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.

Obama the Unifier

Whatever the campaign rhetoric, Obama has brought together Republicans and Democrats to speak as one!


Of course, they said No! 

0-414 means that he should get a clue.

Max Answers!

Well, sort of.  I sent our senior senator an email complaining about the fact that Tricare costs are only going up for the uniformed members, but the unionized civilian DoD workers were being exempted from the cost increases because they support Obama.
Here is Max's answer:

Dear Steve:

Thank you for contacting me about the 2013 budget and military health care.  I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

The brave members of our military have served our nation courageously.  They have done everything we have asked of them and more.  An estimated 9.3 million Americans rely on TRICARE for their health care needs.  Active service members, military retirees, and their families deserve the best health care available, and I will continue to fight for our troops as they have fought for us.

I have long fought to increase military pay, and I have opposed cuts to military retirement and health benefits.  I opposed budget proposals in 2007, 2008, and 2009 that would have hiked TRICARE enrollment fees and co-pays.  I also supported provisions in each of these proposals to give our troops a pay raise.  I was proud to accept the "Award of Merit" from the Military Coalition for fighting to preserve quality health care and benefits for service members and veterans.  The Military Coalition represents 35 different military and veterans organizations, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the Air Force Association.

I have also supported legislation each year since 2003 to either reverse cuts in TRICARE physician reimbursement or to increase payments to doctors.  TRICARE physician payments are governed by a complex formula called the sustainable growth rate (SGR).  According to the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA), the declining participation of providers due to low reimbursements is one of the most serious health care problems facing Medicare-eligible and military beneficiaries.  During my work in the Senate this year, I reached across the aisle to reverse a scheduled 27.4 percent reduction in TRICARE reimbursements to doctors.  This reduction would have severely threatened access to health care for Montana's military families.  While SGR initially produced positive updates for TRICARE beneficiaries, Congress has had to step in and act to reverse cuts caused by the SGR formula.

The U.S. military has the best, most professional, and most patriotic service members and veterans in the world, and Montana boasts one of the strongest commitments to military service in the nation.  I will continue to support and recognize our troops and veterans.  I have a tremendous amount of gratitude for their service.

Thanks again for getting in touch.  Please contact me in the future with any additional comments or concerns.  Also, please visit my website at http://baucus.senate.gov for more information on current issues and to find out what I'm doing both here in Washington and at home to help Montana.

    Sincerely,
      

 

Notice how he fails to address the purpose of my complaint, but instead spits out pablum that he expects me to embrace.  I am so sick and tired of all these damned phonies.  They need to be replaced.  All of them.

Union Benefits

I am not opposed to paying more for all that I get, but what I don't want to be is a sucker, and Obama and the Democrats seem to believe that those of us who served our country faithfully for twenty years or more are suckers.  The latest proposal calls for the military to cut funding for TriCare which is the system of insurance used by both active duty and retired military as part of the promised benefit of free medical care.  While I could agree to means testing as a way to ease the financial burden, I am stark raving pissed off that Obama wants to raise my rates, but not the unionized civilian who was never shot at. 
It's obvious that the reason he is doing this is to curry favor with his constituency (unions) at the expense of those who do not care for him (active duty and retired military).  Just like the Chrysler bailout that passed over the bond holders in favor of the unions, in spite of the law, Obama seeks to reward his friends and punish his enemies. 
I wrote about this to Sen. Baucus and still haven't heard back from him on it, but let me tell you, if this thing goes through, there won't be one Democrat left in office for the next ten years.  Once again, betrayed by our supposed Commander in Chief.

Anybody But Santorum

Oh, the perils of the times we live in.  We have Mitt Romney, a Big Government activist trying to lie to us about his conservative bona fides.  This forces the rest of us to pick the "Not-Romney" and it seems that by the process of elimination we are left with Rick Santorum.  Oh my God!!!  Santorum has been described as a Mike Huckabee without the humor.  You might remember Huckabee as the man who wanted to rewrite the Constitution to be more in line with the Bible.  Santorum is a man who says that he actively dislikes libertarianism because it allows too much freedom for individuals to do what they want instead of what he wants.  I cannot support anyone who seeks such control over other people's lives, and will not support him if he gets the nomination.
But in reading the above link, it referenced an interview that Ronald Reagan gave to Reason Magazine in 1975.  You should read it for the breathtaking insight from 37 years ago that is still so appropriate today.
Anyway, in the battle for who is the true conservative, neither Mitt nor Rick are anywhere close.  But I am beginning to think that I would rather have the malleable Mitt over the restrictive Rick.

The Gospel According to St. Barak

St. Barak (p.b.u.h), Slayer of the lesser Satan Osama bin Laden with his own bare hands, Halter of the Rise of the Oceans, Healer of the Planet and Defender of the Faith in Big Government, was sorely vexed.  For he had looked into the future and realized that the Rubes were not coming round to him after all of his Good Works.  After all, had He not used his Stimulus and takeover of the car companies to properly reward His acolytes in the Democrat Party?  Did He not orchestrate the passage of the Blessed ObamaCare for the benefit of AARP?  Did He not reward the money changers in the Temple of Goldman Sachs with his Dodd-Frank bill?  And after all of these Good Works, still, His poll numbers were in the tank.
"This is all the fault of the Greater Satan -those republicans" announced St. Barak.  They have stood in the way of My Will to perform Great Deeds and render a permanent Democrat Majority Ruling Party as it is Written.  So, St. Barak consulted with his Twin Brother, Jesus Christ (in the form of the blessed David Axelrod) and asked, "What more do these peasants want from Me?"  And Jesus Axelrod did reply "Lord, they are Bitter Clingers who clutch their guns and Bibles and ignore Your Blessed Will."  "You must therefore coopt their religion against them in order to fool, er, I mean show them the One True Way." "You must tell them that their beloved Jesus Christ (even though this is heresy in the religion of St. Barak) would have demanded higher tax rates, for while they should render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God, that which is God's. there is no Caesar any longer, and there is no God but You."
And St. Barak looked down on Axelrod and said "It is true, My will can be foisted off on the rubes because they are simple and ignorant and believe in silly Sky Gods."  "I shall announce that Jesus did not have the advantages of the Blessed Script of the Holy Tax Code, and that is why he did not call for higher taxes."  But if he had our Blessed Script, he would have realized that it is God's Will that Solyndra and other Green Energy programs are the best way to funnel money to My backers, as it is their right and due."  Further, sayeth St. Barak "And I shall declare as demons, all those who oppose me, whether they are the Greater Satans of republicans or Satans own spawn the Tea Partiers,"  "It shall be heresy to oppose the Holy Democrat Party from henceforth, punishable by excommunication and the seizure of their wealth for the good of the Party, er, I mean the People."  "Further sayeth St. Barak, "That treating the poor is not to be allowed to individuals, but shall only be done through the offices of the Blessed Federal Government, to whom all owe both fealty and their wealth, except for the Holy Democrat Party Believers, who shall be exempt from the wealth confiscation."  And St. Barak saw all that He had done, and He said that it was Good.

And the angels of Heaven opened up with some Al Green to celebrate the Immaculation of St. Barak.

Why D.C. Should Never Be Granted Statehood

Beside the whole Constitutional thing about you can't create a state out of another state (and the District is carved our of Maryland)there is another good reason that D.C. should never be given statehood. Take a look at the top states for Obama's approval where his is at 50% or more:



Thanks to Don Surber

81.1% approval?  Are you kidding me?  Even his own home state of Illinois only has him at 50.4% approval.  I have always suspected that there must be hallucinogens in the water there.  This seems to be proof.

Either They Think We Are Stupid, Or They Are

Let's face it, hypocrisy is the greatest strength of the Left. Undeterred by conscience they can say the stupidest things. Like Chris Matthews saying

he never saw hate-speech protest signs directed at former President George W. Bush — only at President Obama.

Really? Do you think he honestly believes that? If so, let me refresh his memory:

Thanks to Zomblog.

Next time someone like a Bob Beckel or anyone else on the Left complains about how Obama is being treated go ahead and call them a liar. Because they are.

ON RON PAUL’S LIBERTARIAN FOREIGN POLICY

I have to admire Cong. Ron Paul and his bid for the Republican nomination in that he is without a doubt among politicians of all stripes the most sincere in his core beliefs, many of which I share. Like him, I consider myself a libertarian who believes in minimal government in order to promote individual sovereignty and dignity. But I differ from him in how I understand libertarian philosophy deals with our international relations.
I became a libertarian after considering it to be the best economic, political and moral theory. Every day, libertarians are presented with examples of the failures of government both large and small, and still there are those who believe that a big problem requires a big government solution even absent of any evidence in support. Our collective “Wars” on poverty, drugs, obesity and cancer, etc. have not yielded much to be heralded, and yet still we persist. The evidence of the awareness of the failure of government is what I attribute Ron Paul’s continued and steady growth in popularity. But it is in the area of foreign policy that I think Cong. Paul is not so much libertarian as he is an older, much more insidious form of Americanism, and that is the Isolationist.
Many Republicans consider Cong. Paul to be unelectable because of his assertion that America is responsible for the 9-11 attacks by homicidal maniacs.

At a campaign stop on Saturday in Winterset, one man asked Paul how terrorist groups would react if the U.S. removed its military presence in Middle Eastern nations, a move the candidate advocates.

“Which enemy are you worried that will attack our national security?” Paul asked.

“If you’re looking for specifics, I’m talking about Islam. Radical Islam,” the man answered.

“I don’t see Islam as our enemy,” Paul said. “I see that motivation is occupation and those who hate us and would like to kill us, they are motivated by our invasion of their land, the support of their dictators that they hate.”

Regarding 9/11, Paul said that attacks against the U.S. from Middle Eastern groups at home and abroad can be traced to the foreign presence of U.S. troops, as well as America’s relationships with dictator regimes.

Paul referred to a military base in Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam, as a key motivator in the Sept. 11th attacks. Osama bin Laden viewed it as an American desecration of holy land.

“After 9/11, (people said) ‘Oh yeah, it’s those very bad people who hate us,’ but 15 of (the hijackers) came from Saudi Arabia,” said Paul. “One of the reasons they attacked us, is we propped up this Sharia government and the fundamentalists hated us for it.”

Maybe Paul is correct that without our presence in Saudi Arabia, there never would have been the attacks. But if you look more closely at it, this is still an assertion which is contra-factual. Countries, like neighbors, can freely enter into mutually beneficial agreements. In this case, after the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein the Saudi government invited the US in to help protect their kingdom. If we had said no, what would have been the ultimate result? More than likely a Middle East dominated by a murderous megalomaniacal dictator, raping and pillaging as he felt without any consequences. Osama bin Laden may have offered up his jihadist mujahadeen to defend the kingdom, but while good for the publicity (a new Defender of the Holy Sites) they would have not been successful in containing the Iraqi Army as it moved south. Their lightly armed fighters would have been swept away in much the same way that the Kuwaiti Army was in August 1990.
How is it not libertarian in principle to aid your neighbor? If anything, it is the basis for the moral philosophy which leads each of us to assist as we can without the demand from some other force that we "contribute" to our neighbor.
Even setting aside the First Gulf War, if that wasn't the reason for OBL to attack the US there would have been others: Defense of Israel, or at least provision of aid, and if we had no presence in the Middle East, it would have been our "decadent lifestyle" that allows women to be full participants in our society instead of submitting to the will of their male relatives or husbands. Or our tolerance of other religions, homosexuality, bacon, or whatever. I suppose that the only solution that would have prevented the attacks on 9-11 would have been for the US to adopt Sharia law and disregard the Constitution. I am not willing to concede that this would be considered to be libertarian foreign policy. Instead it is the politics of the pacifist which is simply surrender.
Another complaint is our involvement in the defense of countries like Germany and South Korea that have the ability to defend themselves means that we should not maintain a presence there. It certainly is attractive in the case of Germany. As a young officer, I arrived in Germany in 1980, just 35 years after the end of the Second World War and observed it to be one very large armed camp. I think at the time, we had more American troops stationed in Germany than France had under arms in total. We were facing, as we jokingly called it, the Third Soviet Mongol Horde across the border from us. In a country the size of Ohio, the Soviets had over 250 frontline divisions waiting for the order to roll west to the Channel. Further east, there were multiples of even more divisions/Guards Armies stretching from Poland all the way to the Urals. Luckily for us, the Soviets believed their own propaganda about the inevitability of the coming Socialist Revolution and never launched the invasion.
Now that the Soviets are gone, Germany no longer needs our troops to defend them and our interests in Europe. And we are in the process of drawing down, going from more than two corps to just two brigades, hardly any force necessary to protect our NATO ally from invasion. But the presence of the two brigades is a statement that the US has an interest and commitment to our treaty allies. It is also one third of the world closer to any trouble than having the brigades stationed in America. These two brigades reaffirm that the United States is not withdrawing behind our oceans and ignoring the world.
South Korea is different because it still is a hot spot and potential for conflict. The dirty little secret about our troops on the Korean peninsula is that they are really just hostages. At 20,000 strong, they are no match for the million man army of the North Koreans. Nor could our forces do anything about the thousands of artillery tubes that are dug into mountains but within range of Seoul that would bring terror and destruction on our ally. But our presence sends a message to the Norks that we will not tolerate them killing Americans in their homicidal attempt to “reunify” the peninsula. At a cost of one division, we have prevented an outbreak of the war that is only in a cease fire for the last 50 years. A pretty reasonable price considering the potential for human tragedy that would result from an invasion.
Other forces are arrayed around the world, but only in limited numbers, usually involved in training of local forces. This is a low cost way to protect our national interests in stability of those countries, while at the same time hoping to instill the professionalism and respect for human rights that we promote. Since we are not imposing our will, but instead acting on the invitation of the host countries, we have the ability to promote the dignity of the individual for very low cost. That certainly would be a libertarian principle.
How about Cong. Paul's assertion that we have been entering into wars without having Congress declare them? This would strike a pure Constitutionalist as a valid complaint. But what if it isn't? Did Thomas Jefferson, who was closer to the understanding of the Founders declare war on the Barbary Pirates? Did he act unconstitutionally, or did he act within his understanding of what "declaring war" actually means? To declare war is to put the full weight of the nation behind an effort to destroy another nation's military or domestic/foreign policy that we find to be in our national interests. We have declared war only a few times, the last being the Second World War when war was thrust upon us because of our desire to be left alone. However, we have engaged in the Korean War as a duty of our treaty obligations with the United Nations, the Viet Nam War as a result of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, the first Gulf War after consent of Congress as well as the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq which were also voted on and approved by Congress. While technically not a declaration of war, the fact that these wars were approved by Congress means that the complaint is a distinction without a difference.
Since WWII, we have attacked other countries without a congressional authorization, such as Grenada, Panama and most recently Libya. However, in each of these cases the Congress was consulted at the least, and the leadership of both houses would have had the ability to enter laws forbidding the expenditure of funds in support thereof. Instead Congress went along, whether complicit or abdicating their responsibility, they gave their approval.
Finally, I wonder if Cong. Paul understands what would happen if there is no US military and what the effect would be on the world? One example would be our Libyan misadventure where we "led from behind." Providing only intelligence and logistic support, we watched as an uprising became bloodier and longer than it probably would have if we had been more active in our assistance to the rebels. This is what I mean by isolationism being a detriment to libertarian principles. By our failure to act, more people died than would have if we had acted. For each of those deaths, what is the dollar amount that we can proudly point to and say that is a "libertarian" savings by not being involved?
Let's face it, we are the de facto policeman whether we want to be or not, because we are the only country capable of doing what we do and doing it in the interests of human rights. And human rights are what I understand libertarianism to be about. We should never be so selfish as to deny others that right to their inalienable rights because it costs too much should we?

What Really Happened in the Gingrich Ethics Case?

Romney has been bringing up the fact that Gingrich was expelled from his leadership position based on ethics complaints, and yesterday Nanny Pelosi was grinning from ear to ear about how she could prevent Newt from becoming President based on the investigation. Because I am old, I remembered that there were something like 67 allegations but only one or two that stuck, and considered doing the research to write about what actually did happen then.
Luckily, Byron York did it for me. Read the whole thing for a shameless political hit job to find out what it was that he was guilty of and had to pay a $300,000 fine.
And people wonder why he goes after the "news" moderators for their stupid questions.

Watching the SOTU

Having been distracted by the Republican race, I had almost forgotten about Obama but tonight reinforced my feelings about the man. I am beginning to loathe him.
Not to the level of Bush hatred that my friends on the Left have nurtured for the last 12 years, but just a general disgust with everything about him. But that's okay, I figure that this is his last SOTU.
My prediction is that Obama's approval ratings will continue to slide toward Jimmy Carter levels the more he campaigns. In fact, I think the only way that Obama can be re-elected is to have the DNC kidnap him and keep him sequestered until after the first Tuesday in November.
Whoever the Republicans nominate, I know that they will be a significant improvement (sure, it's a low standard) and will help to restore sanity to this country.

Herman Cain - Why did you leave??!!!!!