Christmas Greetings

We wish you a hearty Merry Christmas and may your New Year be joyful and prosperous!

Dave, Brian, and Bill

Common Sense Alert!

Fascism comes to America

Yesterday, David Alelrod acknowledged that one of the ways the Senate health care bill will slow down the rise of medical costs is by 1) limiting the salaries of the CEOs of health insurance companies, 2) limiting the amount they can spend on administration, and 3) limiting the amount of profits that can go to shareholders. Another way of saying this is,
1) diminishing the quality of leadership, 2) diminishing the quality of administration, and 3) diminishing the ability to attract investors. No one could argue that this is anything less than true and pure fascism (government control of private industry).

To the pragmatist, this may seem like a reasonable approach, but to those whose pragmatism rests on a foundation of core principles, this is unAmerican. If the federal government can simply legislate this level of control over one industry, it can legislate total control over all industries. Is it really unreasonable to suspect that this may be the secret agenda of certain of our nation's power brokers? Is it really only a wild conspiracy theory to believe that, just as there have been men in the past who have thirsted for power, there are men alive today who are motivated primarily by a desire to exercise power over others? After all, Mussolini was a favorite of the American left until his association with Hilter made him anathema.

New Hitlerian definition of humanity.

Apparently China and the UN are now defining human beings in terms of "tons of CO2 emissions." See the following excerpt from China Daily (December 15, 2009).

As a result of the family planning policy, China has seen 400 million fewer births, which has resulted in 18 million fewer tons of CO2 emissions a year, Zhao said. The UN report projected that if the global population would remain 8 billion by the year 2050 instead of a little more than 9 billion according to medium-growth scenario, "it might result in 1 billion to 2 billion fewer tons of carbon emissions."

In other words, if we could just eliminate enough pre-born babies, or as they do in China, eliminate by needle in the brain more born but unlicensed babies, then we could stem the tide of global warming and save the planet. But what kind of cold and unfeeling planet would it be for those who survive this holocaust to live in!

As for the Videos. . .

The first one was good. It was great to see the Gipper as he burst onto the scene with "The Speech."

Unfortunately, I did not make it even half-way through the second video, interesting though it was. I cannot stand to watch or listen to Obama. My four minutes of viewing did remind me, however, what a complete jackass he is. And a dangerous jackass. Fawning and groveling before the world of Islam was an utterly disgusting spectacle. This creep is a disgrace to this country, and a traitor to this country. I don't know about his birth certificate; but if he did turn out to be an alien, totally unqualified to be the president, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.

Doesn't he love to quote "the holy Koran"? Can anybody remember this "Christian" ever quoting the Holy Bible?

The False God of Diversity

Almost immediately after the shootings at Fort Hood on November 5, General George Casey said, "Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse."

How sad for the families who lost loved ones in the attck to have to listen such tripe from the Army's Chief of Staff. Casey went on to reiterate, "I will tell you that I firmly believe the strength of our Army comes from our diversity." To be kind, this is pure balderdash. Diversity is not the strength of the Army or our nation. Our strength is in our freedom, established by God and enshrined in our Constitution.

America has always had diversity in the armed forces and always will. But its strength is in the liberty that produces this diversity, not in the diversity itself. The Army could be just as strong even if every soldier was a fair-skinned, freckle-faced red head from Terre Haute, IN. The real strength of our Army is in each individual's commitment to serve and defend this great Constitutional American Republic in which we live.

Diversity has no intrinsic value in and of itself. Only the competence and integrity of individuals have intrinsic value. People should be judged on their competence and interity regardless of their ethnicity (I believe MLK said something about this). Today's definition and practice of diversity is devoid of common sense. It is a misplaced priority, a false god. Instead of extolling the virtues of diversity, General Casey ought to be extolling the virtues of allowing every United States soldier to carry his side-arm with him (or her) at all times, 24-7.

Forget about diversity, General Casey. We have sacrificed our resolve and unity as a nation for too many inane concepts such as this and now it has cost us 13 precious lives.

Now, Obama Won't Go to Berlin

Rush reports today that the Obamessiah has spurned the invitation of German Chancellor Angela Merkel to visit Germany for the commemoration of the fall of the Berlin wall. Rush surmises, correctly, I think, that Obama doesn't want to be upstaged by the memory of Ronald Reagan calling on "Mr. Gorbachev" to "tear down this wall." Rush says communists don't celebrate their defeats, that Obama will go there when the wall is put back up, in order to sign it. Great stuff by Maharushie.

To celebrate Obama's fear and respect for the Gipper, enjoy the Brandenburg Gate speech.

For some video. . .

The true motive behind legalized abortion.

According to data collected in 2005 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, abortion killed at least 203,991 African-Americans in the 36 states and two cities (New York City and the District of Columbia) that reported abortions by race. During that same year, according to the CDC, a total of 198,385 African-Americans nationwide died from heart disease, cancer, strokes, accidents, diabetes, homicide, and chronic lower respiratory diseases combined. These were the seven leading causes of death for black Americans that year.

As Ruthy Ginsburg recently acknowledged, "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion" (July 2009). Yes, she really said that.

AOL Readers Don't Like Obama

A state-run AP poll makes a big deal of how, it claims, Obama's approval rating has risen from 50 to 56%. AP apparently wasn't checking with many AOL readers, however. Apparently, the leftist web site's readers can't stand Obama. On general approval, the economy, health care reform and Afghanistan, readers disapproved of Obama by 70 to 75%, with 25 to 30% approving. And the samples were pretty large, approximately 150,000. Apparently AOL's readers are not fooled by the web site's biased reporting.

Connect the Dots

"Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Muammar Qaddafi and Vladimir Putin have all praised Barack Obama. When enemies of freedom and democracy praise your president, what are you to think? When you add to this Barack Obama's many previous years of associations and alliances with people who hate America-- Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Father Pfleger, etc.-- at what point do you stop denying the obvious and start to connect the dots?"

--Thomas Sowell, 2009

Declaration of Rights

"[A]ll men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent natural rights. . . among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty."

--George Mason, Declaration of rights for Virginia, quoted in McCullough, John Adams.

(Photo from Creative Commons)

Wall Street Village Rolling Stone

With the exception of the editorial pages, I am so fed up with the Wall Street Journal. I'm also starting to believe that it doesn't matter what the news is anymore. As long as we understand first principles, we don't need some leftist's interpretation of the news. Those freaks are simply incapable of reporting an event without propagandizing. We can get everything we need to know from Newsmax, or the Drudge Report, or the foreign press, all of which can be accessed online, or we can listen to talk radio.

On the front page of this morning's Journal, we are treated to this title: "Meet Ardi, Your Newest Oldest Relative." A hairy ape is pictured. The caption reads, "MOVE OVER LUCY: A trove of fossils, a million years older than the heralded hominid, sheds a sharper light on human lineage." (Did Rupert Murdoch write this himself?) When you turn to the article, you see the caption, "Down from the Trees." And best of all, who has authored this article? Why, that embracer of global warming theories and all-around iconoclast, Robert Lee Hotz, with whom I have communicated a number of times. The article is just a jumble of contradictions and inconsistencies that demonstrates to me that these scientists (to say nothing of Mr. Hotz) have no idea what they are talking about. "After 15 years of rumors, researchers made public fossils from a 4.4 million-year-old human forbear they say reveals that our ancestors were more modern than scholars had assumed, widening the evolutionary gulf separating humankind from apes and chimpanzees." Huh? "Although the differences between humans, apes and chimps today are legion, we all shared a common ancestor six million years or so ago. These fossils suggest that the ancestor--still undiscovered--resembled a chimp much less than researchers have always believed." So we shared this ancestor, but they haven't discovered it. Doesn't that mean that this is only an unproven theory? And these scientists learned something that is different from what "researchers" have "always" believed. Does that not suggest that what they have "always believed" has been wrong, and that there have been flaws in their assumptions? "In fact, so many traits in modern chimps and apes are missing from these early hominids that researchers now question the notion that chimps and apes are a repository of primitive traits once shared by our ancestors." What? And this: "[T]he human hand today actually may be the more primitive appendage, [the researchers] said." "'They are not what we would have predicted,' said anthropologist Bernard Wood at George Washington University. Already, the discoveries have experts reworking the human pedigree. They undoubtedly will shape debates about human origins for years to come, as scholars argue whether these creatures should be counted among our most ancient direct ancestors or cataloged as an intriguing dead-end." Well, at least there's a debate here. And if "scientists" are having a "debate," that means that there is no consensus among scientists about human origins. Is that a fair statement?

Elsewhere on the front page, we have the typical contradictions, assuredly without any type of analysis: "Stocks tumbled to start the fourth quarter, with concerns about employment and earnings driving investors to safer harbors." But I thought the recession was over. Right after this blurb, the following: "An expansion of manufacturing activity, growth in consumer spending and improved home sales indicated the U.S. economy is on the mend. [But here comes the usual caveat:] But it remained to be seen if a recovery will continue in the absence of federal help." What!? In the absence of federal help? What do they think TARP, the budget blowout and the "stimulus" bill have been? With any more federal "help," there won't be an economy. And what proof can these fools offer that all this spending has caused the economic activity to which they refer? Are they saying that our economy can now function only if it has federal "help"?

And last but not least, we have this blurb: "Senate Democrats fought off Republican charges that their health bill will raise taxes on average Americans." This suggests that these Democrats have proven that they are correct. Is the Journal acting as communications director of the Democratic National Committee? When you get to the headline of the article, you read, "Democrats Reject GOP Challenge to Health Bill." The essential fact is that by a margin of 12-11, the Senate Finance Committee defeated a Republican amendment "that would block any tax or fee from hitting individuals who earn less than $200,000 a year and families earning less than $250,000." Hmmm; didn't they simply reject the promise Obama has made to all of us over and over and over? Don't they have confidence in the Messiah, or in their own bill?

Which civil society?

In her book It Takes a Village, Hillary defines "civil society" as a "term social scientists use to describe the way we work together for common purposes." In Hillary's world, the "common good" is the ultimate objective of society and the federal government is the arbiter and enforcer of "goodness." But in the minds of our Founding Fathers, a civil society was one in which various groups, individuals, and families work together for their own purposes, the result being a healthy and prosperous democratic nation. To them, the primary purpose of government was to prevent bad people (whether foreign or domestic) from interferring in this enterprise.

To my brother Tom, which of these definitions best describes your view of a civil society?

Flawed Hero

Well, Newt is at it again. Our favorite corpulent popinjay, erstwhile savior to conservatives, was pictured on the front page of yesterday's Wall Street Journal, posing with the notorious "Reverend" Al not-so-Sharpton, as the two of them make a tour to tell us how we should run the education system. Why would the great, brilliant "conservative" savior associate himself so visibly with such a scoundrel? Newt just has a fatal flaw. He talks tough, for example, about the phony stimulus bill; then some people get him in a room inside the Beltway (which is where he now dwells exclusively), and he nervously appears before the cameras to tell us why we have to approve the phony stimulus. Now (and this is not new, by the way) he tours around the country with the notorious scoundrel and charlatan, Sharpton. Is Newt just so much smarter than the rest of us? Is it only he who can recognize what every other reasonable person somehow just can't, that there is a shred of merit to "Reverend" Al? There are only three explanations for this behavior: 1) abject stupidity; 2) a political tin ear; or 3) incredible arrogance. None of these alternatives is very flattering. Newt is of absolutely no use to honest, thinking conservatives. He should be tuned out.

The Government Can

http://www.timhawkins.net/video/government-can.html

The Vast, Right-wing Conspiracy

AP reports: Bill Clinton says a vast, right-wing conspiracy that once targeted him is now focusing on President Barack Obama. The ex-president made the comment in a television interview when he was asked about one of the signature moments of the Monica Lewinsky affair over a decade ago. Back then, first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton used the term "vast, right-wing conspiracy" to describe how her husband's political enemies were out to destroy his presidency.
Bill Clinton was asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" whether the conspiracy is still there. He replied: "You bet. Sure it is. It's not as strong as it was because America has changed demographically. But it's as virulent as it was." Clinton said that this time around, the focus is on Obama and "their agenda seems to be wanting him to fail."

I think the name of the vast, right-wing conspiracy he's speaking of is Rush! And I think it's just as big as it was back then, about 20 million a week.

I Don't Mourn Kennedy

Even Fox News Radio asserts that "the nation mourns Ted Kennedy." This part of "the nation" emphatically does not mourn Kennedy. The man was a scoundrel, the worst of the bad Kennedy "dynasty." For decades, he epitomized the unthinking, arrogant, hypocritical, elitist liberal who knew better than you what was good for you. Many people have hated Ted Kennedy since he left Mary Jo Kopechne to drown while he wandered around, thinking up ways to salvage his political career. Worst of all, he never owned up to what he did, trying to generate sympathy for himself with his pathetic neck brace. Other than partisan socialists, who have always believed that the ends justify the means, people recognize those who are bereft of good character, and they recognize Kennedy as one of those. An AOL poll I saw since Kennedy died showed that an overwhelming percentage of respondents viewed him negatively. As one commenter to an online article put it, Kennedy wasn't a lion, he was a rat.

I'll never forget reading of the "waitress sandwiches" Kennedy and his fellow Senate bum Christopher Dodd enjoyed making in Georgetown. Kennedy was also on hand in Florida, partying shamelessly, when his infamous nephew, William Kennedy Smith, was accused of raping the "blue dot lady."

The left will turn Kennedy's death into a days-long religious observance. Of course, they didn't do that when the great Senator Jesse Helms passed away, issuing no encomiums then. My only thought on the passing of this disgraceful politician is that they'll only replace him with someone just as bad.

Words to Live By

"The past shows unvaryingly that when a people's freedom disappears, it goes not with a bang, but in silence amid the comfort of being cared for. That is the dire peril in the present trend toward statism. If freedom is not found accompanied by a willingness to resist, and to reject favors, rather than to give up what is intangible but precarious, it will not long be found at all."

--Richard Weaver, 1962 (quoted in Liberal Fascism, the Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning, by Jonah Goldberg, p. 391.

Could it be. . . ?

Bill, though the battle is far from over, I have to give you credit: You have suggested all along that these Marxists of ours would overreach. I believe that is what we are seeing, especially in the Obama-Don't-Care Plan and in Cap-and-Tax. The question is whether there will be enough opposition among the populace to turn the tide. The Marxists thought that because of Obama's 53-47 victory and big majorities in both houses, they could ram their Marxist agenda right up our collective you-know-what. That's what I thought as well. You know me: I'm the pessimist. (With Bob Novak, I was in pretty good company.) I have thought that the dumbing-down of the citizens of this country had dealt a death blow to common sense. Perhaps there remains more common sense than I thought. Levin's and Beck's books have sold well. Interest in and attention to the details of the health scare plan have grown exponentially, while the media ineffectually tries to run interference for the Community-Organizer-in-Chief.

On the other hand, most of the leftists in Congress are defiant of their constituents; they know that a few malcontents at their Town-Hall dog-and-pony shows will not prevent their reelection. And even some Repubicans (that's right: Repubicans) have defied their constituents. Nevertheless, I have a hard time believing that Comrade Obama and his Politburo have all this time been attempting to ensure Republican (or even Repubican) support for their health scare monstrosity.

All in all, I'm cheered to see that the Republic is not going down without a whimper.

No surprises here

Is anyone who’s been paying attention to the American left for the past several generations – but particularly over the past decade or so – really surprised at the turn of events in Washington? I’m not talking about the various policy proposals on the table; those are the same tired leftist “solutions” to existential human problems we’ve seen forever and have been shown in case after case to be tragically counterproductive.

No, no one who has paid attention to the left these many years can be at all surprised that the usual suspects are again trotting out their socialized medicine plans, their breathless save-the-planet plans, their adolescent tax the successful plans. These are all mother’s milk for the left.

But really, can any student of the left be surprised that it is doing everything it can to stifle discussion aboiut anything and everything and is very close to criminalizing dissent? It was clear even at the time that its attacks on the Bush administration about matters of public dissent were a case of projection, pure and simple.

The fact is, for anyone honest enough to look at the evidence, the Bush administration was almost heroically stoic in the face of often wildly unfair and unfounded political and character attacks. Far from being “brave” for attacking Bush and his policies (for such was the conceit of the pony-tailed, earth-shoed Prius-driving bohemian bourgeoisie), criticizing Bush became a ritual, like something you had to recite to join the fraternity, as rigid and structured and ossified as a Japanese Noh play.

The febrile attacks (circa 2009) on legitimate criticism – or even legitimate questioning of policies for which one seeks clarity – betray the adolescent heart beating deep within the body of leftist ideology.

The teenagers are in control, they know best and the stupid adults are the ones who have caused the mess (as Obama puts it) we’re in today. They just need to shut up and let the kids show that we can all get along.

The danger here – the scary part – is that there is no one more sanctimonious and capable of the most sociopathic rationalization than the self-satisfied teenager with his dudgeon up. I wouldn’t want to predict how far and fast this situation could get out of control.

When is that magic moment?

"Ethics, too, are nothing but reverence for life. This is what gives me the fundamental principle of morality, namely, that good consists in maintaining, promoting, and enhancing life, and that destroying, injuring, and limiting life are evil." ~ Albert Schweitzer

I do not agree completely with Dr. Schweitzer's definition of morality, but taken as it is, it would certainly consign abortion to the side of evil. No honest person can argue that life does not begin at conception. Would anyone suggest that a fertilized egg is not a living "thing"? The argument is over when this "thing" should be protected under the law--when it becomes a life worthy of maintaining, protecting, and enhancing. People can argue if it should be at twelve weeks, six months, or eight months. But whichever position a person takes, he must admit that, according to his position, one moment the unborn is unworthy of protection and the next moment, voila! it is worthy. But who among us has enough insight to assume the prerogative of determining when that exact moment is? The mother? The father? The abortionist? A Supreme Court justice? Put the question to any five-year-old child and see what answer you get. People have to educated out of believing that all unborn children should be protected. The natural human inclination is to protect the innocent and vulnerable. Every position that presumes to set some magic moment when an unborn child suddenly has the right to life is arbitrary, arrogant, and, as Dr. Schweitzer would say, on the side of evil.

The Rahm-bama Youth

The Rahm-bama machine is now proposing that every young person in America serve three months at boot camp where they will learn how to respond in civil disasters and what it means to be a good citizen. After all, "citizenship is not an entitlement program" (so says the Rahm). When asked by a reporter if this public service would be compulsory, Mr. Emanuel responded, "Only in the sense that it will be required" (yes, I heard it with my own ears). Can there be any doubt that this is a smokescreen for a program to remove every young citizen from his environment where he can be drilled in the protocals of the New Order?

Poll numbers below 50 pecent in the new Rasmussen poll
Obamacare tanking
India and China laughing at his lectureas on climate change
Europe yawning
Cap and Trade in trouble
Police "stupidity.

I believe the term, gentlemen, is Schadenfreude

Why is Jacko a hero to blacks?

Has there ever been a man who so thoroughly repudiated his own race? Clearly Michael Jackson despised his blackness and did all that his millions could do to eliminate it. He whitened his skin, he altered his facial features, he straightened his hair, he obtained white children through a white woman (though he was not the actual father). Yet he is celebrated as a hero of the black race. Hard to figure why any black person would give him the time of day.

"Gangster Government"

Excellent speech by Rep. Michele Bachman...

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=thR-lVuztIY

This does not make sense

I happened to hear HHS secretary Kathleen Sabelius discussing Obama’s federal health insurance option with Bret Baier on Fox News. Her mantra was that we need to bring competition into the health insurance industry to lower prices. They are obviously trying to make it seem like a reasonable idea, since they’ve chosen to use market-place competition as their primary selling point. Here’s how the plan will work: the federal government will open up a health insurance company run by public employees. The president said that this would enable them to run a cheaper operation, presumably because federal bureaucrats are such tireless and efficient workers. This will then force the private health insurance companies to streamline in order to compete. But this would not be fair, since the government insurance company would not need to make a profit in order to stay in business. In fact, if it were to run at a loss, the loss could be made up with tax money. So Mrs. Sabelius assured Bret that "the playing field will be level." But how would this happen? By the government increasing their prices? Wouldn’t this defeat the whole purpose of creating competition? Maybe by subsidizing the private companies. But how does this result in any actual decreases in health care costs. And the fact is, today there are hundreds of companies selling health insurance, so how is one more going to suddenly make the whole system more competitive? Frankly, this whole thing has to be a cover for something else because it makes no sense at all.

"It's a Cookbook!"

The phony promises of this cap'n crunch bill remind me of two themes from American entertainment. First, Charlton Heston's immortal cry, "Soylent Green. . . it's people!" Second, the classic Twilight Zone episode in which the Kanimids, giants from another world, arrive on earth and fix all of earth's problems with their advanced technology. They then begin offering tours of their planet to the grateful earthlings. After it's too late, the American cryptologist figures out that the mysterious Kanimid book, entitled "To Serve Man," is a cookbook. Hence, the immortal line, "Mr. Chambers! That book, 'To Serve Man': it's a cookbook!" It is, unfortunately, too late for Mr. Chambers, who is off to become some giant's meal. If this nonsense passes, we, too, will learn that "it's a cookbook!"

MIdnight Basketball Anyone?

The Harrisburg Patriot-News reports today that there have been 11 shootings in the city in the past 18 days. Some of these shootings have taken place in broad daylight. Not surprisingly, community members got together and had a “vigil.” What do they want? More police, and more programs for the children. I find it very hard to believe that there are no programs for the children. It’s not a question of programs. It’s a question of do you want to go to the gym or the pool, or do you want to drive around shooting people? Neither the government nor the police can raise your children. Until fathers stay with their children, and until parents condemn drug-dealing and gang-banging by their children, this will only get worse and worse.

My brother on NPR

Yesterday, NPR launched its full-throated campaign to get Obama's nationalized health care plan adopted. A huge percentage of it's two-hour show All Things Considered focused on the issue. My older brother Herb was featured as an example of a 61 year old man who had a heart attacked and no health insurance. Herb's heart attack was about a month ago. He was interviewed a few days later while still in the hospital. The interview was aired yesterday, by chance the very same day Obama was out introducing and defending his plan in a highly visible speech to a bunch of doctors. The collusion between the tax-payer supported NPR press and the Obama administration is obvious. I have long opposed giving tax money to NPR. Newt tried to cut it off once but capitulated to the pressure groups. It is now long over due to stop the public funding of this political arm of Globalist Liberalism.

Why did they fight at Normandy?

"It was the deep knowledge -- and pray God we have not lost it -- that there is a profound moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt." Ronald Reagan, D-Day speech at Pointe du Hoc, June 6, 1984

Mr. Obama, I'm sorry you feel the need to apologize for such American actions.

Give me the serious-minded

The Gainesville Sun reports (June 5, 2009): The president’s high standing with the German public adds to the strain in his relationship with Mrs. Merkel, local analysts say. “Obama is so popular with the German people that you have a lot of comments like, ‘Why don’t we have a German Obama?’ ” said Dietmar Herz, director of the Erfurt School of Public Policy. “Angela Merkel is seen as the exact opposite of a charismatic leader like Obama, and that is difficult to accept.” There is a sense in Germany, that the smooth Mr. Obama and the flashy President Nicolas Sarkozy of France have a better connection with each other than either does with the serious-minded Mrs. Merkel.

As for me, I'll take the serious-minded over the smooth and the flashy any day.

Repudiate them!

The Drudge Report has an article reporting how Powell, Ridge, and Gingrich disagree with the Cheney-Limbaugh view of the Republican Party. They believe it needs to be more inclusive in order to win elections. Powell hypocritically claims to be a good Republican in spite of his endorcement of Obama (With Republicans like that, who needs Democrats?). The article goes on to say, "Pointing to President Ronald Reagan's at appealing to Democrats and independents as he carried 49 states in 1984, Gingrich – himself a potential 2012 contender for the party's presidential nomination – concluded, 'I think Republicans are going to be very foolish if thy run around deciding that they're going to see how much they can purge us down to the smallest possible space.'" Mr. Gingrich forgets that Reagan did not win the support of Democrats and Independents by watering down his message. He won them over by articulating his message in powerful and meaningful ways that spoke to the majority of Americans.

I can't help thinking that what Powell and Ridge really mean by being more inclusive is softening the hardline Republican position on abortion ("If we would only lighten up on abortion, we could win more elections"). I think this is both bogus and disingenous on their part, first because the majority of Americans are against abortion on demand, as demonstrated in a recent poll, and second because they ought to just come right out and say that they want to change the platform on abortion. To me, these guys are examples of the biggest problem the Republican party has and they ought to be publically repudiated at every opportunity.

Another reason to be glad Specter defected.

From HumanEvents.com (May 10, 2009: The Senate Judiciary Committee procedural rules state: "Eight Members of the Committee, including at least two Members of the minority, shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of transacting business... If there is objection to bring the matter to a vote without further debate, a roll call vote of the Committee shall be taken, and debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with ten votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority." On April 29th, only one minority member attended the Hamilton hearings, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), whose tough questioning opposed Hamilton, so no vote was permissible. (David Hamilton is an extreme anti-Jesus, anti-Life liberal judge.)

When Specter had ruled Judiciary as GOP minority ranking member, he could likely be counted on by the Obama administration as "one soft vote" to promote liberal judges. But now since Specter is no longer Republican, he cannot help Obama. And in breaking news this week, solid conservative Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) has assumed Specter's place of leadership as minority ranking Member, and all other Judiciary Republicans Hatch, Grassley, Kyl, Graham, Cornyn, Coburn, can generally be counted upon (with the possible exception of gang-of-14 member Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, 202-224-5972), to stand firm against abortion and religious censorship. Now Sen. Sessions says he agrees with Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), that we should oppose and filibuster Hamilton's nomination to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, the same court that reversed his liberal, activist, aggressive decisions for years.

How true and how obvious!

"We give all this money to all these different entities, including automakers, and now they’re talking about, ‘Well maybe it’s better to let them go bankrupt.’” So says Charles Key, Oklahoma state representative. He concludes, "Well, maybe we should have let them go bankrupt before we gave them the money.”

Could there be a more obvious statement?

Say it Loud, Say it Proud

Arthur C. Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute, asserts in today's Wall Street Journal, "Advocates of free enterprise must learn from the growing grass-roots protests [tea parties], and make the moral case for freedom and entrepreneurship." In other words, conservatives must stop being defensive, and take the offensive. Profiting from one's useful ideas or creations is indeed moral, and it is legitimate for people to trade their labor to such a person for compensation. What is not moral is for people who have voluntarily made this exchange and benefitted from it to believe that they have some entitlement to the profits from what the entrepreneur has put at risk. And this immoral entitlement mentality is at the bottom of Obama-ism, which is synonymous with socialism, or, if you like, communism. As the great Dr. Walter E. Williams repeatedly points out, redistribution of wealth is "legalized theft." It is not moral, it is not compassionate, it is not productive. Socialism is a discredited, failed, misleading philosophy based on people's weakest impulses--not their strengths--and on false promises. Capitalism, on the other hand, is the most effective means ever harnessed for creating and spreading prosperity. Capitalism works; socialism only creates misery and unearned comforts for the elitists who peddle it. (Think Al Gore.) This is what we need to say, constantly, loudly and proudly.

Ask your liberal friends how socialism has worked out in the Soviet Union, Cuba and North Korea. Would they like to live in those places? When they bring up Western Europe, remind them that those nations have had the luxury of lavish social benefits because we, the evil United States of America, have protected their rear ends from all threats and attacks since World War II, which we ruthlessly won in a most effective way, by the way. Champion capitalism and freedom!

1934 cartoon (Here we go again!)

Click on image for better view.

Too big to fall

Dick Morris reports: On April 2, 2009, the work of July 4, 1776 was nullified at the meeting of the G-20 in London. The joint communiqué essentially announces a global economic union with uniform regulations and bylaws for all nations, including the United States. Henceforth, our SEC, Commodities Trading Commission, Federal Reserve Board and other regulators will have to march to the beat of drums pounded by the Financial Stability Board (FSB), a body of central bankers from each of the G-20 states and the European Union.

The mandate conferred on the FSB is remarkable for its scope and open-endedness. It is to set a "framework of internationally agreed high standards that a global financial system requires." These standards are to include the extension of "regulation and oversight to all systemically important financial institutions, instruments, and markets...[including] systemically important hedge funds."

Note the key word: "all." If the FSB, in its international wisdom, considers an institution or company "systemically important", it may regulate and over see it. This provision extends and internationalizes the proposals of the Obama Administration to regulate all firms, in whatever sector of the economy that it deems to be "too big to fail."

My conclusion: The idea that certain companies are "too big to fall" is Lenin's concept of the "Commanding Heights." Apparently the world is now run by a cabal of genuine Marxists. Can the Antichrist be far away?

Armed for freedom

Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not. ~ Thomas Jefferson

• An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
• If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
• Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.
• Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
• Guns have only two enemies: rust and liberal politicians.
• The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
• Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
• Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
• You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.

Smoke in the sacristy

It took the Catholic Church some 1,500 years to rack up the 95 excesses challenged by Martin Luther in his 95 Theses (Disputation of Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences). It appears that Barack Obama will easily beat that score in his first three months in the White House. The scope and scale, the recklessness and abandon with which he is systematically dismantling our system of government - which has, after all, proven to be the most effective machine for equitable wealth distribution in the history of the planet- is breathtaking. That we have come to a pass where the likes of Barack Obama, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Rahm Emmanuel, and George Soros are determining the shape of this country is astonishing. The crew in charge today is akin to the corrupt and cynical prelates who so outraged Luther, wicked men who preyed on people's ignorance -counted on it! - to expand their own power and influence.

Let me digress - slightly: In the wake of the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI was deeply troubled by some of the Council's unitended results. (An aside to this digression: Although unitended, the disastrous effects of the Council were not at all unexpected by some conservatives and traditionalists.) Paul VI is said to have said, in some dismay, "Through some fissure, the smoke of Satan has entered the sacristy." And indeed, the course of the Church over the past two generation suggests that something wicked has sunk its claws into the heart of the Church.

Along those lines, we just had an election in which a bare majority of Americans elected a man who promised hope and change. We had, so to speak, our own Vatican II. For somthing approaching 40 percent of his voters, the idea that they were electing a man who would in three months make significant strides toward transforming this nation into a socialist state would be unthinkable. But they opened a fissure, and the smoke emanating from inside the beltway has a distinctly sulphurous odor.


So back to my initial point: We desperately need a Martin Luther who can figuratively nail a new 95 Theses to the door of the White House and launch a counteroffensive against these detestable cynics. And do so in a way that galvanizes a real following. Otherwise, we end up much like the 21st century Church: a rambling shambling wreck, no longer universal, moving forward on sheer inertia, peopled by communicants who largely make up their own rules as they go along.

Serious issues

Alert!

AP headline: Senate reviewing how college football picks No. 1.

I'm glad Congress is now focusing in on the really serious issues of our day.

Making Ron Paul Sound Reasonable

Ron Paul was on with Glenn Beck this morning, sounding perfectly reasonable, as he described what those three stooges (no offense to the brilliant performers I love so much) Obama the community organizer, Bernanke the historian who's learned nothing, and Geithner the tax cheat are doing to our economy and our currency. They are monetizing the debt and stoking inflation so they can pay back all this profligate debt with less valuable dollars. This is totally irresponsible, obviously, and will lead to all kinds of discontent, as many of us will not be content to live on Obama's rice plantation.

The daunting task...

NewsMax reports: "President Robert Mugabe called for international help for the plan and reiterated a call for sanctions to be lifted. 'I, on behalf of the inclusive government and the people of Zimbabwe, say: 'Friends of Zimbabwe, please come to our aid'," he said at the launch of the government's Short-term Emergency Recovery Program.' The government of Mugabe and Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai faces the daunting task of rebuilding Zimbabwe's shattered economy after years of hyperinflation and decline."

This is precisely parallel to the Frank-Dodd cabal demanding that the taxpayers ante up to pay for the daunting task of rebuilding the shattered mortgage and banking industries. I guess the way it now works is, you take charge, you destroy through you own power-hungry mania and ineptitude, and then you demand that someone else pay to fix your mess as you supervise the rebuilding process. It reminds me of Proverbs 19:3, which says, "A man's own folly ruins his life, yet his heart rages against the LORD" (NIV).

"Stop Being Stupid."

How many of our problems could be solved by applying this simple admonition? I would say the vast majority of them. My career in the law has been a prime example of what results from ignoring this rule. All sorts of puerile idiocy is tolerated in the law and in the justice system. The result, predictably enough, is an idiotic system that is so choked with nonsense that it barely works. Similarly, in the broader society, we are strangling ourselves, committing suicide, with the manner and variety of stupidity that we tolerate and even encourage. It doesn't have to be this way. It is not necessary. It is one of the by-products of liberalism run rampant. So stop being stupid. Don't listen to stupid, don't tolerate stupid, don't indulge stupid. We cannot afford to be stupid anymore.

Where the facts lead us

Obama has called an end to the so-called "war on science" waged by the Bush administration. The charge, to anyone intellectually honest enough to examine it, was totally bogus. It was never more than a democrat talking point, one of many that were part of the "Bush is a moron" narrative the democrats were peddling - and the mainstream media were buying and regurgitating - for eight years. There was no war on science during the Bush administration. What there was was a recognition that science unrestrained by ethical considerations can work to man's detriment as well as to his benefit.

Obama used the occasion of lifting the ban on embryonic stem cell research to take cheap shots at his predecessor - and utterly false ones at that. He stated that from now on, in his administration, science will not be driven by political considerations, but will be driven by "wherever the facts lead us." But it is the democrats who politicize science, with their religious embrace of climate change, their dogmatic insistence on the right to harvest human embryos for whatever ends they desire.

So Obama is willing to harvest human embryos - humans in their most vulernable state - because that's where the facts of science lead us. Okay. But the pure, unadulterated "facts" should lead us to conclude that the strong should always be able to take whatever they wish from the weak: their stem cells, their kidneys, their corneas, their very lives. After all, the idea that human life at any stage has intrinsic value is not a scientific notion at all.

The Chinese -remember the mantra "Socialism kills" - already harvest organs from political prisoners, to be peddled on the gray market to the well-heeled and well-connected, a perfect description of today's establishment liberals. The organs probably end up in the guts of Gucci-wearing Obamites from Hollywood burning through their third livers. And the "donors?" They end up in the garbage heap, the same place where we dump our "failed" abortions, little babies, untended, sucking a few desperate gasps of air before they pass away, alone. While their killers and their political enablers celebrate National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers. (Really.)

Do you really think we're that far away from the Chinsese? I don't. That's the conclusion to which the facts lead me.

Traitor Newt Does It Again

Sucking up to the mainstream media, Newt Gingrich said on one of the talking head shows that wanting Obama to fail is "irrational." This was a reference to Rush Limbaugh. This is the same Newt Gingrich who sucked up to Jesse Jackson during his short-lived reign as speaker of the house, and the same Newt Gingrich who came out in favor of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid porkulus bill just as more courageous Republicans were standing against it. This particular blogger has a long, long memory.

The one thing that guarantees Gingrich will never be presidential timber is that he has a terminal case of Potomac Fever. For those of you who don't know, the disorder has no known cure. And in Gingrich's case, it is complicated by McCain-itis.

Your Entrepreneurial Government at Work

I heard this morning that the Pa. Liquor Control Board will pay a consultant $173,000 to teach the union-represented state store employees to be polite to customers, to say "hello" and "come again." I would be willing to save the state $73,000. For only $100,000, I'd simply tell the state store employees, "Be nice to the customers or you'll be written up."

My question is what if, after the consultant has been paid and done his work, the state store employees are still sullen and surly? What are you going to do, fire them? Of course not; they're state employees. They have a union, and they don't have to be nice to anybody. What are the customers going to do, go to Maryland?

Well, in any event, we have here a great example of what a marvelous job government does at managing business. I can't wait for all the Soviet-style, centrally planned enterprises that will be visited on us by The Great Lord Barry Obama.

Who cares what the Constitution says?

Senator Mel Martinez (RINO from FL) has suggested that voters have made Barack Obama eligible to occupy the Oval Office, whether or not he meets the constitutional mandate of being a "natural born" citizen. I don't know whether Mr. Obama was born in Kenya or Hawaii, but if the thinking of Senator Martinez is correct, then why even have a constitution at all? Why, we could elect Tony Blair or Vlad Putin if we wanted to.

This is a prime example of the kind of vacuous thinking that pervades our society. The truth is, the voters went to the polls believing that Mr. Obama met consitutional muster. If he did not, then his election is fraudulent. If he knew he did not, then he has committed a serious crime and must be removed from office by the Senate and put on trial for fraud. But to suggest that the will of the voters electing a man under fall pretenses trumps the clear requirements of the United States Constitution is irrational and dangerous. The rule of law is our protection against arbitrary rule. This was our Founders' genius. Again, I don't know the truth about Mr. Obama's birth, but if guys like this continue to run our government, we are clearly heading for the arbitrary rule of an autocratic elite. Maybe we're already there.

Great Point by the Great One: Mark Levin

Tyranny is not a new idea; it's a lot older than liberty. He was adverting to Obama, but the fact remains. Fairly recently, some brilliant men got together with a great plan and an elegant means to allow its functioning. And just because a smooth-talking charlatan won an election does not give the parasitic leftist masses the right, like locusts, to strip us of our freedoms without regard to the constitution which forms the basis of our government. No mere election can nullify the Constitution. Anyone who claims that it can or that it does is full of it. He merely wants his big strong man to hold the rest of us up so that he can get, through force, what he could never obtain on his own merit. This type of political thuggery inevitably leads to the use of force, and resistance to the use of force; and we all know what that adds up to.

Sayonara, Steele

Steele must go. He is a disgrace. Either he's a traitor to the cause, or he's a complete idiot. Goes on a show with a leftist black host, and sells out Rush Limbaugh and conservatives, as well as the pathetic GOP. What a mistake. This fool must go. Forget the ditch; this guy's putting the party at the bottom of the ocean. Question is, do we fight to save the party, or abandon it.

Thank You, Rush

Kudos to Rush Limbaugh for having the courage, something our elected Republican representatives seem to lack, to call Obama out on all his outrageous lies, deception and demagoguery. The same goes for Mark Levin, Glenn Beck and others. Each day brings a new outrage, and for the most part, Republican office-holders sit silently, like a bunch of lambs waiting for the slaughter. Many of them are AWOL, and disgracefully so. They should be having press conferences and town hall meetings every day of the week. They're not doing anything in Washington; they might as well be in their districts, getting in front of every camera they can, making principled arguments against the despicable socialist destruction of our society. Thank God in Heaven that someone with a microphone will speak out against this iniquity.

The I-word

Is it too soon for Republicans to start talking about the I-word with regard to Barack Obama?

Given his reckless disregard for dealing appropriately with the honest-to-goodness crisis in this nation's economy, I certainly feel the Republicans can make a case that impeachment proceedings are already in order. In his few short months in the public arena, Barack Obama has repeatedly lied to the American people about his intentions in a host of areas; most recently he has mischaracterized his dismantlement of the American system as a "stimulus" package.

It's becoming increasingly apparent with each passing day that Obama willfully refuses to take obvious and simple steps to reverse the slide in the markets; to the contrary, he has talked the markets down, talked them down at a cost of untold trillions of dollars in lost wealth. That wealth represents the blood, sweat, and tears of scores of millions of Americans. Indeed, some 70 percent of adults in the country are invested in the markets in one way or another. So set aside for a moment the wildly misguided talk about tax increases; this president has already cost virtually every American years of the invested fruit of their labors. Every retiree, every investor, every union pension fund holder - yes, I said union - has been betrayed by Obama and his thus far unindicted co-conspirators in the Democratic party.

Given the scope of the crime we're seeing committed right before our eyes, is it too soon to talk about impeachment? Politically, probably. But the day is coming - and sooner than we had any reason to expect a few weeks ago - when a majority of Americans begin to see what's being done to their country - and more to the point, to them.

Euro-style socialism?

In his column today (02/27/09) Charles Krauthammer makes the case that Obama is intent upon moving the US toward European style social democracy. Indeed, with his stimulus bill now a done deal, Obama, in his first 30 days, has already pretty much succeded in that goal.
I for one think Krauthammer is being too generous in asserting that Obama's goal is mere Euro socialism. After all, Obama's earliest political mentor and guru was an avowed Marxist; he was a disciple of Saul Alinsky; his earliest Chigago poliitcal ally was terrorist and Marxist William Ayers. None of these factors sugest that Obama has much interest in the "democracy" part of Euro-style socialism.

In any event, let's grant for the sake of argument that Krauthammer is correct and that Obama aspires to merely be a two term European-style socialist leader. What hasn't been commented on is that Europe's 60 year fling with its current brand of governance has been made possible totally and exclusievkly as a result of six decades' worth of American security guarantees; in comparison to us, the Europeans have had to spend almost nothing on their own defense. They've been on a 60-year binge, in other words, largely at our expense.

Unless we intend to totally abandon our own military investment - and our global responsibilities - we will find pretty quickly that a socialist model is unsustainable here for strictly pragmatic reasons. After all, it was (at least in part) its need to match us in military spending that destroyed Sovient communism.

The Children Are Running the Kindergarten

It occurred to me over the past couple days that there is simply no adult supervision in Washington. Like children, the politicians blunder ahead, spending all the way, heedless and careless of any consequences. Everybody wants something. Gimme, gimme, gimme. And, of course, it is spoiled children who are being indulged. They want it to be free. Nobody thinks about how (or even whether) to pay for it all. It's other people's money!

However, adults must think of consequences. I am an adult. And I know where things end up when children are running the kindergarten. Just ask the inhabitants of Anthony Fremont's town.

Socialism: Parasite of Capitalism

If it weren't for the marvelous engine of capitalism, socialism could not exist. The grand experiment in Karl Marx's crackpot theories ended in 1991, though others crawl on in places like North Korea and Cuba. Like a parasite, socialism sucks the blood of the productive, capitalist system until there is nothing left to suck. In the process, millions of people suffer and die.

In the Soviet Union, with their vaunted collective farms, there were still individual plots for some of the collective-farm workers, the kolkhozniks. The communists levied "taxes in kind" on these plots; in other words, they confiscated the produce of the plots. The private plots produced a vastly disproportional amount of the country's production of a variety of staples. It took at least twenty kolkhozniks, working on the collective farm, to produce what four farmers in the United States produced. Productivity in other areas of the Soviet economy was not much better.

Now we embark on this already trodden path here in the United States, and we can't get there fast enough. A freakish mad scientist has put out bait for the parasites, and they have come scurrying by the millions. With their limited brains, they don't think about tomorrow or next month or next year. They don't think about children, about responsibility. They can think only of their next free meal and their next free benefit. This is their idea of "free-dom."

Whether these drones won an election or not, we have the right and responsibility to oppose them. The alternative is to become like the miserable serfs of the Soviet Union.

Hundreds show up to protest global warming!

Thoughts on a new march on Washington

In strategizing a proposed pro-constitution March on Washington, I think it would be important to embrace the sunny optimism of Ronald Reagan, always remembering that Ronaldus Maximus was no Pollyanna. He recognized evil for what it was and he called a spade a spade. But underpinning and informing everything he did was an optimism about the power of free men to better their condition.
Sure, people are po'd today, but the tonal approach to any March on Washington ought to be not anti-Obama, not anti-anything, but, in the spirit of Reagan, pro-America, pro-Constitution, and pro-people.

One thing the march can do is turn the tables on the leftist mantra of "power to the people." The fact is no political structure in the history of the world has unleashed the power of the people nearly as effectively as has the US Constitution. The Founding Fathers, in their wisdom - and humility - understood that each man knows what's best for him and his family. And more to the point, each man, for better or for worse, has a natural right to make the choices that determine the course of his life. The fruits of the Founders' vision are all around us: the most equitable distribution of wealth the world has ever seen. By contrast, the ash heap of history is riddled with the remains of societies where all the power was gathered in the state.

Capitalism is intrinsically altruisitc: you do something for me, I do something for you. I treat you right, treat you as a human being, provide you good value for what I offer you, and you return as a customer. I mistreat you, get too greedy and don't offer you good value, and I fail. Capitalism, in other words, fosters all the virtues. It is an exercise in giving, in fair play, in respecting the dignity of each person. Socialism, by contrast, fosters cynicism: it is a taking exercise, one that fosters a sense of entitlement, resentment, shoddiness [think of the phrase "good enough for government work"], and disrespect for the individual. (Nancy Pelosi expressed this last point quite explicitly: subsidizing contraception is a stimulus program because if we can reduce the number of people - those pesky, troublesome people - there'll be more plunder for the rest of us to divvy up.)

Capitalism, as empowered by the US Constitution, fosters hope, optimism, faith, and a relentless search for truth (to succeed in the marketplace, you need to know what's true, not what you wish were true). Socialism fosters despair (seeing all human transactions as zero-sum games), fear (what do we do if someone takes away our entitlements - see the hopeless and fearful response to Katrina by the residents of New Orleans, many of whom were wards of the state), cynicism (ve pretend to vork; dey pretend to pay us), and fantastical thinking (see any number of great leaps forweard, five-year plans, or the "stimulus" package, which is, after all, nothing more than Obama's first five year plan.

The March on Washington needs to make these points in an upbeat, optimistic way.

The Fairness Doctrine

A new battle cry...

Restore fairness to broadcasting:

end public subsidies to NPR.

How utterly brazen!

Yes, the Democrats won. Yes, they have the power. Yes, they can essentially do whatever they want. But they are so brazen. They say they want to end partisanship, yet no Republicans are allowed in the conference committee. They promise to set the final bill before public eyes 48 hours before the vote, then they reneg on the promise. They have decided what they want and, by God, they're going to have it, regardless what it takes to get it. And they do it all right before the cameras. Right in front of everyone. How utterly brazen they are!

Two things can be said about this remarkable legislative behavior. First, the Democrats have obviously learned from Bill Clinton that the public has a short memory. They know that they can flaunt their power and ignore public opinion, yet have total confidence that in a short while no one will remember (at least not enough will remember). Of course, the cover they get from the obsequious press corp helps to make this happen. Second, in a sense they are showing admirable leadership, which the Republicans could use a lesson in. These Democrats know what they want, have the power to do what they want, and are not about to let public opinion or the oppostion stop them. This is our Republic in action. No member of Congress is required to listen to his constituency. He is only required to exercise his best judgment in behalf of his constinuency (no matter how loony his judgment may be). Furthermore, we tend to admire those leaders who stay the course, even when the public is crying out for a new direction. The Republicans had power for six years and squandered it by reaching out and trying to bring the other side into the process. The Democrats are smart enough to know that in the end, it doesn't matter who seems to be magnanimous and who voted for which bills (a 61-39 vote is just as good as a 99-1 vote); it only matters that their agenda gets enacted into law. I hope the Republicans remember this down the road.

Back in the USSR

"Why don't you just fire the CEO's of those failed banks?" asks cub reporter Terry Moran of Premier Stalin, uh, I mean President Obama. Apparently Mr. Moran believes we are living in the USSR. I doubt if even Putin has the authority to fire a corporate CEO (have him imprisoned or murdered yes, but fire him no).

Republican Awakening?

I'm afraid I overestimated Obama, that I gave him too much credit. I thought he would arrive in D.C. like Lenin from exile, and ram through his socialist programs as fast as possible, the devil with Republicans. Instead, he delayed, seeking to sucker the Republicans into booking passage on his Titanic. And what do you know: the GOP balked. We have the spectacle of Susan Collins--Susan Collins!--arguing that the "stimulus" package is too expensive. What kind of crazy world is this? What happened to hope and change? Have Republicans, even RINOs like Collins, found their soul? Or have voters realized that the loons like Obama, Nancy "Five-hundred-million-Americans" Pelosi and "Barney Freak" are selling them and their children down the river? Or perhaps reality has hit the love-struck suckers who voted for Lord Barack Obama? I guess the only thing we can count on is that as long as we're dealing with human beings, it's hard to predict anything.

Articulate, bright, and clean

Can I be the first to say that the Republicans now have their own mainstream African-American who is "articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."

"I'm sorry, so sorry."

Back in the early sixties, Brenda Lee sang a song that said, "I'm sorry, so sorry, that I was such a fool." In the past week we have heard similar "I'm sorries" from Timothy Geithner for "mistakenly" failing to pay taxes for four years and from Tom Daschle for a nearly identical offense. We have heard the same thing, in essence, from Senator Chris Dodd, who is suddenly willing to refinance his Countrywide VIP mortgages, even though he "did nothing wrong." And sadly, we have heard the same hollow-sounding "I'm sorry" from Olympic champ Michael Phelps for smoking dope. It wasn't so long ago that Douglas Ginsburg was rejected as a Supreme Court nominee because he admitted smoking marijuana and Bob Packwood was drummed out of the Senate for groping. These guys neglected to say they were sorry. It seems that in our generation, "I'm sorry" erases nearly all transgressions and makes everything alright. But I can't help but wonder if these characters are really saying, "I'm sorry, so sorry, that YOU are such a fool."

Public policy corrupting personal character

The idea of having a "strong work ethic" has long been held to be a virtue. Diligence, industriousness, reliability, self-reliance have been esteemed for millennia as marks of both good character and good citizenship. As the Bible says, "He who does not work should not eat." Over the years, I have known a significant number of people who have lost a job and gone on unemployment. Every last one of them stayed on unemployment until about two weeks before it ran out. They then went out and got a job. Perhaps there are some who genuinely cannot find work for a protracted period of time. And perhaps we could have a discussion about the morality of the government helping these people out with cash payments. But this business of subsidizing indolence needs to stop. It is corrupting of good character and perpetuates dependency on the Mommy State.

Come on liberals, get real.

I heard some female liberal hack on Fox News a few nights ago saying that spending all this money on infrastructure will add jobs, because how can people get to work with all these crumbling roads and bridges? Now let's get real. I might agree that we need to make some significant investments on road and bridge repair. My state, Pennsylvania, has had an on-going plan for repairing all bridges for quite some time, so why we now need the federal government to butt in, I don't know. Regardless of the current needs, as one who has been all over this country, I have yet to see a place where Americans could not get to work because of the disrepair of roads and bridges (not withstanding the collapsed bridge in Minneapolis, which was due to shoddy workmanship). If these people are going to argue for their side, they ought to at least stay within the realm of realism. I guess this is just another way of trying to make the America Obama inherited from Bush seem like little more than a third-world nation.

Savior and Lord

The Bible describes Jesus Christ as both Savior and Lord. This is because, in order to save us, He must have the authority to tell us what to do. It is as though we are in a burning building and He can get us out only if we listen to Him and obey Him scrupulously. This is why Hebrews 5:9 describes Him as "the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him." Conversely, if a person will not listen to Jesus and submit to His instructions, he is on his own. Of course, Jesus does not impose Himself on anyone. His lordship and salvation are only for the willing.

This principle plays out in the political world as well. The only way a leader can be a savior of the people is by controlling them. If they are left to do as they please, the leader’s ability to impact their lives and the life of the nation is greatly restricted. This was the Founders’ antidote to tyranny. Each man was to be self-governing as he pursued his own brand of life, liberty, and happiness. The government only stepped in to control those who through criminal conduct were inhibiting the freedom of the citizenry.

Mr. Obama has put himself forward as a savior figure, saying that he will usher in a new age of hope and change which will be superior to every pervious generation. His message is clearly messianic in scope and tone. This is why he is a man to be greatly feared. As H. L. Mencken said, "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it."

Trash

This is how the green, eco-conscious, Obama-loving liberals left our nation's capital. Watch this incredible video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMrJE7J3fWU

The Pledge

I swear, this trivial little video is really heartbreaking. You've probably seen it. It features a bunch of "celebrities" pledging - as a way to support Obama - to do all sorts of things both big and small, all, presumably, aimed at making the world a better place. The link is here:
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86695

The pledges, of course, are empty and meaningless and most of those making these pledges are not and never will be in a position to actually realize them. What's heartbreaking is that they're all almost dewy-eyed with patriotism and love of country now that they've elected a person whose politics they agree with (to the extent anyone really knows where Obama stands on anything). So, implicitly, they're only Americans when a democrat is in office.

Where were they, though, when President Bush was all alone, heaving his guts out in the dark of night, wracked by guttural sobs that only Laura saw and heard, because of the decisions he had to make to keep these "pledgers" safe and free? Where were they? I'll tell you. They were doing everything they could to make his life as miserable, as isolated, as difficult as possible. They were doing everything they could to belittle him and ridicule him in the eyes of the world, extending not one single shred of human decency, not one single solitary drop of the milk of human kindness to sustain him.

Shame, I say.

It's an ugly spectacle, really. And the antithesis of patriotism (That is, a patriot doesn't get to choose when and when not to love his country.)

The spirit of true American patriotism

"I do not choose to be a common man. It is my right to be uncommon—if I can. I seek opportunity—not security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me. I want to take the calculated risk; to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed. I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of utopia. I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any master nor bend to any threat. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid; to think and act for myself, enjoy the benefit of my creations, and to face the world boldly and say, this I have done. All this is what it means to be an American." ~ Dean Alfange

Myth superceding reality

Why restrict ourselves to historical reality when the myth everyone wants to believe is so much more exciting? For example, Mr. Obama seems to bask in the idea of being identified with Lincoln, the man who in many ways acted more like a dictator than a president; the man who presumed he could supercede the rule of law with a presidential decree (the Emancipation Proclamation); the man who imprisoned over 13,000 private citizens without charging them with a crime...simply because they were critical of his regime; the man who thumbed his nose at the Supreme Court when he disagreed with its decision; the man who conducted the most vicious and reprehensible kind of war against 5,000,000 of his fellow Americans, destroying their homes and land, and leaving them in a state of utter devastation. OK, there may be grounds for comparison.

As we know, the Great Emancipator emancipated no one. His proclamation only applied to the states that had seceded, not the states he had actual governance over. Furthermore, his proclamation was issued primarily to demoralize the South and to keep France and England from becoming her allies. As a matter of personal belief, Lincoln never envisioned an integrated nation. In 1858 he stated, "There is a physical difference between the white and black races, which...will forever forbid the two races living together upon terms of social and political equality." His plan was to free the slaves so they could be deported to the Carribean or Africa. So if this is who Mr. Obama wants to identify himself with, then so be it. But let us all beware.

A new declaration?

So our new president says this country needs a new declaration of independence. Presumably and implicitly, that old 18th century document just doesn't cut it anymore.

So what's this new manifesto to contain? Well, the messiah says we need to declare independence from ideology, small thinking, prejudice and bigotry.

Let's set aside for a moment the utter banality of this statement and just translate it into English. What the one is saying is that he wants us to be free from the ideology of the right (his political philosophy, of course, isn't ideology; it's just an expression of the way every normal person thinks). Ideology, by their definition, can only be conservative.

So sure, let's get rid of that. And of course, the same is true for all the other things we need to be free of: Small thinking? That's the kind of thinking that disagrees with me! Bigotry and prejudice? Only white males can be guilty of these things (again, by definition) so of course we want to be free of them.. . . and them?

There is no end to this man's arrogance, foolishness, and cynicism. he's obviously a narcissist; I believe he goes beyond that to megalomania.

The Height of Hypocricy

"The great and swift decline in America's influence is one of the most important motivations for Israelis to wage such a barbaric attack on Gaza, in a bid to try and make use of the last days of Bush's mandate and the neo-conservatives." So says Osama Ben Laden, promoter and financial backer of the barbaric attack on 9/11, which killed nearly 3000 people.

Atlas Shrugged is here!

The current economic strategy is right out of "Atlas Shrugged": The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you. That's the justification for the $2 trillion of subsidies doled out already to keep afloat distressed insurance companies, banks, Wall Street investment houses, and auto companies -- while standing next in line for their share of the booty are real-estate developers, the steel industry, chemical companies, airlines, ethanol producers, construction firms and even catfish farmers. With each successive bailout to "calm the markets," another trillion of national wealth is subsequently lost. Yet, as "Atlas" grimly foretold, we now treat the incompetent who wreck their companies as victims, while those resourceful business owners who manage to make a profit are portrayed as recipients of illegitimate "windfalls." (Stephen Moore, Wall Street Journal, January 9, 2009)

They're Already Acting Like Stalin!

Obama hasn't even taken office and he and his gang are acting like the Stalinists they are. This is especially noticeable in the way they are treating each other. Mr. Burris is appointed by a sitting governor, in accordance with the Illinois constitution, and the Democrat leader of the U.S. Senate orders the sergeant at arms of the Senate to deny his credentials. They don't care if he's black, they don't care if he's pure, they don't care if he's "qualified." Stalin, during the Great Terror, didn't care about these things, either. The point was that if they weren't toeing the particular Stalinist line of the moment, which could change at any moment, they were the enemy. Period, end of statement, no if's, and's or but's.

And incidentally, the law doesn't matter, either, any more in our country than it did in the Soviet Union. The Supreme Court ruled in the Adam Clayton Powell case several decades ago that if the candidate was constitutionally qualified, he must be seated, whether or not a ministerial act like signing by the state attorney general is lacking. Is there now a good faith argument for some exception or extension that should apply to Burris? Anyone?

And let's not forget Al Franken, "the spiteful troll," as the Great Mark Levin calls him. He and his party cronies in Minnesota have apparently brazenly stolen the Senate election in Minnesota right in front of everybody's eyes.

In all these instances, the end justifies the means, and the end is simply and exclusively power.

Awww: Poor Billy Can't Be a Player

Poor Bill Richardson, shown here enthusiastically greeting his philosophical soulmate, communist dictator Hugo Chavez, has to bow out of the Obama "change" administration (though he's another Clinton retread) because--surprise!--he might be a crook. Ah, well, there'll be another designated Hispanic to take his place. Bye-bye, Billy!

The More Things Change. . .

. . . the more they stay the same. The two Clintons and "Mayor-for-Life" Mike Bloomberg drop the famous ball in Times Square.

I finally started reading a book I've wanted to read for many years, "The Harvest of Sorrow," about some of Stalin's hope and change for the peasants in the early 1930s. As I say, socialism kills. As the author, the great Robert Conquest, points out, power is not a means to an end; it is the end. And so it is with Obama & Co.