear that they do not approve of a pro-abortion President being honored, makes me feel that there still are young people who care about their faith. When 68 American Bishops oppose publicly Obama speaking at Notre Dame, it fills my heart with hope. There was at time when I didn't have much faith in American Bishops to ever say or do the right thing, so now that they are, I have great hope for my Church in the United States. More than 353,000 people have signed a petition against Obama speaking and being honored.

But the most telling and brave sign of protest is Mary Ann Glendon, The most accomplished Catholic laywoman in America, declining the Laetare Medal and not speaking at the graduation. Glendon is the former the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican and now a Harvard professor.

She wrote to the Pres. of Notre Dame of her decision after she realized that he was using her in his"talking points" saying that she would be speaking as well, as to counteract that a pro-abortionist President would be speaking. She wrote in part about Pres. Obama's invitation:

"This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops’ express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions “should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles” and that such persons “should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

The Bishops made it quite clear that no honors should be given to those who act "in defiance of our fundamental moral principles." Pres. Obama has acted in defiance of the fundamental moral principal that all life, including the unborn, is sacred and should be treated as such. One can agree or disagree with that, but that was the Bishops statement and request, and the President of Notre Dame clearly ignored it.

Make no mistake about it, Pres. Obama will speak this weekend. I knew that any one who had so little respect for Catholic teaching that he would invite Pres. Obama to begin with, would never rescind the invitation. But the fact that so many devout Catholics, including the students and these Bishops, have stood up for our faith and stood their ground, fills me with hope for the future.

People like Father Jenkins may be a sell out, we devout Catholics are used to them by now, but there are still brave Bishops and women like Mary Ann Glendon, willing to take a stand for the most vulnerable of our society, the ones who cannot speak for themselves....... the unborn.

It's a good day when that happens, no matter when or where Pres. Obama speaks. No matter what a smooth talker someone may be, or how much they charm us, we know now that there will never be silence in the face of the horror that is abortion. We will never be still.

Every once in a while, you get some good news

PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice." This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.

Read about the poll (with graphs) here.

It's a big mountain we climb, but one day, we will get there. One day we will respect each and every human life.

What a shock....

The Weekly Standard:

The Obama administration has turned down former Vice President Dick Cheney’s request for the declassification of two CIA reports on the effectiveness of the Agency’s detainee program, THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned. A letter dated May 7, 2009, from the CIA’s Information and Privacy Coordinator, Delores M. Nelson, rejected Cheney’s request because the documents he has requested are involved in a Freedom of Information Act court battle.

I don't know about you, but I am just loving this whole "transparency" thing with this administration.

Heaven forbid that the American public see memos that prove American lives were saved by enhanced interrogation techniques. All they need to know is that these techniques were used. Now move along please.

According to this piece, Obama does indeed have the power to release them.

On April 23rd:

Holder said he had not seen the documents. But added: “It is certainly the intention of this administration not to play hide and seek or not to release certain things in a way that is not consistent with other things. It is not our intention to try to advance a political agenda or to hide things from the American people.”

But you see, he hadn't seen them yet.

More transparency:

In a letter to his intelligence community colleagues sent to explain the release of the OLC memos, Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, wrote: “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.” But when Blair’s office released parts of his letter as a public statement on the subject, that sentence was cut. Blair also noted that members of Congress had been briefed on the methods, but that section was also cut from the public statement.

Cut? Really? You have got to be kidding me.

Remember my friends, it's a shell game.

Growing Up

Over at First Read:

Should the Obama administration release photos showing detainee abuse? The earlier answer was yes, but the White House yesterday reversed course, arguing that the photos could “inflame anti-American opinion.” The decision angered liberals and human-rights groups, while it pleased Republicans and conservatives.
.....................................

Today’s Wall Street Journal writes. “The Obama administration is weighing plans to detain some terror suspects on U.S. soil -- indefinitely and without trial -- as part of a plan to retool military commission trials that were conducted for prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.” More from the paper: “The proposal being floated with members of Congress is another indication of President Barack Obama's struggles to establish his counter-terrorism policies, balancing security concerns against attempts to alter Bush-administration practices he has harshly criticized.”

It is the same with the wireless wiretapping that the left bashed Pres. Bush so much about. Yet Obama defended it and kept it.

Pres. Obama reminds me of the young son who thinks his father is an idiot. Then the son becomes a father himself, and realizes how wise his father had been.

Pres. Obama finds himself President. Not running for President, but actually being the President. What he is discovering is that Pres. Bush was right in this fight, and he himself had been naive.

"Pakistan seeks 'ownership' of U.S. Drones"

Say what?

"Democracy doesn't believe in half measures. We've asked for the ownership of the drones," he said, when asked about reports that the US has agreed to pass control of drone aircraft to Islamabad.

Speaking in London after talks with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Mr Zardari said Islamabad was "negotiating terms" with the US over the drones, which have long been a source of tension between Washington and Islamabad.

Stewart ACTUALLY calls out Pelosi

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Waffle House
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

Pretty funny. When he does a mish/mash like this on Obama, call me. Unfortunately, the kids I was watching this with turn to me and ask, "Is she is Democrat or a Republican?" Yeah. That's the world we live in. The youth get their news from Jon Stewart.

The Con Game

When Pres. Obama joked that everyone in the room at the Correspondent's dinner had voted for him, we all know it wasn't really a joke. They knew it and he knew it.

What we are seeing with the press now is the complete and polar opposite of the press with Pres. Bush. Bush couldn't make one decision that wasn't excoriated by the press. We on the right had plenty of problems with Bush, but the relentless bashing and smearing that this President endured was beyond the pale, and many of us didn't want to add to it. We expressed our anger when Bush spent too much. We expressed our anger at expanding govt programs. But all of that was swept away in the molten hate of the press on a day to day basis.

Now, the opposite is true. This President has quadrupled the national debt to numbers that are literally not describable to the public. $3.6 trillion budget for 2010 and the public can't comprehend the number, so the press ignores it. Budget Director Peter Orszag said this year’s deficit will be $1.841 trillion — $89 billion more than previously estimated. *Yawn* says the press. But when Obama proposed $17 billion in budget cuts, the press went wild with it. On and on. All the public heard was "budget cuts." Now, we know that his budget director says that the deficit will actually go up by $89 billion. So much for "cuts." *Yawn* again with the press. Add this to the fact that we shed another 539,000 jobs in April, after already losing 2 million jobs since Obama took office, and the unemployment rate going up to 8.9 percent, the highest in 26 years, and you have a pretty bleak picture. Yet, the wildly out of control spending of this President continues. But the press loves him. They hope with the hope of a child, that he will come through for them, and be the liberal of their dreams.

This is like the con man on the corner in Manhattan with the shell game. The public will never win this one. The con man is too slick, to charming, too good at the con. We will lose our money ever single time. The problem is the "police" are on his side here. No one will tell him to take his little con game and go home. The game will continue until we have lost every penny we have.

Making America Look Bad

Liz Cheney (Dick Cheney's daughter) wonders why this administration only seems to want to release things that puts America in a bad light. I wonder as well:

"I have heard from families of sevicemembers, from families of 9/11 victims, this question about, you know, 'When did it become so fashionable for us to side, really, with the terrorists?'" Ms. Cheney said on Fox News Channel. "You know, for us to put information out that hurts American soldiers?"Cheney said Obama administration officials "seem only to be interested in releasing things that really paint America in a negative light, and don't give the American people a full picture of what went on."Last month, the Obama administration announced that the Pentagon would turn over to the American Civil Liberties Union 44 photographs showing detainee abuse of prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq during the Bush administration.
...............................

"I think that it is really appalling that the administration is taking this step," Liz Cheney said today. "Clearly, you know, they're releasing images that really show American military men and women in a very negative light. And President Obama has a lot of sort of rhetoric about support for our military families and support for our men and women who are fighting overseas but, you know, if he really cares about them he wouldn't be making such an effort to release photos that show them in a negative light."White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was today asked about a letter from Sens. Joe Lieberman, D-Ind., and Lindsey Graham, R-SC, asking him to reverse the decision, saying the "release of these old photographs of past behavior that has now been clearly prohibited can serve no public good, but will empower al-Qaeda propaganda operations, hurt our country’s image, and endanger our men and women in uniform."

Releasing the photos serve no purpose. Americans are fully aware of when we have failed. We have punished those responsible. It really boggles the mind why Obama seems determined to constantly degrade America and apologize for us.

Thank God the Cheney's are willing to take this admininstration to task.

*Update! Well, well. We have to give credit where credit is due. Obama is reversing himself and trying to keep the photos from being released, believing "that the national security implications of such a release have not been fully presented to the court." Fox News reported that commanders on the ground in Iraq had been meeting with Iraqi officials trying soften the damage that would have occurred with the release of the photos. Given that, and meeting with Commander General Ray Odierno probably convinced Obama to do the right thing. Don't think the blunt words from Liz Cheney didn't have an effect either.

Miss. California

Carrie Prejean smacked down her critics really well today in the press conference with Donald Trump. No matter how you feel about pageants or bathing suit pictures or racy pictures, it is clear that Carrie was targeted for attack because of her conservative views on marriage. This was always about a free speech issue. The "tolerant" left is never tolerant about views they disagree with.

Anyway, I haven't blogged on it because everything that could be said was being said. But one interview you might not hear otherwise, is the one she had with Dr. James Dobson of Focus on The Family radio. There she gives her "faith" answer to all that went on. It's very interesting. Her experience with how God answers our prayers is very similar to things that have happened to me and, if you are a believer, to you too. Carrie isn't perfect, wasn't perfect. We are all flawed. But free speech should never be denied because of people's past or their beliefs now. No matter what we have done, God meets us where we are.

Go here. Click under "Most Popular" on "Carrie Prejean Standing Strong" Part 1 and 2.

Iowahawk is hilarious

Breaking: Gay Marriage Opponent Topless Photos Leaked
Outspoken beauty pageant winner denies implantsBreaking: Gay Marriage Opponent Topless Photos Leaked
Outspoken beauty pageant winner denies implants

Breaking: Gay Marriage Opponent Topless Photos Leaked

Outspoken beauty pageant winner denies implants

If you aren't reading iowahawk, you should be.

Cheney's Warning

Richard Cohen has an article in the WaPo titled "What if Cheney's Right?" It is mainly focused on whether Cheney (which Cohen is NOT a fan of) is right that enhanced interrogations or "torture" worked and saved thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of American lives. I suppose we won't know for sure until the Obama administration releases the memos that Cheney wishes them too, and they show no indication that they will do that. Which pretty much says to me that the memos DO say American lives were saved.

But Cohen's article got me to thinking about other things that Cheney may be right about and that the media seem to be glossing over.

This man was our Vice President and according to the media, he wielded a great deal of power. Yet when he goes on national TV saying that Pres. Obama has made the country more vulnerable, no one blinks an eye. Remember, this man is never going to run for President. He has no political reason for sounding an alarm. Critics have said he is hurting the GOP image, but what if keeping the American people safe is more important than "image" to him?

"If I don't speak out, then where do we find ourselves? ... Then the critics have free run, and there isn't anybody there on the other side to tell the truth," Cheney said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Agree or disagree with how Bush handled keeping our country safe after 9-11, but you can't argue against the fact that he did indeed keep us safe.

Cheney told CNN's John King how:

I think those programs were absolutely essential to the success we enjoyed of being able to collect the intelligence that let us defeat all further attempts to launch attacks against the United States since 9/11," Cheney insisted. "I think that's a great success story. It was done legally. It was done in accordance with our constitutional practices and principles.""President Obama campaigned against it all across the country." Cheney continued. "And now he is making some choices that in my mind will, in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another attack."

One can dismiss Cheney all they wish, but what if he is right? If we are attacked again Cheney will always be able to say that he warned us. That he warned the Obama administration.

"The rich are not human, they are animals in human form."

Rico-chavez
by noticias24

via boing boing

In this video clip, which is making the viral rounds in the Spanish-speaking online world, Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez says "The rich are not human, they are animals in human form." A Boing Boing reader who lives in Venezuela says,

"I decided to leave Venezuela soon, if I can, when I saw this. Dehumanizing a group of people is certainly in the manual to start genocide and living in a country where officially a portion of the population are not human by decree is against my ideals. I can live with crime, bad public health and even scarcity, but to live with this crap is not acceptable, even with all the basic needs covered. Yes, I might be too sensitive, but I cannot forget all those other times and places where dehumanizing has brought woes."


Just a lil reminder:



MORE:

Bob Beckel gets something right.

Most of the time I can barely stand to listen or look at Bob Beckel, the Fox News Democrat pundit and Obama cheerleader. He reminds me of the creepy Uncle everyone avoids at Thanksgiving. But I just heard him on the Sean Hannity radio show slamming comedian Wanda Sykes for her remarks over Rush Limbaugh at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. You have probably heard about her calling Limbaugh the 20th hijacker, but he missed his flight because of his Oxycontin addiction. The White House has done the usual back tracking on her remarks, although Obama clearly thought it hilarious.

But Beckel was disgusted with it. I was pleasantly surprised. It's always nice when a Democratic pundit shows a glimpse of integrity.

Beckel is a recovering alcoholic . He blasted Wanda and all the liberals who constantly make fun of Rush's addiction to a prescription medicine. He said there are 15 million Americans struggling with addiction every day in this country and this is a slap in the face of all of them. He said Rush should be admired for overcoming his addiction and staying clean. Beckel says every day is difficult for an addicted person recovering and we should be praising them instead of smearing them.

For once, Beckel was right on target.

Sen Arlen Specter

ah.. I see the Democrats are enjoying him as much as we did. Which is to say, he makes them want to puke as well:

Sen. Arlen Specter (?-PA), himself a two-time cancer survivor, put up a fundraising web site, Specter for the Cure. Admirable, right? Is it really?

'Specter For The Cure' Cancer Website, Really Political Fundraising Tool

By Brian Beutler - May 8, 2009, 9:12AM

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA)--two time survivor of Hodgkins disease--is no stranger to cancer, cancer awareness, and cancer research funding. But he's using his hard earned credibility as a national spokesperson on the issue to fight the disease in a roundabout way.

He's touting--and raising money from--a website called specterforthecure.com, which he describes as "a bold new initiative to reform our government's medical research efforts, cut red tape and unstrangle the hope for accelerated cures."

But the money he's raising isn't funding research grants, or advocacy, or treatment for patients who can't afford it. It's funding the Senate re-election campaign of one Arlen Specter.

But the money he's raising isn't funding research grants, or advocacy, or treatment for patients who can't afford it. It's funding the Senate re-election campaign of one Arlen Specter.
.................

The web site has since been changed to clarify the fact that any money you give through it goes to the Specter campaign, not to cancer research. The modification was made in the last few days, after its purely political purpose was revealed. In my opinion, that gesture is too little, too late, and does not absolve Specter in the least of the original sleazy trick.
.................

Get this man out of the Democratic Party. We do not need the likes of him. Primary his ass out of there before the 2010 elections.

Nah. You can keep him. We never wanted him to begin with. He fits better with Democrats obviously. All that 'say one thing, do another' stuff. Misrepresenting himself. He's perfect for you guys.

9-11 Families were "had" by Obama

The article is written by Ms. Burlingame, a former attorney and a director of the National September 11 Memorial Foundation, is the sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame III, the pilot of American Airlines flight 77, which was crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.


In February I was among a group of USS Cole and 9/11 victims' families who met with the president at the White House to discuss his policies regarding Guantanamo detainees. Although many of us strongly opposed Barack Obama's decision to close the detention center and suspend all military commissions, the families of the 17 sailors killed in the 2000 attack in Yemen were particularly outraged.
........................

With a White House photographer in his wake, Mr. Obama greeted family members one at a time and offered brief remarks that were full of platitudes ("you are the conscience of the country," "my highest duty as president is to protect the American people," "we will seek swift and certain justice"). Glossing over the legal complexities, he gave a vague summary of the detainee cases and why he chose to suspend them, focusing mostly on the need for speed and finality.
.............................

News reports described the meeting as a touching and powerful coming together of the president and these long-suffering families. Mr. Obama had won over even those who opposed his decision to close Gitmo by assuaging their fears that the review of some 245 current detainees would result in dangerous jihadists being set free. "I did not vote for the man, but the way he talks to you, you can't help but believe in him," said John Clodfelter to the New York Times. His son, Kenneth, was killed in the Cole bombing. "[Mr. Obama] left me with a very positive feeling that he's going to get this done right."

"This isn't goodbye," said the president, signing autographs and posing for pictures before leaving for his next appointment, "this is hello." His national security staff would have an open-door policy.

Believe . . . feel . . . hope.

We'd been had.

Binyam Mohamed -- the al Qaeda operative selected by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) for a catastrophic post-9/11 attack with co-conspirator Jose Padilla -- was released 17 days later. In a follow-up conference call, the White House liaison to 9/11 and Cole families refused to answer questions about the circumstances surrounding the decision to repatriate Mohamed, including whether he would be freed in Great Britain.

Read the whole thing.

The way Obama handled these families illustrates exactly how he handles the American people in general. He says the right things, he comes across as caring and helpful. But in the end, he does as he wishes with no respect to his words, and we all suffer.

Ms. Burlingame says it clearly:

Given all the developments since our meeting with the president, it is now evident that his words to us bore no relation to his intended actions on national security policy and detainee issues. But the narrative about Mr. Obama's successful meeting with 9/11 and Cole families has been written, and the press has moved on.

The Obama team has established a pattern that should be plain for all to see. When controversy erupts or legitimate policy differences are presented by well-meaning people, send out the celebrity president to flatter and charm.

Americans should be ashamed that so many of us are all falling for this snake oil salesman.

"Dear Wingnut, why are Republicans afraid of science?"

Another ridiculous question brought to you by liberals.

Salon.com has this new column called "Dear Wingnut" that answers real questions by liberals. The author is a "former Bush official who chooses to remain anonymous." He does a great job answering the questions. Especially this one:

To me, the question is almost laughable on its face. Conservatives are pro-science and, as a general rule, pro-cost-benefit analysis and pro-thinking. It is conservatives who believed, as we now know to be true, that you can "shoot down a bullet with a bullet" and who believed a workable defense against ballistic missile attack was possible. And who utilized science and engineering and underwrote billions in research and development to prove it could be done and put in place a system that, while not perfect, is a significant improvement over the "throw up our hands because there is nothing we can do" approach it replaced.

As president, George W. Bush put a scientist in charge of the Energy Department and created the position of U.S. undersecretary of science; proposed an Advanced Energy Initiative that called for a quantum increase in funding available for research into and development of new, cutting-edge technologies to lead America to more abundant and stable energy supplies; and proposed the American Competitiveness Initiative to, in the words of former Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman, "fortify America's leadership in science through additional research funding in the physical sciences and by strengthening math and science education."

House Republicans, under Speaker Newt Gingrich, proposed doubling the budget for the National Institutes of Health and dramatically increased federal financial support for the fight against diabetes. And it was Bush who tried to put a risk-averse NASA back into the business of space exploration by proposing a return to the moon and manned flight to Mars.

.................................

To set the record straight, George W. Bush was the first president to propose federal funding for stem cell research. As Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson said in August of 2004, "President Bush provided -- for the first time -- federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The president's unprecedented decision allows for federal funding of research using existing stem cell lines that were derived before Aug. 9, 2001, with no limits on private funding of research."

Not exactly an anti-science position, is it?

To the extent that limitations were placed on federal funding, it was because of the ethics involved, not the science. Acting on the recommendation of a blue-ribbon commission that looked at the issue for some time, the president decided it would be unethical -- in the moral sense, not the legal one -- to act as those who believe embryonic stem cell research holds the cure to everything that ails us would have had him do.

I noticed this particular question because I have actually been asked or had similar comments made by liberals over at my Houston Chron blog. I don't think a day goes by that I am not amazed at the ridiculous assumptions liberals have about conservatives.

Mishmash

A mishmash of important articles with no particular theme.

Welfare mom complains of being denied entry into Canada.

I LOL'd. Got news for you, lady. Canada is a foreign nation and they don't have to let anyone in. And yes, they can be arbitrary about it.


I watched John Stossell's 20/20 special friday. While I agreed with his conclusions in most of his segments, the one that I think should be uncontroversial is that of 'irradiated food'. Like so many issues from Global Warming to nuclear power to vaccination, there is a segment of the population who are irrational about irradiated food. 5000 people a year die of food poisoning and many millions get sick. Its not funny that a few nuts imagine non-existant problems with perfectly safe tech and prevent progress.

Meanwhile I am going to order some Omaha Steaks, because they irratdiate their food and its really good stuff.


What Progressives Want

"Progressives divide the world into victims and exploiters, and see themselves as saviors of the underdogs who are incapable of fending for themselves. And that requires greater government power in their hands, to vanquish the exploiters. This perspective explains much of what President Obama is doing with the vast powers at his disposal.

This administration has big business in its sights. While there are a couple of corporations like G.E. who are court favorites because they do the Progressives' bidding...the current government's attitude toward commerce is that they exploit the masses as labor or consumer, are run by fat-cats who don't pay their "fair share", and should be regulated by the government which is working in "the best interests of the People".

Only one thing matters to the Progressives-in the Oval Office and in Congress-and that is growing the central government and its power.

....

Progressives offer all sorts of explanations for their bizarre, inefficient, ineffective, illogical, irrational, contradictory, and demonstrably failed theories and policies. But that's just their puppet show; their circuses for public consumption.

There is one goal, and one goal only for Progressives...Government growth and its intrusion into every aspect of our lives. When you understand that, all their apparently idiotic policies make perfect sense


The CIA's Fight with Obama

There may have been a simpler motive. The novelist Charles McCarry was a deep cover CIA operative for ten years. "I never met a stupid person in the agency," he said in a 2004 interview. "Or an assassin. Or a Republican."

The CIA's war against President Bush was motivated by ass covering, or by political partisanship. But with President Obama, it's personal.

Many are furious about his disclosure of explicit details of the interrogation methods used on some al Qaida bigwigs, and his waffling on whether or not those who employed them will be subject to prosecution.

Simpler motives are usually right.

Show Some Backbone

I seldom agree with Fred Barnes on an issue 100%, but this is one of those times.


Many Republicans recoil from being combative adversaries of a popular president. They shouldn't. Opposing Obama across-the-board on his sweeping domestic initiatives makes sense on substance and politics. His policies--on spending, taxes, health care, energy, intervention in the economy, etc.--would change the country in ways most Americans don't believe in. That's the substance. And a year or 18 months from now, after those policies have been picked apart and exposed and possibly defeated, the political momentum is likely to have shifted away from Obama and Democrats.

This scenario has occurred time and again. Why do you think Democrats won the House and Senate in 2006 and bolstered their majorities in 2008? It wasn't because they were more thoughtful, offered compelling alternatives, or had improved their brand. They won because they opposed unpopular policies of President Bush and exploited Republican scandals in Congress. They were highly partisan and not very nice about it.

If Republicans scan their history, they'll discover unbridled opposition to bad Democratic policies pays off. Those two factors, unattractive policies plus strong opposition, were responsible for the Republican landslides in 1938, 1946, 1966, 1980, and 1994. A similar blowout may be beyond the reach of Republicans in 2010, but stranger things have happened in electoral politics. They'll lose nothing by trying.


Emphasis mine. Barnes is exactly right. Democrats won by contrasting themselves with their opponents, not by being a Me Too! party. Democrats found a way to excoriate a popular President and bringing down his numbers. Republicans need to get ahold of themselves, stop being tentitive and offer a bold, principled alternative. If they can't bring themselves to be combative, then they are in the wrong line of work and should stop wasting our time.

Stand Alone

CBS News has this touching segment.


Vid

Excuse me there is something in my eye...

Edit: I tried to embed the video, but the only code that worked was one that started the vid automatically, which is annoying, so this is the url to the vid.