Obama got Osama, 1 Year On

The Obama administration is making such a big deal about Obama ordering the killing of Osama bin Laden as part of their re-election campaign. Just between us, I am getting tired of it because Obama keeps acting like he led the raid and double tapped the target himself. Why don't we all agree that we are glad that Obama ordered the raid and that the SEALS were able to pull it off so effectively.
But let's also think about the "courage" of Obama to order the raid. Yes, things could have gone wrong and we could have had a replay of Desert One to finalize the comparison with Jimmy Carter. But if he hadn't ordered it, what do you think public opinion would have been when it was found out that he passed? That's right, Obama had no choice. He didn't fast rope into the compound, nor did he kick the door down or anything else. Instead, he was a voyeur as the real decision makers made their way.
Don't get me wrong, I am glad that the animal is dead. But what is the long term effect of the death of Osama? Outside of being used as campaign fodder, is Al Quaeda gone? Nope. Is the War on Terror really over as some administration idiot supposedly has pronounced? Nope. The fight will go on without the benefit of a figurehead. Kind of reminds me of the Democrat Party after November.

Schweitzer on Letterman

So our good governor goes on the Late Show with David Letterman, and since I usually don't bother watching Letterman anymore, I decided to record it to watch it later.  Overall, the Gov did a great job of looking like a hick.  Unbelievable that this man was supposedly being considered at one time for a Cabinet post.



Watch and decide for yourself.

Obama's New Campaign Theme

Thought it up all by himself, he did, and it's "We Can't Wait!"  I think it's great as far as it goes, but they forgot the rest of the line:  "Until this Bozo is gone!"

Another Fine Example

Apropos my earlier posting about the Left not being morally consistent, we have Pogie of Intelligent Discontent who is following up on the meme of the "Republican War on Women" with his latest posting.  It seems that Pogie is outraged that the Republican gubernatorial candidates want to eliminate gender discrimination in insurance, especially health insurance.  In Pogie's mind, the Eeevill insurance companies want to base the rates on actual use instead of treating each of us just exactly the same, and he is upset that anyone would actually consider such a thing.
Of course without looking, I could just about guarantee that Pogie has complained about the costs of health insurance, so his complaint just further verifies my posting about the immoral reasoning that is used by the Left.  How about instead of this being a war on women, we recognize if for what it really is:  Using men to subsidize women's health insurance.  Women as a population, tend to use health care more than men, ergo greater costs are incurred for the benefit of the fairer sex.  Rather than have them pay their share, we have made discrimination based on reality illegal.  Now, one of the problems is that because of the higher health care costs, men can and do make a rational assessment and decide that it is not in their financial interests to buy insurance, thereby removing their support.  This results in higher insurance coverages to pay for the population using the service, which then incurs more men to decide not to participate, repeating the cycle.
If the costs were based on actuarial data, we would charge each according to their risk so that healthy lifestyles are rewarded and risky behavior is required to subsidize the risk to the less healthy.  This could mean that women's insurance premiums would go up, but there would now be a larger pool of men who demand less services that could more equitably spread the risk to all.  Of course, Pogie also forgets that the problem with gender neutrality is that women subsidize men when it comes to drivers insurance.  
So, the question presented has to be - is Pogie just another puppet of the Democrat-media conglomeration ruthlessly seeking power, or is he just dumb?

The Love of Power

Victor David Hanson has an excellent piece out that says what I have been thinking for quite awhile. I have foolishly given the Left the benefit of the doubt that they actually believe their arguments, no matter how wrong or misguided they might be. This puts everyone who is not an avid Democrat at a distinct disadvantage. For instance as noted in the article, where are all the anti-war Cindy Sheehans, etc. that pummeled Bush and the "neoocons"? Is everything just milk and honey now, or is it just that their guy is in control so it's okay?
The bottom line is that there may be a few on the Left who actually have deeply felt moral convictions and are consistent. I can admire them for that.

If I could find them.

The Problem with Unmedicated Mental Illness

Is visibly demonstrated by Nancy Pelosi:

President Barack Obama "has been so respectful of the Republicans in Congress.

No, really, she said this. As well as:

"He has given them every opportunity for the executive and the legislative branch to work together, to have a solution that has bi-partisan support. He’s been criticized by some for taking the time that it takes to find out that they’re never going to give him a break, which is a compromise.”

There is more, and if you need an April Fools joke that is available every damn day of the year, go read the rest of the article.

More Drudge Juxtaposition Fun

From the looks of it, the Secret Service is looking to talk to Nugent about how to really party.

Presidential Predictions

According to my wife (the Good Democrat) and others of her ilk, Obama is going to take his re-election in a walk. They base this primarily on how poorly "Malleable Mitt" has been doing in head to head match ups in the polls. But in the spirit of not counting chickens too early, I think that Obama doesn't stand a chance at being continued in office.
Sure, it is counterfactual to all of the current conventional wisdom, but here is why I think Obama is in trouble. First - All of the press so far this season has been on the food fight among the Republican nominees. Assuming that the MSM is relishing this low level WWE contest and reporting on every false step, accusation or other peccadillo, they have managed to drive down Romney's favorables to more than half. But what happens when Romney secures the nomination?
At that time there will be the inevitable one on one that campaigns are meant to be about. And Obama cannot run on his record. Yes, yes, I know that the Democrats are still going to be using the mantra "It's Bush's fault" but that is tiresome to those not drinking the Kool-Aid. And the Kool-Aid drinkers are already firmly in Obama's column.
The economy was worse than they thought? Well then why in the heck were they messing with it if they didn't understand the severity of the problem? Do we want to return to the failed policies of the Bush Administration? Let's see, 4% unemployment, lower SSI and SSDI claims because even the disabled could find a job. Deficits? Sure Bush spent a Trillion dollars on the wars, but that is small change compared to what Obama has done every year. Wealth being accumulated by the 1% at the expense of the 99? So yesterday, and the Occupy Movement is but a parody of the Tea Party in spite of their best efforts by the MSM. Improved comity and race relations? Our post racial President lives and dies by white guilt and the need to energize his base. War on Women? That has been underway since Obama managed to destroy the economy with his failed Keynesian policies. In every aspect of his 2008 campaign, Obama lied to us. Closing Gitmo, doing away with military tribunals, stopping drone warfare, all of which were Bush policies carried out even further by the man who promised to end them all.
How about the future? Unfortunately, Chairman Putin pf Russia and the Premier of China have a better idea of what Obama's future policies are than the American people do. More of the same, or make it even worse than now is the question the rest of we Americans are facing.
Just as Obama won as much by not being Bush, Romney is going to win by not being Obama.

Here is Racism

The Left loves throwing out false accusations of racism as a tactic to stifle debate. It's starting to fail as a tactic because it has been so overdone. But if you want a real example of just plain old racism, check this out.

Ward 8 D.C. Councilman Marion Barry is on the hot seat again.

Celebrating his victory in the Democratic primary on Tuesday night, Barry spoke up about the prominence of businesses owned by Asians in the District.

“We got to do something about these Asians coming in and opening up businesses and dirty shops,” Barry said in remarks first reported by WRC-TV. “They ought to go. I’m going to say that right now. But we need African-American businesspeople to be able to take their places, too.

Shameful, and it will be ignored by our usual cadre of race baiters and race hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. But that is par for the course when it comes to the complaints of the Left.

An Old Adage

Never get in a fight with a pig.  The pig loves it, and you just get dirty.  Such is the Obama fight that he just picked with the Supreme Court over their review of Obamacare.  Well, some people can't wait, and the 5th Circuit just ordered the Justice Department to explain to them why Marbury v. Madison is no longer in effect.  From the article:

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented — since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise — despite the president’s remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.

The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes — and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.

Smith then became “very stern,” the source said, telling the lawyers arguing the case it was not clear to “many of us” whether the president believes such a right exists. The other two judges on the panel, Emilio Garza and Leslie Southwick–both Republican appointees–remained silent, the source said.

So much for the Constitutional professor. Boy, and people said Bush was dumb.