The Original Libertarians

In honor of Tea Parties across the country, a reminder of our first Libertarians.

Of course, they did turn violent and shot at people later.

The Tax Day Cometh

Just wrote the check for $10k to pay for the taxes and the quarterlies, and that hurts.  Sure, my wife (The Good Democrat) did a land office business in helping people get on disability, so we reaped the rewards for her hard work.  But with the check that was written, I also had to wonder, did our accountant get every tax exemption that we were entitled to?
In fact, can any of us who use anything other than the 1040EZ actually be certain that we paid what we were supposed to, and not more or less?  And if we did use an accountant, how sure are you that you won't invite an audit?  Apparently, Money magazine sent out a sample tax return and asked several different accountants and tax attorneys and none of them did it right.
The problem is made worse if you are upper middle class because you don't know for sure that you are in full compliance, while the uber-wealthy can simply make the appropriate contribution to Rep. Charley Rangel and know that their problems are taken care of.  The tax code ceased to be an instrument for raising revenue, and is now used as a method of social control.  Regulating behavior that we don't like, and encouraging behavior that we want.  Of course, like everything that the government does, the actual results never match up against the success of the law of unintended consequences.
Just as a quick example of some of the headaches we suffer there is this:

Great One Liner

From a business show:  Congress is the only entity that when given an unlimited budget, can still exceed it.

Birthers

For the most part, I find "Birthers" tiresome.  Their claim is that Obama is not a legal native born American and without that he is ineligible to serve.  While I recognize there is always going to be a question of validity, since the Democrats seem willing to break any rule they can get away with, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are cheating this time.
But now, we have a LTC who is claiming that Obama is not his Commander in Chief, and is therefore refusing to follow orders.  While I disagree with him, I can appreciate his reasoning.  But one thing that I forgot, was that the Obama campaign demanded proof of McCain's birth certificate to show that he was eligible since he was born in the Canal Zone.  Would be kind of fun to remind Obama, Goose meet Gander.

A Radical Proposal

Government spending is spinning out of control. Yeah, I know, you are probably thinking what else is new. But one of the key problems with government spending is the explosive growth in wages of government employees.An example from the Cato institute shows that federal workers are making more than double the average for the private sector.

Montana public sector employees average $60,435 in average total compensation which is still more than the average earned by non-government workers.  So how did this imbalance come to pass?  It used to be that government workers were compensated less but had more job stability.  Some of the benefits of course were paid health care, but more than anything else, it was a retirement package that is pretty darned good.
The unfortunate thing about this is that the accumulation of retirement obligations by the government have to be met by the taxpayer.  And it doesn't take long before the obligations get so far out of hand that the rest of the state budget is put in peril.
As a state employee, I am going to make a recommendation that appears to be against my own interests but the alternative is having the state go bankrupt, which is an even bigger harm to my interest.  But I think we have to do two things.  First, freeze government wages until the average government worker is paid the same as the average private sector worker.  Second, we are going to have to change the way that the annual adjustment to retirement compensation is made.  My proposal is to give 100% of the CPI cost of living the first year, followed by 95% the second, and 90% the second and so on reducing the annual adjustment by 5% per year,  The net effect is that after 20 years, there will be no adjustment for inflation, but there will probably be less need as well when the retiree is 80 or older.
Putting a pay freeze is not going to be very popular when inflation starts to take off.  But the good news is that with inflation, it won't take that long for the state worker wage to come into line with the private sector pay.  As a flip side to this, the government would have to make a commitment not to let anyone go, except for job performance problems. Some workers may feel that they could be better served to leave government service and make their way in the private sector.  And I salute them.

If we do not take steps now, there won't be any retirement for anyone.  We have to recognize that state spending is a liability that has to be paid, but the workers have to recognize that killing the goose that laid the golden egg isn't going to work either.

Humor

Some examples of really bad ads for lawyers:



A really bad example of courtroom presence:

And this one, but don't say the name of the law firm out loud:


Finally, maybe not funny, but I still enjoy it nonetheless, Warren Zevon and Lawyers, Guns and Money:

Examples of Hate Speech by Tea Partiers

This kind of speech only leads to violence, and it cannot be tolerated:



Oops.

They are Liars

As was noted in the Corner of National Review OnLine, and elaborated even further for its falsity at BigGovernment the whole controversy over supposed "racist" Tea Partiers is a complete and utter sham. Throw in the Rev. (ha!) Sharpton claiming to have actually seen video of the use of the N word, and then backtracking when caught in such a lie is even more evidence of their desperation. These outrageous and false accusations are a made up tempest designed to marginalize concerned citizens.
It's clear that making an accusation of someone using such a disgusting word, that the burden immediately is shifted to the accused to prove that it didn't happen. And because proving a negative is impossible, the accuser can get away scot free. Well, not anymore.
The next question has to be, why do these people stoop to such despicable tactics? In part, it's because they fear those in the Tea Party movement. Not from any actual violence, but because the Tea Partiers are no longer to be herded like the cattle they are considered to be by their accusers. They are standing up to the tyranny of the minority that claims the mantle of moral superiority even though that mantle is undeserved. In fact, not just undeserved, it has been stolen.
There is greater similarity between the Tea Partiers and the Civil Rights movement and the reactionaries like Bull Conner and the Al Sharptons in this world than people are willing to admit. The only difference is that Bull Conner wielded the "N" word as a coercive tactic to remind African Americans of their proper place (at the back of the bus, or not at the lunch counter) and Rep. Cleaver who wants to remind the Tea Partiers of their place (shut up and pay your taxes and do as we say).
Oh yeah, one other similarity between Bull Conner and those who falsely allege racism on the part of the Tea Party: They're both Democrats.

What Are The Limits On Power?

Neil Cavuto is interviewing the blogger who got Cong. Hare to admit that he didn't care, and obviously doesn't know about the Constitution.

While the Congresscritter's sentiments may be altruistic, they are not based on any understanding of the concept of limited and enumerated powers.  Which begs the question:  Under the concept of ObamaCare, what powers are not given to the federal government?  Is there nothing that is beyond the pale for them to control, regulate, tax, ban or demand?

I ask the question, what the government cannot do, since it seems to be more constrained than asking what the government can do.

Some are predicting already future demands by the government of we the People.  How about, every home must purchase an American flag and pledge allegiance every morning.  Whatever you may think about it, how is there any limitation on this requirement.  Or, with sufficient majority in both houses, Congress bans abortions under the Commerce Clause theory because we need more future workers,
Where will it end?  Can it ever end?

Is Tester Going to Run for Reelection?

Tester's term doesn't come up until 2012, but I found this interesting.  Admittedly, it's from December of 2009, but having less than a half million in the bank for an incumbent seems to be pretty short.  Especially since he has no major chairmanships, and his signature bill, the land grab in Montana, is only affecting locals, one has to wonder,

Enforcing the Law

The Law of Unintended Consequences of course.  More rigidly applied than the law of gravity, more strictly observed than Newton's laws of motion, unintended consequences are a given any time that the government sets its mind to solving a problem. ObamaCare being just the latest in a long line of proofs of the law.
As Dave Budge noted, there will be a gazillion IRS agents added to the rolls of government teat sucking to make sure that we are all in compliance with obtaining health insurance under ObamaCare.  Just one problem, they will have zero enforcement capability.  As a result, there is no disincentive to avoid getting health insurance until you actually need, you know, medical care.  As a result, insurance companies are going to be faced with all of these non rejectable applications for insurance coverage which was filled out in the ambulance on the way to the hospital.  Since insurance coverage is based on probabilities, the new method of deciding on when to buy insurance means that there will be a 100% payout with a probable 1% pay in of premiums.  Since you could go to the hospital, have your surgery, stay for a week, and as soon as you are out, cancel your insurance, it is unlikely that insurance companies are going to survive.
The irony is that in attempting to cover the 30 to 47 million people without insurance, we just may be sending the numbers of uninsured into the 300 million realm.  Tell me that was what the Democrats wanted to do.  No, I really believe they just plain failed to think it all the way through, just like always.
The other amusing thing, is that while the Democrats admit that the bulk of the benefits don't take effect until 2014, they were using the selling point that as of passage, you couldn't be denied for a pre-existing condition, and your children would be covered until they were 26.  Except they won't.
Democrats. proving that good government is a myth.  And yet, they persist.  What is that definition of insanity again?

Obama: "Get Whitey"

Just as valid as claiming some Tea Partier used the "N" word, or spit on you.

Commerce Clause and Chaos

The passage of ObamaCare has brought joy to those on the Left who seek to have equality by pulling all others down to the lowest common denominator. The basis for this intrusive act by the government is said to be the all powerful "commerce clause" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) of the US Constitution, giving the Congress the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The clause didn't pack a lot of power until the Depression when the FDR administration determined to artificially keep wheat prices high. Without geting into some esoterica about the "dormant commerce clause" or other issues of limited application, suffice it to say, that the Supreme Court determined in Willard v. Filburn that any activity that exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce could be regulated. While Filburn's growing wheat to feed his chickens meant that he wasn't buying wheat on the open market (and thereby supporting government mandated prices) was only of small impact, the reasoning was basically that if everyone did it, the impact would be large.
I am sure you are asking how a wheat farmer's horticulture has anything to do with ObamaCare. First, ObamaCare requires mandatory purchase of health insurance by everyone in order to subsidize those who will need medical care. And what is the basis for this "substantial impact on interstate commerce?" Apparently, it's breathing. If you are consuming air, then you are somehow having a substantial impact on interstate commerce?
The real question is, what is now the minimal activity that a citizen can do to avoid triggering the commerce clause in their life? If there is nothing that cannot be regulated, then why do we have the 10th Amendment?
The real fun for those of us who prefer chaos to organized governmental activity, it is quite possible that the US Supreme Court could rein in the commerce clause to such an extent that the powers that Congress has been usurping will finally be removed.
And I can hardly wait.

I Just Don't Believe Them Anymore

Rep. Andre Carson, Indiana Democrat, who is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, claims that "tea party" protesters hurled racial slurs at fellow CBC member Rep. John Lewis, Georgia Democrat. Mr. Carson said that "hundreds of people" were chanting, "Kill the bill," and he heard "at least 15 times" the "n – word" being thrown around.

But the video doesn't show any such thing.
They have used false accusations for so long, their credibility is zero.

Tell Us What You Really Think.

You have to really love this piece. From the article:

“I have three simple questions Ms Pelosi,” said Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga. “Are you so arrogant that you think you know what’s best for the American people? Are you so ignorant that you are oblivious to the wishes of the American people? And are you so incompetent that you are going to ignore the Constitution of the United States, use tricks, deceptions, bald faced lies to try to ram down the throat of the American people something that they do not want and is going to be absolutely worse for their healthcare?”

And, They're Off

The filing deadline is now over, and a whole bunch of people decided at the last minute that they wanted to run for office after all. Good for them, and special acknowledgment to Matt Stevenson who is running against Carolyn Squires for HD 96, (the same one that I ran for in 2008).
Good luck to all of them, and may they always remember they are representatives, not leaders. Do what the people want, not just what you want.

This is Sort of Disturbing

And yet, mildly amusing.

Another Double Standard

Remember Scooter Libby? Or Martha Stewart? Both of these high profile people were prosecuted for making false statements to federal agents. As a general rule, I would never ever talk to the FBI or any other federal investigator because if I made a mistake, I could still be prosecuted for that innocent mistake, even if it isn't intentional.
Apparently, if you do the same thing in your senate confirmation, well, it's just not that big of a deal. Combining this, with the DOJ dismissal of the Black Panther Voter Intimidation case and the dismissal of the ACORN investigation, and you realize that there are two kinds of justice in this country. One for Democrats and their friends, and one for the rest of us.
Guess which one goes to jail.

Schweitzer as the VP in 2012?

The Washington Examiner thinks that Obama needs to get some populist help for his re-election run in 2012. No mention is made of Biden, although it is fairly well known that the former Senator from Delaware offers little to help Obama's chances, since his whole attraction before was foreign policy expertise. But interestingly. the Examiner seems to think that our own Gov. BS is prime material for the spot.
Personally, I think Obama needs someone with actual, you know, competence. Maybe Bayh, but I am not so sure that he wants to be associated with the coming train wreck.

Obama and the Political Equivalent of Jonestown

Presidents in the modern era tend to develop an image even if it is one that they don't want. Think George Bush and you have a variety of preconceived notions by the public in general: Amiable dunce, or war criminal. Clinton as the prevaricating philanderer, GHWB (Bush 41) Yankee patrician who said "read my lips" like he actually meant it, even though he didn't. Reagan, maybe amiable dunce, but I think most on the Left so loathed him, that they saw him as the evil precursor to GWB. Carter of course, was the incompetent busybody technocrat, Ford the uncoordinated dunce (which is interesting since he was probably the best athlete president of this century). Tricky Dick says it all, and LBJ as the rude, crude, Texan who escalated the war in Viet Nam and gave us the Civil Rights Act, even though it was against his party's interests. Barak Obama is starting to develop his own image, and it probably isn't what he wanted. Originally, the narrative was that he is this wonderful orator who could transcend party, race and the pettiness of politics and give us all a new America that could be proud of itself once again (although most of us always were proud).
Then, reality set in.
The Great Orator who enthralled the journalists who covered him, is revealed to be a captive of his teleprompter (remember corpse-man?) who is deeply narcissistic ("I won" and "the difference between 94 now, is that now you have me.") The great statesman is shown to be an indolent victim of Reid and Pelosi on the major legislation of his presidency (health care). Using the evidence of his actions, it is not unrealistic to think that Obama believes his own press. His explanation for the lack of public support for his plan is that the administration has failed to communicate it clearly. This in spite of the fact that he has given more speeches on health care than there are days of his presidency. Could it possibly be that he has communicated his plan, and the public rejects it anyway? That thought seems to be incomprehensible to the divine One.
But what about all of the polls that show the public support the elements of his plan, even if they don't support his plan? I am curious what the pollsters asked about the Louisiana Purchase or the CornHusker Kickback. Or, for that matter the entire process, which was supposed to be on CSPAN for all of us to see. Instead, it was done in the back of Harry Reid's office, pressed to the floor for a vote when the members never had a chance to read it, much less understand it. And now, in spite of the polls Obama vows to press ahead unilaterally with reconcilliation to put it into law. The theory is that the Democrats will be rewarded by the public when the law is enacted.
The foolishness of this plan can only be attributed to self-delusion. But the mania is being abetted and enabled by other members of Congress. The fact that they can say with a straight face that the plan will reduce the deficit and not raise costs is simply absurd. If they know it and ignore it, they are criminally complicit. On the other hand, if they really do believe this pap, they are a pretty good argument for making a test of sanity a requirement for federal office.
Obama seems to be orchestrating the political equivalent of Jonestown. Demanding fealty to his signature work, he is telling Democrats that they need to throw themselves on that grenade for the good of their party. Never mind that due to seniority rules in the Democrat caucus, the old bulls with the most seniority are the ones from the safest seats. The ones who will actually pay the price for this miscue are going to be the Democrats that were recruited to take over moderate and Red State seats.
Forcing this monstrosity through in the face of adverse public opinion will probably wipe out all of the gains that the Democrats have made over the last four years. Although Congressional districts have varying degrees of fluidity, the trend for the last two elections has been to the Democrats. Abetted by Republican fiscal idiocy and trumped up ethics charges, the Democrats are now showing that they can top even the Republicans at that game. In fact, I think it wouldn't be all that unreasonable for the House to return to the same number of Republicans and Democrats as existed in 2004. With such a mandate in opposition to the Democrat plan, its reversal is almost assuredly guaranteed. Then all the Republicans will have to do is proffer their simplified plan, and the public will recognize that the Democrats talk a good game but do nothing of importance.
This could very well mean the end of the Democrat Party except in isolated regional areas (the coasts and major failed metropolitan areas), representing the die hard leftists.
Quite the turnaround from a year and a half ago, dontcha think?

A Liberal Democrat I Would Support

Micky Kaus of the Kausfiles has taken out papers to run in the Democrat Primary against Barbara Boxer. I like Micky and read his blog often. He has good sense and is intellectually honest. Unlike SENATOR Boxer.

A Twist on the Nigerian Minister Who Needs to Transfer Money to Your Account

An American woman is accused of bilking Nigerians? The irony of this simply won't quit.

Self Ddelusion Is a Wonderful Thing.

The ability to fool yourself is a necessary tool for many people. Otherwise we would be running from our jobs, screaming, just to try and give actual meaning to our lives. Nonetheless, it is always a good idea to every so often take stock of your assumptions and test them against your opponent's views to see if they are really valid.
For instance, I honestly believe that the Tea Party movement is a valid expression of rage at government gone mad. That it manifests itself in Tea Party get togethers and in the election of Sen. Brown in Massachusetts for crying out loud. But what if I am wrong? What if the Tea Party movement is nothing more than an Astro-Turf minimal impact media creation that does not reflect current public opinion? If I am wrong, the Democrats would certainly be justified in ignoring the movement. But the idea that it is Astro Turf is certainly not going to be proven by the high quality of professionally done signs. Maaybe if they hooked up with SEIU they could get some well made ones. But the bottom line comes down to, if the Tea Party movement is really inconsequential no one would pay it any heed. Instead, Democrats under the direction of Organizing For America are slandering them. Opponents of the Tea Party movement are calling them violent when all of the violence comes from Obama supporters. Tea Party members are also accused of being racists for opposing the policies of a black President. Never mind that the opposition to a white president is just good civics.
The reason I bring this up is related to the Democrat's suicide mission to pass their monstrosity of a spending bill that they call "health care reform" Or "health insurance reform" or whatever they seem to think will get a greater chunk of control over one sixth of the economy.
I had said last August that the Democrats would be well served to have Health Reform fail. Sure they had 60 votes in the Senate and enough of a majority in the House that they could let many vulnerable Democrats vote against the bill for self preservation. But passing the bill would only raise taxes for years before the first benefit was paid. And we all know how well delayed gratification plays in this country. But as Senator Alexander has said, the Democrats are on a Kamikaze mission to pass this monstrosity. Democrats are justifying it by saying how polls show tha tthe individual aspects of the bill are popular. I just wonder how poplular were the individual parts of the Louisiana Purchase, or the CornHusker Kickback? Or for that matter, the entire bill being slapped together and voted on before anyone ever read them? In a way it makes sense. The Democrats have the largest majorities that they have had in years, and if they fail to do this, how can they ever argue for a leadership role again? Now the question becomes, what is the price that they will pay for trying to ram this through? Democrats and especially President Obama feel that the American popular opposition to his plan is based on his failure to communicate what the plan is. But what if they do understand what the plan is? I don't think Democrats are able to grasp that concept.
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barak Obama see this as a mission that needs to be done in spite of public opposition. They are apparently willing to sacrifice their majorities in both houses of Congress this year to make this happen. But in reality, they aren't making sacrifices themselves. Most of the Democratic leadership is coming from solidly Democratic districts that would bever vote for a Republican in any event. Just think about Michigan, where government policies have driven the state to disaster, and yet Democrats still retain control. Or California where they ostensibly have a Republican governor but a gerrymandered setup of districts that will guarantee the Democrat seats are safe. No, the seats that are at risk, are those gained over the last two elections and are made up of mostly moderates. Those people are going to be the sacrifice for the egos of Obama Reid and Pelosi.
Now, if any of these moderates and Blue Dogs actually examine their previously held assumptions, they just may figure out that their only hope for survival does not lie in being a sacrificial lamb for someone else's political expectations.

Calling Out Keith Olbermann

The best thing about the Internet is that demagogues are not allowed to prosper for long.



Although, as Instapundit notes: There will be more people watching this YouTube video than watch Countdown.

Mike Huckabee is a Fool (Or is it Tool?)

So, it seems that Mike Huckabee has skipped the CPAC convention because they are "becoming more Libertarian than Republican?" Good for him. And may he take his decaying version of the Republican Party with him. Remember, this is the guy who wanted to remake the Constitution into a more biblical document.
Huckabee has a smooth presentation that works on those who are unable to think. For that reason, I feel he is really a Democrat in disguise, in that he wants to have the ability to tell us all what to do.
It's time to send a message and continue to drive him and his outmoded ways out of the party of limited government if they are unwilling to go along with that very simple and basic principle. Limited government accomplishes all of the objectives of the social conservatives without the need for their legislation. The rule should be to lead your life as an exemplar to others, not use the punishment of the law to inflict your mores on someone else.

Honoring t.he Victors

David Bellavia pens an absolutely awesome piece about what the War in Iraq means, now that it is effectively a victory. I know that it is not popular at the moment to say so, but the fact is that through their efforts, and theirs alone, the American fighting forces have changed Iraq forever, and definitely for the better.
You can quibble if you want about whether it was right or wrong, but the fact is, it doesn't matter anymore. What you cannot quibble about is that the Iraqi people themselves respected the change that was given to them.

My squad runs through the searing heat and forms a wall of flesh and Kevlar between the incoming fire and the citizens standing in line behind us. They’ve turned out in their finest clothes to wait for the opportunity to cast a vote. For most, this moment is a defining one in their lives. They’ve never had a voice before. This means something to them, and they have used the moment as an object lesson for their children. They appear nervous and take photos. The kids stand with them in line, viewing first hand this revolution in Iraqi civics.

As they came to line up earlier that morning, the men thanked us and clasped their hands over their heads, striking a triumphant pose. Some of the women cried. The kids were on their best behavior.

The gunfire began that afternoon. Insurgents started to shoot them. My unit ran to the road and formed a protective position between the killers and the citizens going to the polls. As we scanned the palm grove in front of us, bullets cracked and whined, then mortars start thumping around us. My squad pushed into the palm grove. I stayed on the road, overseeing their movement and coordinating the heavy fire from the Bradleys.

The firefight ebbs. The mortar fire ceases. A few last stray rounds streak past. A cry from behind causes me to turn. Lying in the road is a young Iraqi woman. I run over to help. She’s caught a round just below her temple. Her stunning beauty has been ruined forever.

She cries, “Paper! Paper” over and over until the ambulance arrives to take her away. An old lady emerges from the schoolhouse-turned voting site, sheets of blue paper in hand. She gives one to the wounded girl, who clutches it to her like a prized possession even as the ambulance carries her away.

The ballot was her voice. All she wanted was a chance to exercise it, just once, before she died.

The old woman returns to the school house, but drops another ballot along the way. It drifts in a gentle breeze across the bloodstained asphalt. I stoop down and pick it up. It is all in Arabic, and I have no idea what each set of candidates advocate. That’s not my place, and it doesn’t really matter. I helped make this day happen. This ballot represents the reason why we’re here, why my friends had to die.

If you won't recognize the sacrifice by those who made the difference, remember the sacrifice of Iraqis like the young woman who only wanted to vote. Compare their actions with out present day political class, and you wonder why our soldiers even bother.
Thank God that they do.

Ouch!!

Seems that President Obama offered to meet with Las Vegas Mayor, Oscar Goldman when Obama is in town. Goldman has snubbed the offer.
So let me see, the President is snubbed by the political hack and former mob lawyer? It just doesn't get any better does it?

Native American Tea Party

Just came across this story about a Tea Party resistance to bad government and wasteful spending. The Billings Gazette has this photo as part of the story:

I work on the Confederated Salish and Kootenai reservation which is far more successful than the Crow or Blackfeet, and I attribute most of the difference to the levels of corruption. Until the Crow, Blackfoot, Assiniboine and for that matter all of the rest of the tribes in Montana get their act together and realize that government spending is not a trough for corruption, there will be no improvement in their people's lives.
Good luck to the Birds and Plains Bull Mountain in trying to recapture their elected "representatives."

The Definition of Chutzpa

Obama says he is a "fierce" free market advocate.

Give A Little Folks!

Craig Sprout is doing the right thing and is going to subject his poor mortal shell to the excruciating terrors of the frigid waters of Billings all in a good cause. Go give him some support.

MILFs and the Montana Blogosphere

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Another Addition to the Montana Blogosphere

We the People of Montana, just showed up. Seems to lean more to the Dextra side than that of the Montana Sinestra. But you can find her here.

Theater of the Absurd

Press Secretary Gibbs is attempting to reassure the great unwashed hoi polloi that the accused planner of 9-11 will be convicted and executed. The reason that he needs to reassure us is that people are starting to wonder why on earth we are having these trials in civilian courts and not where they belong; military tribunals. The mantra has always been from the Left that we need to treat them as criminals to demonstrate the superiority of our legal system to their murderous methods. That Gitmo and the military tribunals were simply going to be used as recruiting posters for future jihadis.
I am sure that those same future jihadis will be less likely to carry out on their desire to get the 42 virgins now that they know the plotters will receive a fair trial and then be executed. Unless they are found to be not guilty, in which case we will hold them forever anyway. Yeah, that's fair.
Can't we just admit that this is nothing but show, a tool with which to bludgeon Bush and Republicans rather than any serious moral point?

Anybody Seen Mark T. Lately?

I would hate to think that he actually did follow his silly philosophy and do what this guy did.

Channeling Their Inner Democrat

Make a bone headed accusation, and then try to pretend that you didn't make it. I am sure that the Pullitzer Committee would be so proud.

Uniting the Republicans

Only Obama could have done it.

Best Line Evah

From Charles Krauthammer talking about Obama's assertion that the election of Brown was due to voter anger at GWB.

Let's get this straight: The antipathy to George W. Bush is so enduring and powerful that ... it just elected a Republican senator in Massachusetts? Why, the man is omnipotent.

Fear the Power!

Why Integrity Really Matters

So you never have to answer a question like this.

Irony

I don't usually watch MSNBC, but wanted to see how they reported the results of the Brown Coakley race. Watching Rachel Madow, she was interviewing former Gov. Dean "The Scream" who of course did the obligatory "It's Bush's Fault." But then, the conversation turned to the Democrats blaming each other for the loss, and Dean says "Blaming others is for losers."
For once, I agree with him.

Onward, Ever Onward

Into the Valley of Death Rode the 316 (Soon to be one less), looking neither Left, um, okay, looking only Left, they charged ahead, heedless of the cannonades from both sides:

In one way, I admire their persistence, but I think that their courage is owed more to a total lack of understanding of the situation, more than a willful choice. Heroes recognize the danger and act as needs be done. Fools are heedless of the danger and act as they want.

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves

Apparently, they have managed to capture the heinous criminal, who disregarded the warnings from the TSA cop and went into an area that was reserved for departures. As a direct consequence of those actions, thousands of people had to be rescreened, and many missed their flights. People were forced to stand outside in the cold, denied simple accommodations such as water or bathroom breaks, in order to recover the security that was breached.
Sen. Lautenberg (Dementia, NJ) is very disappointed that the scofflaw should only be punished as a misdemeanant, instead of as a felon. What a strange world we live in, if you consider it all together, that because a Romeo wannabe wanted one last kiss from his girlfriend, we have to inconvenience and disrupt so many people, and the emphasis is put on Romeo, and not the governmental security system that is supposed to be there to protect us.
In reality, the TSA is nothing more than theater. They do nothing to reduce the probability of an incident in the air (Christmas BVD Boomer is but one example) but are supposed to reassure us, the traveling public that our government is looking out for us. As if. The truth is that the government is looking out for itself, and the citizens be damned.
And people wonder why resistance is growing to government interference with our medical care. But I am sure that in the latter case, they will do much better. Now, what is that definition of insanity again?

Never Having to Say You're Sorry For Being a Racist

From the Washington Post:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) apologized today for referring to President Barack Obama as "light skinned" and "with no Negro dialect" in private conversations during the 2008 presidential campaign.

Amazing isn't it, not just that he said something that stupid, but that it took almost two years for it to surface. Why so long?
My theory, is that the emphasis that the Democratic Party puts on race, is due to its own internal racism. No one I know would ever say anything like Reid's comments, and even if it was said, it would quickly be shut down as unacceptable in today's culture. But for two long years, it remained out there, festering, pulsing, and hidden by the very people who said it and heard it. At the highest levels of the Democratic Party.
Then, compare it to the treatment of Trent Lott when he was in the same position. The fact that Republicans drove him from his position while Democrats are now circling round their wounded leader says so much about who the real racists are.
The KKK would be so proud.

The WHO numbers in Context

Mark T. is famous for relying on the crappy numbers from the WHO study to point out that we are 37th in ranking for health care. Here is a short rebuttal of the nonsense:

What apparently does not matter is that our population has universal access because most physicians treat indigent patients without charge and accept Medicare and Medicaid payments, which do not even cover overhead expenses. The WHO does rank the U.S. No. 1 of 191 countries for "responsiveness to the needs and choices of the individual patient." Isn't responsiveness what health care is all about?

Data assembled by Dr. Ronald Wenger and published recently in the Bulletin of the American College of Surgeons indicates that cardiac deaths in the U.S. have fallen by two-thirds over the past 50 years. Polio has been virtually eradicated. Childhood leukemia has a high cure rate. Eight of the top 10 medical advances in the past 20 years were developed or had roots in the U.S.
OpinionJournal Related Stories:

The Nobel Prizes in medicine and physiology have been awarded to more Americans than to researchers in all other countries combined. Eight of the 10 top-selling drugs in the world were developed by U.S. companies. The U.S. has some of the highest breast, colon and prostate cancer survival rates in the world. And our country ranks first or second in the world in kidney transplants, liver transplants, heart transplants, total knee replacements, coronary artery bypass, and percutaneous coronary interventions.

We have the shortest waiting time for nonemergency surgery in the world; England has one of the longest. In Canada, a country of 35 million citizens, 1 million patients now wait for surgery and another million wait to see specialists.

When my friend, cardiac surgeon Peter Alivizatos, returned to Greece after 10 years heading the heart transplantation program at Baylor University in Dallas, the one-year heart transplant survival rate there was 50%—five-year survival was only 35%. He soon increased those numbers to 94% one-year and 90% five-year survival, which is what we achieve in the U.S. So the next time you hear that the U.S. is No. 37, remember that Greece is No. 14. Cuba, by the way, is No. 39.

Read the whole thing.

I Admire the Democrats

This might be hard to believe, but I do admire the Democrats in one way: They have bet their future on what they believe in. Having demonized everything Republican for so long, they were rewarded with absolute power after the 2008 elections.
Now, there is no excuse for what they have done. No one to blame, not even Bush, and they are running the country into the ground. And still, the Democrats forge ahead, undeterred by polls or common sense, intent on remaking America, and hoping that we rubes will recognize them and their good deeds.
Maybe the Democrats are wrong.

"And I Won't Raise Your Taxes a Single Dime!"

Yeah, right.
From the article:

Let’s look at the new numbers for 2010 Biweekly, Single, Payroll Period, after subtracting withholding allowances

Not over $233: $0 in taxes
Over $233 – $401: 10% payroll tax
Over $401 – $1,387: $16.80 plus 15% of excess over $401
Over $1,387 – $2,604: $164.70 plus 25% of excess over $1,387
Over $2,604 – $3,248: $468.95 plus 27% of excess over $2,604 (Notice the large salary range is gone)
Over $3,248 – $3,373: $642.83 plus 30% of excess over $3,248 (Notice the substantial increase and 30% tax rate on these wages)
Over $3,373 – $6,688: $680.33 plus 28% of excess over $3,373
$14,450: pays $4,169.99 plus 35% of excess over $14,450

These patterns of additional withholding can be seen throughout the new charts for the 2010 tax year for single and married persons. It appears that everyone earning a paycheck is affected, not just retired military; social security payments will remain the same.

Why would the Democrats tinker with the withholding taxes and, ultimately, cause more stress on Americans and businesses? Why would the Democrats create more wage categories and deliberately target the middle class with a huge withholding increase and 30% tax rate? Are the Democrats trying to backfill the deficits they created in 2009? Because taxpayers will have overpaid the federal government payroll taxes, will they be eligible to get back this additional withholding money in a tax refund when filing in 2011? Do taxpayers in the hardest-hit wage categories even realize that their paychecks are going to be significantly lower, unless they make the necessary changes?

Read the whole thing.

Courage, Bought and Paid For

Baucus has responded to allegations that he was drunk on the Senate floor. Apparently, using someone's words as they are spoken by that person constitute

an "untrue, personal smear" designed to attack Democrats' health-care reform legislation.

Now, why would the senior Senator say that his words were an attack on the Democrat's "health-care reform legislation?" I was sure that he helped to create it. Maybe he is as disappointed in it as everyone else.
Oh, wait a minute, he is just using the standard "when you are screwed, attack the anyone else" method of mature political discourse. This has worked for years, and it is frustrating to the Democrats that those damned peasants of the electorate keep pointing out to them that they have been given the majority and it's their responsibility. The distraction method of the past doesn't seem to be working as well. Better fall back on the old tried and true: It's Bush's fault.
But the most amusing thing to me, was when Baucus was asking the question "Where's the courage?"

"I ask, where is the senator on that side of the aisle who has the courage to break from their leadership, break from the partisanship they are exercising on their side of the aisle, to work together to pass health-care reform?" Baucus said. "I ask, where is the courage?"

Doesn't Max understand that as expensive as this bill is, that Harry Reid couldn't afford to buy any more votes than he needed? The courage of the Democrats was to state intractable positions, then recant them upon a suitable doling of taxpayer largesse.
Me, I am just as happy that for once, Harry Reid exercised some fiscal responsibility.

This Explains Everything!

Pitiful, but at least he didn't call them Communists. That would smack too much of McCarthy tactics.

It's For the Children

Bill Clinton is calling the Tea Party Protesters "Tea Baggers" a juvenile slur, that is sure to titillate his many followers. It diminishes the protesters in their minds, not realizing that it actually diminishes him and the followers. For those Democrats who want to use the slur, please feel free, in fact I encourage you to continue to slander the citizens of this country who for the first time feel compelled to protest. I know that they are not as accomplished as the Left is at protests, but that doesn't mean that they aren't as passionate.
If the Democrats are right, and the Tea Partiers are nothing but a fringe driven by Fox News, Rush, et.al. then they will not have an effect on the future. On the other hand, if these people are ordinary citizens who recognize that the usurpation of power and wealth for the betterment of the Democrat Party (and that is what this about, not the country) the Democrats are not going to be in power much longer.
In some ways, it is easy to feel sorry for the Democrats, because they haven't a clue. They only talk to those that they agree with, and yell and deride anyone who doesn't agree with them. They claim to be for "the people" but they are as far removed from them as Marie Antoinette was from her adopted countrymen.
But if there are any intelligent Democrats out there who are actually interested, here is an example of some of the people who are Tea Party protesters. When you read the article, you will notice a common theme: We are doing this for our children and grandchildren. That is because we (the Lamest Generation) are going to be the beneficiaries of the government largesse about to be doled out, but it comes at the expense of our children and grandchildren.
A young guy told me one day, that my generation had basically bankrupted the country, and that his generation was going to pay for it. And I agreed with him. Is it too much, not to add still more debt to my children and grandchildren for nothing more than a partisan program that is not designed to solve the uninsured problem, but is instead an attempt to cement a Democrat majority for the future?
The funny thing: It will do neither.

Freedom of Speech?

Mark Toharski can always be counted on for hours of pseudo-intellectual babble, and is usually harmless, since even the Left seems to see him for a fool. But I think that he is onto something in his Orwellian world where "free markets" aren't free, but regulated ones are. At least he is as consistent as when he says that he is in favor of capitalism, so long as the government is controlling the markets.
The reason that I think that he is onto something, is that the Obama administration seems to be in agreement with him. Nothing like admiring that fine upstanding democrat Hugo Chavez when we are talking about political speech in this country.
Essentially, Mark and others' argument is that the public airways need to be controlled, not only for the prevention of interference of signals, but the interference of ideas. For that reason, so many are in favor of the so called "Fairness Doctrine" as a means to restrict Talk Radio, and its lack of support for the current Leftist administration. Those darned Right Wingers keep raising unpleasant questions and facts that are getting in the way of implementing the utopia for the workers that they seek. Of course, in this utopia, they would be the masters, but that would be okay, because they would be benevolent.
So, what exactly are we talking about here? What is being impacted by the implementation of the Fairness Doctrine? How about the Constitution?
The First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The speech element of the Constitution has been litigated from the beginning of the Republic. While not all speech is protected, political speech is. And guess what Right Wing Talk Radio is all about? How about political speech?
The Left's willingness to sacrifice the Constitution for the sake of their agenda is frightening. Do they not realize that by controlling the airwaves, they open the door to the Right doing the same thing to them with the over the air broadcast news? I know that they claim it is already being done through the conservative owners who dictate what the reporters say, which is just plain delusional. As Obama himself said, "Most of you voted for me, and all of you supported me, apologies to the Fox table." It is not the ownership that drives their agenda, it is the agenda of the so called "journalists" who conflate punditry with news reporting.
The last argument that they use, is that the airwaves are public property, therefore the government has the right to regulate them. It is true that the government has the right to regulate who uses frequencies, and how they are used. But that is not the same as regulating what is being said. That is blatantly unconstitutional.
Thank God, that the Left has hit their high water mark, and will soon be on the way out. The threats they pose to the Constitution are too dire to ignore.

Fool Me Once . . .

Oh, hell, they'll probably fool me again. But the Republicans have seemingly stumbled upon the magic formula of fiscal sanity, and limited government as the touchstones of their 2010 campaign. I have always said that I believe in the principles of the Republican Party, even if they don't.
For those social conservatives, I would say to not fear the change. Limited government is less likely to force government mandated abortions or gay marriage, because that is not the proper role of government. A Win-Win for both fiscal and social conservatives.
Republicans always said that government doesn't work, and when elected proved it. The Democrats of today seem to believe that the government can solve all problems, and they promptly show that they are horribly wrong. Maybe we should stick with the ones who were right.
On the other hand, if the Republicans decide to revert back to the previous eight years, there will be a quick turnaround again. You get one more chance Republicans. Don't blow it.

Please.

Democrat's Civil War Begins!

Much has been made of the disarray of the Republican Party (the untimely reports of its demise being greatly exaggerated) but while not literally true, does show some serious problems: Lack of willingness to self identify as Republicans; The punjabs who would pick Scozzafava to represent their party in the NY-23 race, who withdrew and threw her support to the Democrat; and the last remnants of a PR campaign to demonize G. W. Bush. But if you think that they have it bad, consider the Democrats: Jay Stevens is disappointed in his Party's slight rightward tug, and is offering a solution:

In short Congressional Democrats - as usual? - will do the exact opposite of what they should do.
One way to mitigate this probable rightward shift is threaten primaries in key districts....

Earlier, Yellowstone Kelly put voice (or is it pixels?) to the disappointment felt by the failure of the Democrats to deliver on their many promises. I hope the Kelly doesn't think that it will get better, because we are talking about politicians for crying out loud.
Will we soon be seeing articles about how the Democratic Party is going to have to become more conservative in order to stay viable? Don't hold your breath. But by default, it does seem as if the Grand Old Party is rising from the dead. Just in time for Halloween apparently.

As Maine Goes . . .

So goes the Nation is an old rubric that has a certain element of truth. I suppose that is because Maine is the first spot in America to see the sunrise of the new day (never mind that the westernmost islands of the Aleutian chain are technically across the 180 meridian). Another example is when the voters of Maine rejected same sex marriage at the ballot box yesterday. This means that everywhere the vote has been put to the public, the public has rejected it. The only places where same sex marriage is allowed were put into effect by either judicial, or legislative fiat.
I don't really understand the desire for gay marriage, mostly because it leads to gay divorce. The other thing is, that the institution of marriage (and we should all be institutionalized) holds a meaning beyond the normal understanding of the word. But to say that it provides for a stable relationship between a husband and wife for the rearing of children, would mean that I shouldn't be married, since I had that whole fertility problem solved before I married my wife. And what about the fertile octogenarian, which is a legal fiction to screw with law student's minds for no purpose other than the amusement of the law professors.
On the other side, the heavy handed approach that the proponents of gay marriage make, turns people off who might otherwise be agreeable to their cause. Sexual orientation is really nobody's business, and should not be flaunted for that very reason, whether straight or not. Throw in the lawsuits that seek to force churches to condone gay marriage, and people become very uncomfortable with the notion and its adherents.
If the gay community is going to accomplish their goals, they will need to change their tactics. This issue is never going to follow the pathway of the civil rights movement of the '60s. Then, the majority of the population supported equality, but the legislators, (especially Southern Democrats) rejected it. A sort of reverse of the present situation. But this is not to say that they don't have a certain segment of the general population who do support their cause. Mostly, it is made up of straight friends and family who realize the disparity of treatment given to their loved ones because of their sexual orientation. I myself, have a distant cousin who is living in San Francisco with his husband, and a step-grandson, who the women in my family all agree is probably gay. Me, I can't tell, so I don't bother. But I am worried about my step-grandson, because he is just a great kid. Kind, happy, intelligent, and just fun to be with. I wouldn't want him to suffer from what I saw happen to people who were "different" when I was growing up. He has done nothing to choose his orientation, it was thrust upon him.
No, the future of gay civil rights will have to come from us straights (or "breeders" in the vernacular) who love and care for our friends and relatives. Keep the flamboyance out of the picture, and there will be greater success. If on the other hand, it becomes an "in your face, you must accept me" thing, it will continue to fail at the hands of the voters.
The choice is clear: Feel good about moral vindication that accomplishes nothing, or agree to let others lead the way and get what you want.

Why I No Longer Fear Obama Care (as much)

My wife (The Good Democrat) is disappointed in me that I am not that happy with the coming Health Care "Reform." Part of it is that it was originally supposed to insure the 47 then 30 million people who are without health insurance. Sure, the numbers were problematic, but there was at least 10 million people who desired health insurance but were unable to obtain it. Somehow, we have turned the problem around, and it has become greedy insurance companies that make 2% profit, and greedy doctors who are pulling tonsils or amputating feet just so that they can pay for their country club dues. The net result is that we will still have around 17 million people without health insurance, and most of us will lose ours as employers figure out that it is cheaper to pay an 8% payroll tax than to maintain employer based health insurance. Using the government to implement the new Democrat mantra of choice and competition, (which will result in neither) made me fearful that eventually we are going to have the equivalent of medical sick call for the military, but without the benefit of an abnormally healthy population that will be calling for services.
When I mentioned to my wife, that I had less trust that the government could perform these functions well, she accused me of having "no faith" that Obama would solve the problem. And she is right. I pointed out to her the government's failure to provide the H1N1 flu vaccinations, and that her experience working for a lawyer in getting workers social security disability claims. She always is complaining about the arbitrary and ridiculous rules that the government puts in the way of obtaining what is legally theirs. My wife just dismisses my complaints because this time, it will be different.
Definition of insanity anyone?
But the more I thought about it, maybe it won't be such a bad thing if Obamacare is passed. Think about it, We will have employers dumping employees onto the public option as soon as they can. More people will be showing up starting on the day of passage demanding their "free" healthcare, only to be told that it won't be available until 2013. Then, once 2013 hits, people will find that there are a whole bunch of doctors who will refuse to see them under the public option, because the reimbursement rates will be too low to make practicing medicine anything but a losing proposition. Sure there will be those doctors who can't make a living because they are terrible, and they will gladly accept the government checks, and with some careful padding, they will probably make a fairly decent living.
But honest and ethical doctors are going to drop out of the system.
So, you are asking, how is this a good thing? Easy. Assume for a minute that the conservatives take control of both houses of Congress by 2012, never mind the Presidency. If they do, the first legislation that they should pass would be to remove state by state restrictions on the purchase of health care. Second, they should also institute a law that says punitive damages go into the state coffers, not to the individual or his/her lawyer. Punitives are not necessarily bad, since they make it inefficient to do wrong. But it is in society's interest that the money go to the state rather than just the innocent wronged. Since the lawyer will no longer have a one third to one half interest in the amount of punitives, there will be less of them requested, and thus lower malpractice rates. By removing the restrictions on sales across state lines, I will be able to buy whatever policies fit my needs, and not those that are determined by some agency that knows nothing about me.
By enacting these changes, you will now be creating two classes of medical coverage: One that is substandard and free but riddled with ignorant and useless bureaucrats and rules and run by the government; and the other which would be a free enterprise driven system without the non-payers and the uninsurable, who will now be on the government dole.
While it seems selfish, rational self interest certainly would recognize that it is in no one's interest to participate in a government run system that is doomed to the level of quality of the IRS when they can pick another plan that suits their needs.
I realize that this is the "So long, Suckas" philosophy, but since so few people seem to be willing to look at the long term, it's every person for themselves.
So Long, . . . Oops.

The Well Informed Voting Public

The Pew Research Center has published a poll showing the awareness of issues in the public realm. Here is a breakout by Republicans, Independents and Democrats:


What I find really interesting (discounting the fact that Republicans scored higher on all but one issue) is the knowledge base of Independents is higher in all areas than Democrats except for Party in Power, Public Option and the spending on health care issues. And all this time, my Democratic friends like to remind me of how smart their friends are (since they can't seem to answer basic questions, they always refer to someone else who is smarter than they are) and that they have superior information.
Seems to be the culmination of the self-esteem generation.

20 Years Now, Where'd They Go?

I was reading this excellent article about the fall of the Berlin Wall, the 20th anniversary is set for next month, and felt amazed that it has been so long since it happened. The article reminded me of Germany before it became reunited. How Germany was essentially an armed camp that had people living between all of the kasernes. West Germany which was the size of Oregon had two US Corps two British Corps, a Belgian Corps and a Dutch Corps, and God knows how many German Corps. (A Corp is a military formation consisting of 2-5 divisions). In East Germany a country the size of Ohio, there were 215 Soviet divisions armed with the latest equipment, and ready to roll to the English Channel as soon as the order was given. It was the greatest place in the world to be stationed if you were a young officer wanting to do something important.
But I returned to Montana in 1987 to teach ROTC at the University of Montana, so my observations of the fall of the Berlin Wall were confined to watching it on television. You have to remember, that this was right after the massacre at Tianemen Squate, where the Army of the PRC had fired on the student demonstrators. I don't know why we accepted it, but I guess it was because we really couldn't do anything about it in any event. But it was also, that we recognized the inherent evil of the totalitarian socialist regimes that the survival of the state was the most important factor in any action.
When I watched the fall of the Wall, I was afraid that the East German government would revert to form and massacre their own people, just like the Chinese had. The other fear that I had was that the Soviet Union would regard the destruction of their client state as unacceptable, and roll their own forces as a diversion from the popular discontent. Luckily, neither happened.
Twenty years on seems to be pretty quick at my age. But there are somethings that are timeless. One of the things from the article come to mind in particular:

The hollowness of the communist ideology, its false promise of an omniscient state, was laid bare. Far from being omnipotent, its impotence was manifest in that moment of truth.

For those who believe in the omnipotence of any government, I would ask them to review the history of those states that tried to infiltrate all aspects of life, and note their abject failure.
Read the Whole Thing.

Another Reason to be Afraid

Cook County Illinois prosecutors are tired of being embarrassed because they keep wrongfully convicting innocent people. Rather than take up the issue internally, in order to prevent future miscarriages of justice, they have decided to go after the people who keep showing them up: The students of Northwestern University's Journalism School.
Seems the prosecutors are asking for subpoenas for the students' grades, grading criteria, class syllabus, expense reports and e-mail messages of the journalism students. Now, what crime is it that the prosecutors are investigating with the subpoenas? Embarrassment of a public official seems to be the leading cause that comes to mind.
But what I want to know is, what judge in their right mind would ever sign the subpoena? For most who read this blog, they will probably never come into contact with the law, and will never have to face the painful and permanent proctology exam otherwise known as being charged with a crime. But when prosecutors can decide on their own to harass and annoy innocent people who are just seeking justice (which is supposed to be the first duty of a prosecutor) don't believe for a moment, that you are immune. And don't turn to judges for help either, obviously.
I hope that this reminds all citizens to be suspicious of the work of our public servants.

A Cross on Government Property

The ACLU is suing to remove a war memorial from WW I. A photo of what it looked like before the suit is here:


Here is what it looks like now:


Apparently, there is no problem with crosses on foreign ground, even though it is technically American soil.

James Earl Obama

I realize for many in the blogosphere, the reference here may be somewhat obscure, but the reference is to James Earl Carter, otherwise known as Jimmy, or Jimmah. The reason that I use this connection was an article by Victor David Hansen where he bemoaned:

I am not a fan of the Obama agenda. But I am (sic) don’t want an impotent Commander in Chief abroad for three very dangerous years to come. So I am worried that the U.S. will be crippled with a weak, unpopular executive, as happened to Bush (35% approvals) in 2007-8. Our currency is tanking. Our debts are climbing. Our energy needs are breaking us. Our borrowing is out of control. The country is divided in a 1859/1968 mode. And the world is smiling as Obama, now hesitant and without the old messianic confidence, presides over our accepted inevitable decline. The country needs to buck up and meet these challenges head on, since the world smells blood, whether in Iran, Russia, the Mideast, North Korea, or South America, and in a mere 9 months of the reset button.

His rant, combined with his proposed solutions brought on a sudden feeling of deja vu. Ah yes, days of disco returned to the forefront of my memories, from whence they had been carefully tamped down, locked in a box and hidden in the back corner of the attic, never to be retrieved again. Just like my leisure suit.
As to our Commander in Chief, let's face it, everybody likes him, but no one is afraid of him. His perpetual apology tour is refreshing to the Left in this country for all wrongs real or imagined. But it is confusing to the rest of the world who understand that power is only power if you are willing to use it. Obama's reticence to pressure anyone but allies will result in less allies as they see their rational self interest is to oppose the President.
Jimmy Carter was much the same way, with his mantra that we should no longer fear the Soviets. Just because the Third Soviet Mongol Warrior Horde with 212 divisions in East Germany alone and more farther east were poised for an invasion, it's not like they meant it. And getting rid of the Shah was atonement for all that we had done before. Surely, Jimmy believed, the Iranian people would recognize our contrition and all would be fine again. And then came the Ayatollah, which you might notice has been the start of most our present "troubles" with the Islamic world. Throw in our support for the Marxist Sandinistas, who willingly took our support, until they came into power, and promptly rebuffed the "Imperialist Yankee." Never mind that if we were imperial, their cute little revolution would have been destroyed in about ten minutes. But Jimmy took strong steps, like the fiasco of Desert One, and our abstention from the Moscow Olympic Games. Yes Sir! We showed them that we were serious by gosh.
Carter did have to face the hangover from the guns and butter aspect of the Viet Nam war, but his economic choices like those now, seem totally ineffectual. By the end of his term, interest rates were through the roof. Inflation was running at double digits, the dollar sucked, and unemployment was sky high, hence, the coinage of the term "stagflation." Pretty much a harbinger of our own economic problems in the next few years.
Energy is and was still a problem even after the nearly thirty years that Jimmy came around. Back then, of course, oil was predicted to be depleted in the 1990s. Jimmy installed solar panels on the roof of the White House, wore a sweater and told us all to turn down our thermostats, all in recognition of the fact that we were no longer a "Great Power" and had to assume our position in the ranks of lesser countries. Now, we have the President telling us how to sneeze and wash our hands. The most powerful man on the planet, is acting like a nanny (or is it ninny?). Our current President is not just installing panels, no, instead he is creating millions of "green jobs" to save our economy. Imagine how bad our economy would be without the addition of all of these millions of green jobs to offset the ones we have lost already. Just like Jimmy, Obama has Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. In fact he has even more power than Carter, and as a result could do anything that he wants. Which apparently ends at giving soaring rhetoric, leaving the dirty details of the work to be done to others.
Hansen had fear that we are entering the twilight of our country under Obama's stewardship. His concerns are well taken, and it is possible that this may be the end.
On the other hand, for those of us who lived through it, I remember the period of 1978-1980 as being the same as today. Of course, then we had a Ronald Reagan to remind us of our better angels. I am still American enough to believe that there will be another who will reinvigorate the image of a shining city on the hill.
Besides, I hate disco.

ADDITIONAL THOUGHT: There is one significant difference between the two though. Carter was trained by Adm. Hyman Rickover, and as such was a nut for control and attention to detail. He even personally controlled who got to use the White House tennis courts and when. Just think, there was so much to do, and that was on the list of jobs for the President. Obama on the other hand seems to have no interest in any details, preferring his peroration to getting down and dirty.

Obama's Accomplishments

oval office message
by postertube

What? Me worry?

Damned If You Do . . .

Damned if you don't. It seems that Michael Moore has announced that any Democrats who don't support Public Option financing of health care reform are going to be campaigned against by he and his ilk. So, if you are a Democrat officeholder, and you don't support public option you will be run out of office. And if you do support public option, you will be run out of office by everyone else.
Times are hard for the ruling party.

Dennis McDonald's Last Deperate Ploy

Dennis McDonald, the former Montana Democratic Party chairman is getting desperate. In today's Missoulian, McDonald has decided that Denny Rehberg was drunk, when he was the victim of a boating accident. Now, what does Mr. McDonald use as a basis for this accusation? Clairvoyance? Rank speculation? Or how about pure political flop sweat trying to get some attention for his doomed chances to unseat our Congressman.
First Mr. McDonald uses the pseudos-cientific analysis of an approximate .015% elimination rate of alcohol in the human body. This rate is known as the Beta-Widmark Factor and is useful only in a theoretical sense. Assuming a constant rate of blood alcohol at some period in time, that once you stop drinking the average person will eliminate alcohol at the rate mentioned. But first, some of the problems: Was there a steady level of alcohol at the time drinking stopped? It's not unusual for someone to quickly down their drink right before they leave. Because alcohol doesn't instantly enter the blood stream upon consumption, their BAC would not rise immediately. Sure, some alcohol is added to the blood stream through the mucal linings of the mouth, but this is nearly undetectable. Second, once the alcohol hits the stomach, enzymes in the stomach of a man (sorry ladies, you lack that enzyme) begin to break down the alcohol. After a period of time, the alcohol enters the small intestine where it begins to more effectively enter the blood stream. Depending on stomach contents, this can be anywhere from 15 minutes to half an hour or even longer.
At this point, the BAC starts to rise in accordance with the alcohol being processed by the small intestine. This increase follows an arc which is variable between people depending on too many factors to mention here, but suffice to say, that it is a rising arc. This is known as rising alcohol syndrome. You could only effectively measure the rate if you could take accurate readings every five minutes or so, in order to determine the rate of absorption.
At some time after the last drink, the blood alcohol will hit a peak, it's at this time that the Beta-Widmark factor starts to come into play. But again, this is only a rough average for people. It can depend on so many other factors, again to numerous to list that it is impossible to do retrograde extrapolation of what Rehberg's BAC was at the time of the accident.
But even if he was the highest level I have ever seen, which was a .412 BAC (and believe it or not, she seemed only mildly drunk) he was a passenger, otherwise known as A VICTIM! Denny did absolutely nothing wrong. In fact we encourage people who drink not to operate cars or boats, even though it is perfectly legal to drink and drive or boat, so long as their ability to safely operate the vehicle is not impaired. Denny was not operating anything.
But McDonald says that Denny erred in not knowing that Barcus was impaired, and therefore should not have gotten into the boat. Again, the basis for this is pure speculation. First we don't know what the driver's BAC was even now. Assuming for the sake of argument that it was over the legal level (an arbitrary number driven by MADD more than science) there were four other people getting into that boat that night. Are they any less culpable in not determining that the driver might be impaired? According to Mr. McDonald's theory, all of the victims should have recognized the driver was impaired, and yet none did. What does that suggest? One theory is that somehow, the people were coerced into getting into the boat against their will. How preposterous, not to mention an insult added to the injuries of the passengers. Another may be that no one had any concerns about the driver's ability, which seems to be far more plausible.
But how can that be, you say, if it is true that the driver was over the legal limit? In my 12 years of reviewing DUI videos, I have watched over a thousand, and probably closer to two thousand videos of people who were arrested for DUI. Some people seemed inebriated at a very low level (especially young women) and some seemed to be rock steady and perform well on all of the tests except the Intoxilyzer. Determining someone's level of intoxication through visual cues is almost impossible for even trained police officers, which is why they require a breath test verify suspicions. Notice the magic word "suspicions." And that is with people who are trained to detect impaired driving. Ordinary people will never be likely to say that someone is impaired unless they are falling down drunk. Is there any mention of such a "fact?"
No.
This is the desperate ploy of a desperate man running what he knows is a desperate campaign. Take it for what it's worth.

The REAL War on the Poor

Many of my Democratic friends tell me that they are Democrats "because they care." This is both amusing and frustrating for its simplistic attitude. Do they think that conservatives don't care about the poor? But the other thing about them is how they view the solution to the problem of poverty. While most of them provide direct cash assistance to many worthwhile programs, and some even contribute personal time and effort, the same can be said for my conservative friends. Democrats as a whole see the best solution to all problems as using the government to remedy poverty.
Never mind that in the almost forty-five years since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society program, we haven't budged the percentage of people who are considered to be poor. Of course the problems of poverty when the Great Society program was enacted are completely different than they are now. Then, the problem was the lack of electricity and running water in the poorest regions of the country. Now, it's people who have color TVs, XBox or other such time wasting devices. Then, the poor actually suffered from malnutrition and faced starvation. Now, the biggest problem related to food for the poor is the level of obesity.
It may be that the greatest problem for the poor though, are the ones who claim to help them. And I am sure that it will be interesting to Mark T. that the problems stem from corporations. Just not the usual corporations that he rails against. In fact these corporations are working to destroy the poor.
I realize that this is a serious charge, and I come to it regrettably. It started with the allegations of voter fraud last year, and hit the high (or is it low) point with the videos of ACORN representatives giving advice on how to avoid taxes on a child sex slavery operation. The founder of ACORN, Wade Rathke is where I started. That connection led me to George Wiley and his National Welfare Reform Organization, which employed the Cloward-Piven Stategy.
From the article:

First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse. . . .

In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when "the rest of society is afraid of them," Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would "the rest of society" accept their demands. . . .

Cloward and Piven calculated that persuading even a fraction of potential welfare recipients to demand their entitlements would bankrupt the system. The result, they predicted, would be "a profound financial and political crisis" that would unleash "powerful forces … for major economic reform at the national level."

Rathke implemented the Cloward-Piven model and then franchised it. Selling licenses to other community organizers, he extracts franchise fees and dues from the members to the tune of arougn $64 million each year. This is separate from any charitable donations or tax payer monies. But Rathke is expanding the model from just breaking the system through welfare reform. He is also trying to drive businesses into bankruptcy through the use of so called "living wage" laws that artificially inflate the rate of compensation. In the 1990s, Rathke led the charge for subprime lending and then sued the banks for predatory lending practices, a sort of win-win for him and lose-lose for everyone else. Currently, Rathke's many organizations which spun off from ACORN are engaged in promoting ObamaCare as well.
Looking at the big picture, ACORN is a corrupt organization which claims to represent the poor, but is only interested in destroying the American economic system, the poor be damned. The cynicism that would take the weakest members of our society and use them as cannon fodder in Wade Rathke's desire to destroy this country is appalling.
Now, I am not saying that those who support the causes that Rathke is championing are necessarily part of a nefarious plot. Instead, it is the cynicism of Rathke that he would use people's good intentions to destroy the very ones that they want to help.
God Save Us All.

The Obama Song

Kids in a Maryland school are being manipulated into singing a paean to Obama in the finest form of the Dear Leader adulation.

At first, I was upset that children who could not really appreciate the full impact of what they were being forced to do, were being so cynically manipulated by people in power in an educational setting.
Then I realized, it's a college prep course.

Don't Throw Me Into That Briarpatch

It seems that the ACORN subsidiary in Maryland is suing the intrepid makers of the ACORN videos. Boy is that dumb.
When you sue someone, you open up the door for discovery. Civil discovery can be a very painful thing, since you have to produce everything that is requested even if it might not be relevant or material. So now, the two filmmakers and Andrew Breitbart have a hunting license to rummage through everything, possibly even up to the national level.
Boy are they dumb.

UPDATE: You can see a copy of the complaint here.