I really, really wish that Michael had phrased his criticisms of the Missouri legistaive initiative differently, because I think that his bombast obscures the important point that he is trying to make; namely, that the continued focus by some Conservatives/Republicans on the location of Obama birth plays directly into the hands to people like Ben Smith, who as Michael stated in the comments section, does seem to awake each morning anew to serve the Obama Administration.
The bottom-line is this: Ben Smith, Politico, CNN, etc…, would not highlight these stories if they did not feel that they helped the administration by making Republicans and conservatives generally appear foolish and/or xenophobes, or worse. That fact that elected Republicans in the Missouri Legislature are behind this makes it even worse, as it is hard to write them off as simply the lunatic fringe.
The evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii is absolutely overwhelming. But even if it were not, I would ask you to come up with a reasonable scenario of what you would hope to happen if it was proved to not be so.
What does anyone hope to find that would prove conclusively that Obama was born in Kenya? Sans film of Ann Dunham giving birth in a Kenyan hospital, what evidence could possibly be presented that the MSM would accept and report to the American Public as valid?*
The answer is: there is none… So the only thing that this line of attack will bring is to continue to cast the Republican party in a horrible light.
So for goshsakes, can we please drop this already and get to work rebuilding a viable political majority?
______________________________________________________________________________
*Even if there was not overwhelming evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii, his mother–Ann Dunham–was a natural-born U.S. Citizen. So even if she did give birth to him in Kenya, since when do we not allow children of U.S. citizens born abroad to become President?
The left’s attempt at creating straw-men for the President to knock down may not work out as well as they hoped.
If Rush is the leader, then Obama should engage him in debate, right? In the process, not only does Obama elevate a radio host, but reduce the presidency’s stature, making him seem smaller, and a part of the fray rather then above it. Rush knows it. So does Robert Gibbs.
Well El Rushbo has thrown down the gauntlet.
” If these guys are so impressed with themselves, and if they are so sure of their correctness, why doesn’t President Obama come on my show? We will do a one-on-one debate of ideas and policies. Now, his people in this Politico story, it’s on the record. They’re claiming they wanted me all along. They wanted me to be the focus of attention. So let’s have the debate! I am offering President Obama to come on this program — without staffers, without a teleprompter, without note cards — to debate me on the issues. “
Your move, messiah.
You have got to be f*&%ing kidding me?
Fifteen Republican members of the Missouri General Assembly have signed on to a state constitutional amendment that appears aimed at advancing the claims of the fringe movement that doubts President Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as president.
The language is contained in a proposed “voter’s bill of rights,” which would serve “as a defense against corruption, fraud, and tyranny.”
The proposed amendment states:
For candidates who are required by the Constitution of the United States to be natural born citizens, the secretary of state shall request an official copy of the candidate’s birth certificate. Other certifications, such as a certificate of live birth, shall not be accepted. Should any candidate fail to provide an official birth certificate within thirty days of the request by the secretary of state, his or her name shall not be placed on the ballot.
The Birthers, as they’re known, have focused on the State of Hawaii’s refusal to release the original of Obama’s birth certificate, as opposed to official copies; Hawaii state law bars the release of the original.
Attention you Missouri retards… You want me to @*$%ing “Show You” something? Look below:
This is the birth announcement for Barack Hussein Obama that was published in Hawaiian newspapers within days of his birth. This announcement has only been reprinted on the Internet about 1,239,909,968,898,888 times since Obama became a presidential candidate. I believe that it has been posted on this very site at least 10 times.
So unless you morons really think that an international conspiracy to make Obama president began at the moment of his birth almost 50 years ago, SHUT THE F%*^ UP AND STOP MAKING US ALL LOOK LIKE A BUNCH OF RACIST HICKS!!
It seems that Jon Corzine is trying to one-up David Paterson. While the NJ Governor’s numbers aren’t as low (yet) as Paterson’s, his reelection prospects are dimming by the day. Former US Attorney Chris Christie has expanded his lead over Corzine to 9% in this latest FDU Poll. Unlike the New York democrats, however, there is no Cuomo to the rescue in NJ. Corzine still bests potential primary challengers like Newark Mayor Cory Booker. Can New Jersey stop teasing and finally elect a republican state-wide for the first time since the mid-90′s???
It has been 18 years since Clarence Thomas came under attack in a concentrated media assault because of the grave crime he had committed: being African American and conservative at the same time. Now, Michael Steele is being targeted in a similar fashion, having his leadership undercut by Clintonistas like Carville, Begala, and Emanuel as they fuel their absurd ‘Rush is the leader’ propaganda. This is not about Limbaugh, who has been a conservative voice for 20 years and has never been made the center of attack before. No, this is about Steele, and the danger the new RNC chairmen represents to the liberal establishment. Just look at some of the coordinated effort by the MSM:
What’s happening to Michael Steele is what always happens to any conservative who happens to be a minority. Whether it was Clarence Thomas or Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal and now Michael Steele, the liberal establishment simply cannot sit by while minority faces espouse a conservative belief. It is the most threatening prospect to left wing power: the possibility that women, African Americans, Hispanics, and others would begin to embrace individual liberty rather than government dependency. To awaken these communities to their own potential, to empower these groups to lift themselves up, to show them that they don’t need the Orwellian hand of government to take care of them, is the greatest danger to the existence of the Democrat Party and to left wing ideology. Minority republican figures take attacks that no other politicians have to face, Thomas, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and Sarah Palin are just a few of the many individuals attacked simply because their race or gender pose a political problem to the left. The oppressors and the race hustlers will do anything to cling to their power and to their relevancy. As long as they can poison the minds of entire subgroups of the population, as long as they can make people believe they need the hand of government in all aspects of their lives, they will continue the assault on those community members who break free. Those like Michael Steele, who grew up in hard times is a poor African American community, who realizes that empowering the individual is the best way to change communities like the one he was raised in. As long as there are people like Chairman Steele who attempt to break free of the cult of dependency, and try to bring those in his community with him, there will be the left wing establishment, ready and willing to destroy them.
The question is, will we allow them to succeed at destroying Michael Steele? Will we be duped into a circular firing squad? Will we sit silent as Steele and Limbaugh bicker while a generation of Americans are robbed by this president? Less then 4 weeks on the job, there are those on the right who want Steele out at the RNC. The first black chairman, ousted in less than a month. Is that the image the right wants the country to see? That we are so intolerant that we allow Michael Steele zero time to undertake the massive task he has been handed. If we do, we are playing right into the hands of the race hustlers, the Clintonistas, the cult of dependency.
Stand by our chairman, let him know that you support his efforts to broaden this party and form a governing coalition for the 21st century. To do otherwise will simply aide the left in doing what they want most: turn Michael Steele into Clarence Thomas.
The latest Rasmussen survey shows the GOP only down by two in the generic congressional ballot.
My new article on Pajamas Media is up. Click here. It is about the latest activities of the student movement in Iran. Ironically, Iran is one of the most pro-American countries on earth. It is unfortunate that President Obama, like his predecessor, is failing to see the opportunity at hand if we supported the Iranian democracy movement.
In other news, I’m trying to arrange screenings of “Homegrown Jihad: Terrorist Camps Around the U.S.” which is available at ChristianAction.org. There is also a trailer on YouTube here. If you are part of any clubs or organizations that would like to show it, email me at TDCAnalyst@aol.com and let’s set something up. We need to make this a more prominent political issue.
Congressman J.C. Watts will decide in the next 45 days whether he wants to join the race to become Oklahoma’s next Governor.
Congresswoman Mary Fallin (R-Ok.) has already announced for the vacant governorship, and I’m sure she’d do fine in the position, but I like Watts as a communicator and as overall conservative voice. He’s had a good long break of seven years from elected politics, and it would be a great time for him to re-emerge.
Oklahoma is a great pick-up opportunity for the Republicans in 2010. We need the right candidates and Watts would riase the profile of the Oklahoma Governor’s race to national prominence, and would probably be more likely to actually win the Governor’s race than Fallin.
This is an idea that makes sense
CNBC anchor Larry Kudlow is now mulling a run against Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., in 2010.
“I’m thinking about it, that’s all I can say … it’s the kind of thing where I’m talking to friends, talking to strategists, talking to my wife, and praying on it,” Kudlow told Politico. “It’s all come on very fast, and I don’t have any definite thoughts at all other than the fact that I am thinking about it.”
Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the National Republican Senatorial Committee chairman, approached Kudlow with the idea. Cornyn said it would be a “good race” and a “national race,” Kudlow said.
Dodd, a former presidential candidate and Senate Banking Committee chairman, won reelection by a 2-to-1 margin in his last two campaigns. And the Cook Political Report rates Dodd’s seat as “solidly Democratic.” But the five-term senator has recently seen his popularity sink, especially after revelations that he refinanced two mortgages through Countrywide Financial Corp.’s VIP program.
A Quinnipiac University poll released last month shows just over half of Connecticut citizens say they probably or definitely won’t vote for Dodd in 2010 and gave him a 48% approval rating — numbers that poll director Douglas Schwartz called “a new low.”
Schwartz, who called Dodd “vulnerable,” said: “The mortgage controversy has taken a toll on his approval rating. Most voters are not satisfied with Dodd’s explanation and say they are less likely to vote for him next year because of it.”
Kudlow would bring name recognition, money, and star power to this Senate race. Yeah, being a CNBC host and a Wall Street guy may not be popular, but if there was a step you could name as, “Least likely to have a populist campaign succeed in,” Connecticut would probably be it with its large concentration of wealthy people. Particularly if Kudlow’s running against Chris Dodd. I’ve been critical of some of Cornyn’s recruiting moves (George Pataki in New York) but this one appears to be a solid pick, and about as good as you’ll get in the Nutmeg state.
Senator John Cornyn (R-Tx.) has a couple of times made the argument regarding Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA), Olympia Snowe (R-Me.), and Susan Collins (R-Me.) that someone who votes with us 80% of the time is better than someone who votes with us 0% of the time.
I love it when this argument is made in regards to politicians who doesn’t vote with us anywhere near 80% of the time. A great Barometer of conservative voting is the American Conservative Union Ratings. In the 2007 , the ratings for Specter, Snowe, and Collins are 40%, 28%, and 36%. Over the course of their careers, the totals are 46%, 49%, and 52%.
Over the recent sessions, the fact of the matter is that if you replace these three Senators with a Two Face like figure flipping a coin, “Good heads conservative, bad heads liberal.” You get a better result than you would from these Senators actual voting records.
And I know some will say (such as Alex), “You can’t elect Tom Coburn in Maine.”
I’m not calling for Tom Coburn to be elected from Maine or Pennsylvania either for that matter, that’s a straw man argument. In Specter’s case particularly, we can do better. Even Tom Ridge, when he was in Congress had an ACU rating in the 60s. Rick Santorum was re-elected as late as 2000 and had as conservative of a record as you’ll find with very few blemishes.
I think Cornyn’s pledge to involve himself in Republican primaries is a mistake. For me, it means no more contributions to the NRSC. I’m not going to give money to save Arlen Specter. Really, Cornyn risks repeating Liddy Dole’s mistake in 2006 when she poured millions into saving Lincoln Chafee from a Primary Challenge. In the process, Republicans lost winnable Senate races in Virginia and Montana as well as losing Rhode Island, and thus lost the Senate.
Arlen Specter is a poor investment of Republican funds that will cost the NRSC in good will and financial support. The smart bet is to let the local people handle this and for Cornyn his attention on Republicans who will yield a greater return.
My latest column for Pajamas Media is up:
Is Rush Limbaugh hurting the Republican Party? Some within the GOP allege that Rush turns people off to the party and is conservatism’s toxic asset. The Democratic Party, in the absence of any Republican power in Washington to attack, is taking aim at Limbaugh.
Chairman Michael Steele stepped into the middle of this battle by telling CNN’s D.L. Hugely that Rush’s was “incendiary” and “ugly.”
Steele has since apologized and clarified: “My intent was not to go after Rush — I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh. … I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. … There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.”
This came after Limbaugh responded to Steele’s statements with a verbal smackdown worthy of the WWF. While some may question the tone of Rush’s response, the war on Rush needs to be understood. It’s not just as an assault on a talk show host, but an attack on the movement conservatives who value his opinions. In essence, the war on Rush is a proxy war on movement conservatives, and Steele stepped in on the wrong side before correcting himself.
Steele’s interview does raise important questions. Many, including D.L. Hugely and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, have credited Rush Limbaugh as the leader of the Republicans. Many conservatives would agree.
Being leader of the conservative movement isn’t Limbaugh’s fault, doing, or even his goal. What it is, ultimately, is a reproach on Republican leadership at all levels.
Read the rest of the piece here.
Thanks to James Pethokoukis of Capital Commerce for summarizing two essential research publications. The first concerns a Goldman Sachs economic forecast:
We have marked down our forecast for US economic activity in the first half of 2009; we now expect real GDP to fall at annual rates of 7% this quarter and 3% next quarter (versus declines of 4½% and 1% previously). … As a result of the additional near-term weakness, we have boosted our expected path of the unemployment rate, to 9½% by year-end 2009 and 10% by year-end 2010; both figures are ½ point above the previous forecast.
Those are some pretty significant downward revisions. However, as with most bad things, we see a silver lining: if Goldman’s unemployment forecasts come to fruition, perhaps voters will punish Democrats at the polls in 2010 for their mismanagement of the economy.
The second Capital Commerce post cites a study conducted by the George C. Marshall Institute on the effects of Obama’s proposed cap-and-trade system:
Put another way, the cap-and-trade approach is the equivalent of a permanent tax increase for the average American household, which was estimated to be $1,100 in 2008, would rise to $1,437 by 2015, to $1,979 in 2030, and $2,979 in 2050.
The Marshall Institute also references other recent studies on the subject:
The studies reviewed showed electricity prices jumping 5-15% by 2015, natural gas prices up 12-50% by 2015, and gasoline prices up 9-145% by 2015. As an illustration, gasoline would suffer a 16 cent price increase per gallon at the low end of the estimates to a $2.58 penalty at the high end (using the January 2009 reported retail price of $1.78 per gallon).
As other posters on this site have said, the cap-and-trade program is a recipe for economic malaise, served Obama-style.
I have to give credit where it’s due, and this soliloquy by Skanderbeg at Red State on the absurdity of Obama’s tax and spending plans certainly deserves its fair share. Skanderbeg clearly and brilliantly illustrates some very important unintended consequences of Obama and Co.’s scheme to punish “tax dodgers”. Definitely worth your time.
And finally, an op-ed from Jeb Bush about a topic not often discussed on this site – education – will appear in today’s Atlanta Journal-Constitution. In it, Bush compellingly argues in favor of school vouchers, an issue important to him. Among the highlights:
In the last year of Florida’s voucher program, less than 750 students opted for an Opportunity Scholarship — about half of one percent of the nearly 190,000 students in Florida public schools who were eligible. Ninety-five percent were minority students from low-income families.
Vouchers did not drain money from the public schools. During the eight years that Opportunity Scholarships were granted, Florida increased funding per student by 49 percent. In fact, the program actually saved money. The state paid an average of $4,000 for an Opportunity Scholarship rather than the $7,206 provided for a student attending public school.
Vouchers didn’t harm the quality of public education. In fact, research by Harvard and Cornell universities concluded that Florida’s choice programs actually improved the quality of education in public schools. Fearing the loss of students, public schools developed innovative ways to help students succeed, such as offering Saturday morning tutorials and after-school intervention.
There is irrefutable evidence our education reform formula is responsible for Florida’s rising student achievement. Nearly a quarter of a million more children are reading at or above grade level today than a decade ago. Florida is scoring above the national average in reading and math. Moreover, the U.S. Department of Education recently recognized Florida as one of five states to close the achievement gap for minority students.
Statements like these and comparisons of the respective gubernatorial records of George W. and Jeb lend credibility to the argument that we elected the wrong Bush son president. Hopefully, Bush fatigue dissipates in time, and Jeb can seriously consider a run for the White House. At the very least, he would make things very, very interesting. Unfortunately, the media’s treatment of W. and the intense negative connotation of his last name may prove too lasting and pervasive to overcome. It’s a shame, because we could miss out on having a terrific executive like Jeb in the White House.
Now everyone trades in fear and uncertainty
Days pass with new lows and sullen faces
Leaders push their ideas and promise a better tomorrow
Yet, maybe there is no cure
Maybe, just maybe, this is our fate
For all our excess
For the extremes on both sides of the spectrum
For the irresponsibility and carelessness and greed
For biting off more than we could chew
For the petty partisanship and political pontification
For the unprecedented concentration of power in the hands of so few
We shall overcome only if Americans come to understand that the power of the great experiment of democracy so many have died for since 1776 does not lie in Wall Street or the White House or some massive government agency.
It lies in you and I.
We should never expect our leaders to change if our individual habits as private citizens grow increasingly dependent on more authority and government direction.
A state is only legitimate through the consent of the governed. That’s a social contract.
And I don’t consent to our current trajectory.
Plato’s Republic offers a sad truth that applies to this day. In his discussion on the ideal state and the appropriate character for rulers or guardians, Socrates strikes the nail on the head:
“The truth is that the State in which the rulers are most reluctant to govern is always the best and most quietly governed, and the State in which they are most eager, the worst.”
Our best hope of taking out Barbara Boxer today was diagnosed with breast cancer:
EDIT: Yeah, yeah, I knew someone was gonna take that the wrong way. It goes without saying, of course, that I wish her a speedy recovery.
EDIT 2: Apparently the strike feature doesn’t work.
Anyway, here’s the article:
Former Hewlett-Packard Co. Chief Executive Carly Fiorina has been diagnosed with breast cancer, a top aide said Tuesday.
Fiorina was diagnosed with the disease Feb. 20 and underwent surgery Monday at Stanford Hospital, her chief of staff, Deborah Bowker, told The Associated Press. Bowker said the surgery was successful and Fiorina has an “excellent” prognosis for a full recovery.
The San Francisco Chronicle earlier reported Fiorina’s condition.
Fiorina is a Republican who served as an adviser to Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign and has been considered a possible candidate for elected office. She has not announced any plans to run.
“She’s keeping her options open,” Bowker said.
If you haven’t done so, read Fiorina’s memoir Tough Choices (on sale for $5 at Amazon!). The woman’s a fighter, and America needs her brand of leadership in the Senate.
Obama has pledged to cut 2 trillion dollars in spending over the next 10 years. Sounds pretty great, huh? Not so fast. It turns that 80% of that 2 trillion will come from…ending the Iraq War. Never mind that Obama has had nothing to do with ending the Iraq War- that it would have ended quite nicely, without his Herculean exertions. Or that, at any rate, no one expected it to continue for 10 years in the first place. Commentary has the story:
This has to be seen to be believed: Representative Paul Ryan questioning Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag about the inflated war costs used by the Obama Administration. It turns out that $1.6 trillion of the “savings” Obama is anticipating are based on the surge in Iraq continuing for 10 more years — even though Obama has already announced all combat troops will be out of Iraq by 2010 and the Status of Forces Agreement is set for 2011.
This is just Orwellian. Here’s Ace’s colorful take, censored for family friendliness:
In Related News… The United States has “cut” over $75 trillion from its budgets over the past 230 odd years by not fighting the f**ki*g British every g**d*mn f**ki*g year.
Read the Ogden file to find out just how radical Obama’s pick for Deputy Attorney General really is.
One money quote:
“Empirical studies have found few differences between minors aged 14-18 and adults in their understanding of information and their ability to think of options and consequences when asked to consider treatment related decisions.”
Did I mention that he defended child porn… lobbying to overturn the Child Protection and Obscenity Act?
UPDATE:
Apparently in Ogden’s world, child pornography is not as evil as tobacco. He apparently lobbied to outlaw tobacco advertising. What a hypocrite. Read it all here.
The President wants us all to start investing in the stock market:
President Obama told Americans to take a look at investing in the stock market this afternoon, a remarkable utterance for an American president, especially as the Dow Jones Industrial Average proceeds on its course Southward.
“What you’re now seeing is … profit and earning ratios are starting to get to the point where buying stocks is a potentially good deal if you’ve got a long-term perspective on it,” the president said on a day that trading continued to hover under 7,000.
(Hat Tip: Reformed Chicks Babbling.)
Wow and he’s a financial planner too.
Thanks for the advice, Mr. President. And in this case, the President is right, if you can predict which companies won’t be nationalized or destroyed by the current Administration. Those of us who are long term investors (my Stock and Mutual fund money is all in retirement, which is thankfully a long way away) are staying where we’ve always been.
However, if the President truly wants us to invest, he has a funny way of going about it. If you buy stocks now at the bottom, you could make a killing. If you do, President Obama’s going to be waiting with an increase in your capital gains tax rate. Oh, but there’s more. In 2011, he also wants to increase corporate taxes by $353 billion. What does that mean for you as a shareholder? A smaller pot for the company to award dividends from once companies return to profitability.
Oh, and then, if you buy a stock now, you better hope it’s not going to be hit by whatever Obama does with health care, or that fuel prices don’t skyrocket, as Obama is removing tax incentives towards energy production and changing accounting methods for energy companies in ways that will drive up their costs.
Investors are panicking, and it’s not a partisan thing. I’ve chronicled how Jim Cramer, who gave $120,000 to Democrats in the 1990s (when some Democrats were actually pro-business) is in the midst of a series of how to make your portfolio “Obama resistant.” Cramer’s tip was that you need money that’s outside the United States and “out of the reach of Obama.”
President Obama declared that now is not the time for profits. And guess what? If it’s not time for profits, for most people, it’s not time for investing.
Meanwhile, those who earn more than $250,000 a year are making plans to start working less in 2011 to escape the President’s new big tax increase:
“President Barack Obama’s tax proposal – which promises to increase taxes for those families with incomes of $250,000 or more — has some Americans brainstorming ways to decrease their pay.
“I’ve put thought into how to get under $250,000,” said Poczatek. “It would mean working fewer days which means having fewer employees, seeing fewer patients and taking time off.”
“Generally it means being less productive,” she said.
(Hat Tip: Magic Valley Mormon.)
What you tax, you get less of. What you subsidize, you get more of. Well, Obama’s decided to tax success. Successful people won’t be working as much, and you can bet they won’t be investing as much.
Wall Street has undermined it’s own credibility, but the Democrats haven’t helped. Even the idea of allowing Americans to invest some of their social security in the same mutual funds that government employees used has been attacked as risky and dangerous. Democrats would rather people not be investors, they’d rather they live large, spend their money now, and end up entirely dependent on government come retirement.
Those who haven’t been investors in the past are probably not going to jump in. Those who have backed off on investments are nervous because this Administration is not only liberal, it’s unpredictable what they’ll do next, and what actions they’ll take that will harm the economy.
Obama’s in trouble. If somebody doesn’t start investing, if somebody doesn’t start making money, and the time for making profits doesn’t come in the next few years, America’s recovery will come eventually. Obama just won’t be the one to preside over it.
A chastened President Carter attempted to invade Iran to rescue American hostages and funded the Mujahideen after the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan. President Clinton named Iran as a co-conspirator in the bombing of the Khobar Towers. Neither Democratic Party President ever snubbed our greatest ally.
President Obama has twice gone out of his way to insult the United Kingdom: first, by refusing to keep a bust of Winston Churchill in the White House that was loaned to the United States as a symbol of solidarity after 911; and by downgrading the lavish protocols ordinarily afforded visits by British Prime ministers to the White House:
After intense negotiations with the new administration, Mr Brown got some warm words on the historic links between the U.S. and UK.
But there was no family get together, nor did the President offer Mr Brown and his wife Sarah a star studded White House dinner.
And instead of the traditional joint press conference, the Prime Minister was instead given an impromptu media briefing in the Oval Office.
No one should be shocked that a Democrat President not named John F. Kennedy is less than a stalwart defender of Liberty.
The left in this country, including many Democrats, openly pulled for the communist revolutions in the USSR and China to succeed. As late as the 1980′s the present Democrat Vice President and the 2004 Democratic Party nominee supported the communist regime in Nicaragua and the senior senator from the Bay State worked behind the scenes with Gorbachev to sabotage President Reagan’s peace through strength policy to free millions from Soviet tyranny.
President Jimmy Carter came to office proclaiming an “inordinate fear of communism” and abandoned our stanch ally in Iran in favor of a “religious man he could deal with, in the Ayatollah Khomeini. Even after 911, former President Clinton praised the “liberal” Iranian regime.
President Obama is in many ways, no worse, in much the same way that death by hanging is no worse than death by firing squad. But at least our greatest ally and main progenitor of the American republic was safe from reproach from Democratic Party presidents before 2009. No more.
America is America in large part because of our magnanimity, especially to former adversaries. We fought two wars with Britain before our great alliance to save Europe from the Kaiser; and the world from Nazism and Communism. The invader of Pearl plays baseball and we have normalized relations with Vietnam.
Speaking of saving the world from Nazism and Communism, Winston Churchill takes a backseat to no one in that effort. Kenya was a part of of the world that benefited from that effort, yet:
A bust of the former prime minister once voted the greatest Briton in history, which was loaned to George W Bush from the Government’s art collection after the September 11 attacks, has now been formally handed back.
The bronze by Sir Jacob Epstein, worth hundreds of thousands of pounds if it were ever sold on the open market, enjoyed pride of place in the Oval Office during President Bush’s tenure.
But when British officials offered to let Mr Obama to hang onto the bust for a further four years, the White House said: “Thanks, but no thanks.”
Why would an American president do such a thing? Could it be that…
Why else? Especially considering that Obama shares the same socialist vision as Britain’s with respect to economic and social policy.
Who else has offended Kenya or Obama’s paternal relations? Apparently neither Russia nor Iran.
President Obama suggests that he would consider refusing to deploy the Strategic Defense missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic if Russia helps lessen Iran;s pursuit of nuclear weapons. This is the same Russia that has made Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon possible by building Iran’s nuclear program; the same Russia that invaded Georgia with an Obama response of moral neutrality last year; and the same Russia that threatened the USSR’s former slave states of Poland of the Czech Republic last year.
This is the same Iran that President Obama exonerated for its terrorist history, including the killing of Americans in Iraq and around the world, due to American policies in his first press conference as after the Inauguration:
I said during the campaign that Iran is a country that has extraordinary people, extraordinary history and traditions, but that its actions over many years now have been unhelpful when it comes to promoting peace and prosperity both in the region and around the world, that their attacks — or their — their financing of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas, the bellicose language that they’ve used towards Israel, their development of a nuclear weapon or their pursuit of a nuclear weapon, that all those things create the possibility of destabilizing the region and are not only contrary to our interests, but I think are contrary to the interests of international peace.
What I’ve also said is that we should take an approach with Iran that employs all of the resources at the United States’ disposal, and that includes diplomacy.
And so my national security team is currently reviewing our existing Iran policy, looking at areas where we can have constructive dialogue, where we can directly engage with them.
And my expectation is, in the coming months, we will be looking for openings that can be created where we can start sitting across the table, face-to-face diplomatic overtures, that will allow us to move our policy in a new direction.
There’s been a lot of mistrust built up over the years, so it’s not going to happen overnight. And it’s important that, even as we engage in this direct diplomacy, we are very clear about certain deep concerns that we have as a country, that Iran understands that we find the funding of terrorist organizations unacceptable, that we’re clear about the fact that a nuclear Iran could set off a nuclear arms race in the region that would be profoundly destabilizing.
“Unhelpful actions” causing “mistrust”? Yes, I guess one could characterize Pearl Harbor and 911 the same. Iran took and held 53 America hostages for over a year until a President they feared was Inaugurated. He was a Republican. They killed more Americans via terrorism than any other nation or group before 911. They waged war against us in Iraq.
Iran has also vowed to wipe Israel, an ally nearly as vital and close as the United Kingdom, yet he makes no mention of that fear in the context of a Middle East arms race. Wouldn’t a promised USE of nuclear arms to commit genocide against Jews be worse than a race?
An enemy of liberty occupies the White House and he is worse than any previous President in this regard. I think the reason he is bad is because he is a liberal Democrat.
The reason he is worse appears to be related to his Marxist parents and his familial ties to a foreign country. He is exhibit “A” for the proposition advanced by the framers insisting upon “natural born citizens” after they grandfathered the Revolutionary generation in. During the debate about candidate Obama’s eligibility, I determined that if a court decided the issue, it would have to conclude that Obama was natural born given that at least one parent, i.e. his mother, was a citizen at the time of his birth and given that the place of his birth was probably irrelevant.
But courts would probably not ever hear such a case given that the American people, the parties and the Electoral college are available to decide this quasi-legal, yet totally political question.
We have what we have, and given the anti-American behavior of the Democratic Party’s behavior that aided and abetted America’s enemies in Iraq, we see that multigenerational natural born liberals can be fatally dangerous (except when confronted and opposed by a Dubya-like stay the course till we win spine).
Regrettably, the spine now occupying the Oval Office seems more determined to exact personal revenge against an ally rather than following the American tradition of forgiveness in the cause of Liberty.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
I have been coming across articles such as this one quite a bit recently.
From Wjac-TV:
A local sporting goods store said gun sales have jumped exceptionally since President Barack Obama was elected and have not slowed since.
Sporting Goods Discounters in Cambria County is advertising that it wants to buy used guns because workers said they can’t keep them in stock.
All types of firearms from small handguns to shotguns are selling quickly, and workers attribute that to a new administration.
Workers said gun owners look at Obama’s past voting history on guns and fear he will place higher taxes or even place a ban on guns.
Further, they said sales have picked up because of income tax season. A store manager said buying a gun is a good investment because the value increases with time.
“If times get tough a few years down the line or six months down the line … at least with a gun you have a chance to liquidate that asset,” said Douglas Myers.
He said ammunition sales are also on the rise and they are also selling out of certain firearms.
This comes on the heels of last week’s rejection of the DC gun ban, by the likes of Harry Reid, and the fact that many democrats seem unwilling to tackle this sort of legislation. However, gun sales continue to rise.
After years of claiming, without evidence, that George W. Bush was silencing dissent, the Obama administration has gone on the attack against yet another private citizen.
This time, Jim Cramer is their target. It’s as if we are in some bizarro world where the Left makes a living doing nothing but dissent (NBC, CBS, ABC, Michael Moore, Kieth Olberman, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Campbell Brown, Larry King, Anderson Cooper, Air America, The New York Times, The LA Times, Newsweek, The Washington Post, TIME, HBO, Bill Maher, John Stewart, Stephen Colbert, The Daily Kos, The Huffington Post, CrooksAndLiars, Code Pink, PETA, Hollywood, just to name a few) and yet claims George Bush somehow silences dissent. Meanwhile, here in Obamamania, private citizens are attacked daily from both the White House and organized labor for simply exorcising their freedom of speech. Rush Limbaugh, Rick Santelli, and now Cramer are all victims of an increasingly oppressive administration. Where this new crushing of free speech will end? No one really knows…
Change? No no no. He meant Chenge.
Straw Poll of Race 4 2012 Readers:
If the following candidates were running in a GOP Primary for U.S. Senate, who would you vote for?
Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao – 10 Votes (56%)
Sen. David Vitter – 3.5 votes* (19%)
Adult Film Star Stormy Daniels (Write-In) – 1.5 votes* (8%)
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins – 1 vote (6%)
“Anybody but Vitter” – 1 vote (6%)
“Anybody but Perkins” – 1 vote (6%)
* One voter cast two votes: one for Vitter, one for Daniels
Obviously, this is totally unscientific, and we didn’t ask whether or not a Cao run would be worth it (one Cao voter said it wasn’t, but would vote for Cao if he ran). Still, those who voted overwhelmingly chose Cao over Vitter. Tony Perkins, on the other hand, wasn’t so lucky – finishing behind write-in candidate Stormy Daniels.
Does this dynamic exist in the Louisiana electorate? If it does, even to a small degree, Joseph Cao could potentially be the next U.S. Senator from the Great State of Louisiana.
There’s an excellent article on Mark Sanford in The American Conservative, apparently their cover item, I think you’ll enjoy it, whether you are a Sanford backer or not. Sanford’s political stances are summarized here:
Sanford’s conservative credentials compare favorably to anyone else mentioned as a 2012 presidential contender. He calls the public-education system “a Soviet-style monopoly.” He promoted school choice through tax rebates to avoid the appearance of government control. He passed a “Castle doctrine” bill that was supported by the NRA. He favors a law-and-order approach to immigration, but opposed REAL ID on civil liberties grounds. Though he avoids showy displays of piety, he is reliably pro-life.
But the governor edges closer to pure libertarianism at times. He rolls his eyes at the Columbia sheriff’s department’s zeal in investigating Michael Phelps’s recreational pot use. And he criticizes Alan Greenspan’s management of the “opaque” Federal Reserve. “If you take human nature out of a Fed, it might work,” he explains. “But you can’t. You can have these wise men. But who wants to turn off the spigot at a party that’s rolling?“
He also deviates from the Republican line on foreign policy. In Congress, he opposed Clinton’s intervention in Kosovo. And he was one of only two Republicans to vote against the 1998 resolution to make regime change in Iraq the official policy of the United States. He says that it was a “protest vote” in which he tried to reassert the legislature’s war-declaring powers. When asked about the invasion of Iraq, he extends his critique beyond the constitutional niceties. “I don’t believe in preemptive war,” he says flatly. “For us to hold the moral high ground in the world, our default position must be defensive.”
I see things here that I agree and disagree with (which is normal, there’s no one I think is 100% right or wrong). I’m a bit more of a neo-con than Sanford, and I’d like to know more about his opposition to the Fed — is it just criticism of Greenspan, or opposition to the whole concept of the Fed?
On the other hand, I like the positions on school choice and immigration, and I think “Though he avoids showy displays of piety, he is reliably pro-life” is pretty much exactly where a Republican candidate needs to be.
But there’s much more than positions in this piece, I recommend it because it gives some background to the foundations of Sanford’s positions (he appears to be pathologically cheap). It also mentions Sanford’s charisma deficit, and a potential scandal in his past (thought it seems to not be a stopper).
From today’s Wall Street Journal:
“The Obama Economy: As the Dow keeps dropping, the President is running out of people to blame.”
This has some great news for Hizzoner, as long as Andrew Cuomo takes a pass on the Governor’s race.
This is both shocking and yet unsurprising. Yes, how dare those Republicans, how dare they speak! How dare they want to READ the bill before voting. Don’t they know who’s boss? Don’t they know Nancy is Queen of this court??? They should be content with the scraps from her table.
The overreach by the left would be comical if it wasn’t so terrifying.
Two of America’s most prominent “conservative” Obama-swooners feel deceived. Brooks writes:
But the Obama budget is more than just the sum of its parts. There is, entailed in it, a promiscuous unwillingness to set priorities and accept trade-offs. There is evidence of a party swept up in its own revolutionary fervor — caught up in the self-flattering belief that history has called upon it to solve all problems at once.
So programs are piled on top of each other and we wind up with a gargantuan $3.6 trillion budget. We end up with deficits that, when considered realistically, are $1 trillion a year and stretch as far as the eye can see. We end up with an agenda that is unexceptional in its parts but that, when taken as a whole, represents a social-engineering experiment that is entirely new….Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice. As Clive Crook, an Obama admirer, wrote in The Financial Times, the Obama budget “contains no trace of compromise. It makes no gesture, however small, however costless to its larger agenda, of a bipartisan approach to the great questions it addresses. It is a liberal’s dream of a new New Deal.”
Buckley chimes in:
The strange thing is that one feels almost unpatriotic, entertaining negative thoughts about Mr. Obama’s grand plan, as if one were indulging in—call it—the audacity of nope. It is on the one hand clear that something must be done about our economic woes. But that is very different from saying that spending these vast, oceanic sums of money is the right corrective to a decade of fiscal incontinence….
If this is what the American people want, so be it, but they ought to have no illusions about the perils of this approach. Mr. Obama is proposing among everything else $1 trillion in new entitlements, and entitlement programs never go away, or in the oddly poetic bureaucratic jargon, “sunset.” He is proposing $1.4 trillion in new taxes, an appetite for which was largely was whetted by the shameful excesses of American CEO corporate culture. And finally, he has proposed $5 trillion in new debt, one-half the total accumulated national debt in all US history. All in one fell swoop.
He tells us that all this is going to work because the economy is going to be growing by 3.2 percent a year from now. Do you believe that? Would you take out a loan based on that? And in the three years following, he predicts that our economy will grow by 4 percent a year.
This is nothing if not audacious hope.
You mean to say that a “first class temperament” and an ability to understand Niebuhr aren’t safeguards against unabashed liberalism? I am agog. But, seriously, I’d be tempted to laugh, if this wasn’t so sadly predictable. “Conservatives” who made the case for Obama are interesting as a psychological phenomenon, but they’re pretty dull otherwise. They don’t even seem to realize when they’re parodying themselves. Brooks even has the…ehemm…audacity to call for a new moderate revival, writing:
Moderates now find themselves betwixt and between. On the left, there is a president who appears to be, as Crook says, “a conviction politician, a bold progressive liberal.” On the right, there are the Rush Limbaugh brigades. The only thing more scary than Obama’s experiment is the thought that it might fail and the political power will swing over to a Republican Party that is currently unfit to wield it.
Those of us in the moderate tradition — the Hamiltonian tradition that believes in limited but energetic government — thus find ourselves facing a void. We moderates are going to have to assert ourselves. We’re going to have to take a centrist tendency that has been politically feckless and intellectually vapid and turn it into an influential force.
Something betwixt and between Obama and Rush Limbaugh? Moderates who believe in limited but energetic government? Good, heavens, where could we find anything or anyone like that?
Most of you know that I’ve been pushing for Rep. Joseph Cao to run a primary challenge against Sen. David Vitter in 2010. I took a poll on my own site (75% wanted cao to run), but I figure there might be a broader picture here, and Tony Perkins has started expressing intrest in the race since my last post on the subject. So, I figure this would be a good time to ask y’all the following question:
If the following candidates were running in a GOP Primary for U.S. Senate, who would you vote for?
1. Incumbent Senator David Vitter
2. Congressman Anh “Joseph” Cao
3. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins
I realize that this doesn’t take into account Louisiana’s “jungle primary” system, and that most of us are not from Louisiana in the first place. However, it’s a good place to start. I’ll post results later and then we can flesh them out.
And so it begins.
For better or for worse, the federal government will inevitably expand as a result of Obama’s massive budget:
President Obama’s budget is so ambitious, with vast new spending on health care, energy independence, education and services for veterans, that experts say he probably will need to hire tens of thousands of new federal government workers to realize his goals.
We can only wonder if this is a permanent shift. During the Civil War and other conflicts in American history, the White House curtailed civil liberties in the pursuit of national security. More often than not, the country maintained those rights in time.
Will the size of the federal government during this economic crisis act in the same manner? Or are we well on our way to a European-style social democracy?
With the growing discussion of the reduction of emissions, even Democrats are poised to oppose the President on cap and trade:
Senate Democrats are breaking with President Obama over his plan for sweeping new climate-change laws that he says will rake in billions of dollars to help offset massive budget deficits.
The dissenters, mostly Democrats from Rust Belt states likely to be hit hardest by the proposed environmental rules, question the economic impact of the program that would cap carbon-dioxide emissions and then sell to businesses the right to emit that carbon dioxide.
The senators also want their states to get a chunk of the windfall from selling the credits – $646 billion over 10 years by Mr. Obama’s estimate.
“We should ensure that revenue generated by a cap-and-trade system goes back to the consumers, states and industries that are most affected by the changes,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown, Ohio Democrat.
A cap and trade program does the following: it forces energy producing companies to become more environmentally friendly by instituting a “cap” on their actual emissions. If company x produces energy with less emissions than what the government deems the maximum allowed, company x can have the option to sell or “trade” their excess unused emissions to other energy companies, at an undetermined price. Presumably, as time moves on, the “cap” on emissions will continually diminish, thus further reducing harmful pollution into our air. Fine. Great.
It sounds nice and wonderful. Unfortunately, the implementation of such a program would be more devastating to the world than the actual pollution that is emitted into the air.
First, the cost to the American family would be catastrophic. The estimates of how much a modern American family or household will pay under a cap and trade program is wide ranging. If a new program will initiated, the average American household would have to pay $800 to $1400 more a year in energy bills (electric, gas, etc). Even more liberal scholars and foundations note that the potential increases hit hard at every American’s check book. Add to that an increase in electricity prices by 35% to 65% and your Obama Tax Credit magically disappears into thin air. More seriously, a cap and trade program is akin to a hidden tax where we don’t see our income disappear at a greater rate but rather, through our usage of basic needs, we are forced to pay increasing amounts of money that hit home after we deposit our pay checks, solely in the interest of helping the environment. It’s apparent that when American families have less money in the bank and thus, less money to inject into an ailing economy, the proposal for a cap and trade program should be soundly rejected.
While a cap and trade program is harmful and unfair to the American family, it’s implementation is even more dangerous for the American economy. Up front, analysts expect job losses to range from 1 to 3 million within the first 10 years of it’s starting point. The potential for lost jobs span from the energy industry itself, to every other faction of our economic engine. When people have less money to put into the system, less goods are produced, and thus, a lessened need to hire employees. But even more than that, our manufacturing industries would be prone to sending even more work over seas due to the reduced expense of energy bills abroad coupled with cheaper labor. Every day, Mr. Obama reminds America that we’re in a crisis and were a cap and trade program initiated, our crisis would exponentially deepen.
Knowing all of this, we all should ask the question: Do the benefits of emissions reductions outweigh the harms of massive job losses and reduced money in our bank accounts? The answer is a resounding NO. Even with a cap and trade program, environmental gains would be trivial at best. Recall the massive debate over our would-have-been entry into the Kyoto Treaty eight years ago. The two most pressing concerns that President Bush had, with respect to our participation in the treaty was the competitive disadvantage it would place on America (lost jobs, slower economic growth) when competing on the open marketplace with China and India and further, the lack of clear scientific evidence that our participation in the protocol would lead to reduced carbon emissions. We face the same situation now. Scientists estimate that as a result of an American cap and trade program, the earth would have to potential to cool at a negligible .07 degrees Celsius over forty years. Couple all of this with the vast evidence of stagnant global temperatures and various other methods for reducing carbon emissions without hitting American industries at their core, and the pressing need for a cap and trade program is tenuous.
All in all, a cap and trade program is dangerous for America, especially in a time of economic uncertainty. If various Democratic lawmakers, such as liberal Sen. Rockefeller can make the case that a cap and trade program is “too ambitious,” who else can Obama turn to? This plan is just one of many plans Obama has made to change the way our government and societal life work. As with anything, just because it looks good, doesn’t mean it tastes good. A cap and trade program looks good on principle but in it’s application, the American economy and the American spirit are in serious jeopardy.
Thanks to Kavon for linking me to this article, which explains that Club for Growth President Pat Toomey has put a primary showdown versus Sen. Arlen Specter “back on the table”. At the very least, if Toomey does decide to run, Pennsylvania, and the nation as a whole, will benefit from discussion regarding Specter’s support of the Dems’ stimulus playing a large role in the primary.
Romney supporters may like to read the full interview I referenced yesterday in my post about James Pethokoukis of Capital Commerce declaring that “Romney gets it”. The topics discussed in the interview: the state of the economy, the White House’s economic forecasts, whether foreign investors will continue purchasing America’s debt, the relevancy of free-market economics, America’s economic challenges, the New Deal’s relevancy, stimulus packages, the banking system, mark-to-market accounting, and taxation.
Phil Levy has some informative commentary in Foreign Policy on Obama’s budget and borrowing by the federal government. Among Levy’s tasty tidbits:
The interest rate on the 10-year U.S. Government Treasury note helps set borrowing rates for corporations and households. It is not the very short term rate that the Fed has pushed near zero. It covers the same time frame that the Obama administration has now picked for its budget outlook…In November and December, as investors panicked worldwide and rushed to the safety of U.S. government bonds, the interest rate on 10-year government bonds plunged to near 2 percent. From a low on December 30, the rate has rocketed back up to over 3 percent today[.]
An even clearer negative verdict on Obama’s approach comes from the much-maligned market for credit default swaps. These swaps function like insurance contracts that pay off if a borrower fails to make good. That insurance gets more expensive when the likelihood of default increases. The idea of a U.S. government default has recently gone from “unthinkable” to close to 10 percent over the next five years.
Despite claims of a new realism, the administration’s budget is loaded with optimism. It assumes the economy will have a quicker and more vigorous recovery than most private forecasters predict. It assumes that individuals won’t change their behavior much to avoid new, higher tax rates. It assumes that sacred cows such as mortgage interest deductibility and agricultural subsidies are ready to be made into hamburgers. And even with all this optimism, the administration predicts red ink as far as the eye can see.
Levy hits it right on the head with criticism of the Obama administration’s budget projections. I still don’t understand how someone planning on adding $12 trillion to the national debt over the next decade can wax poetic about the virtues of fiscal responsibility. And I don’t want to hear the same garbage about how the people in charge the last eight years have no credibility when it comes to fiscal responsibility. I think it’s safe to say that most people on this site heartily disagree with the increase in spending racked up by the Bush administration.
Finally, Michael Dougherty of the American Conservative wrote a fascinating biographical article on Mark Sanford. Shedding more light on the potential 2012 Republican presidential candidate with arguably the most to gain after Obamanomics fails, Dougherty contributes:
If the promise of “hope” in the form of bailouts fails to revive the American economy, Mark Sanford will be the GOP’s most dangerous man in 2012…While cable’s talking heads shout at him, he somberly quotes Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek. He worries aloud that the bailouts represent a “crisis of American civilization.”
But Sanford’s stringent free-market philosophy was born in experience before it was matured by theory…When the family returned to Florida’s scorching Septembers, Sanford recalls, “Everybody slept in Mom and Dad’s room so we’d only run one air-conditioning unit. My brothers on the floor, my sister on the window seat. In retrospect, how totally weird. The guy’s a heart surgeon. He could certainly afford to spring for another air-conditioning unit.” But the lesson took. As governor, Sanford has refused to use the air conditioning in the governor’s mansion in Columbia.
Sanford’s most notable accomplishment as governor may be eliminating an illegal $155 million budget deficit that was hidden by his predecessor. When trying to find the last $16 million, legislators suggested that he had done enough. Sanford replied, “I’m sworn to uphold the Constitution. It doesn’t say come close and declare victory.”
Sanford’s conservative credentials compare favorably to anyone else mentioned as a 2012 presidential contender. He calls the public-education system “a Soviet-style monopoly.” He promoted school choice through tax rebates to avoid the appearance of government control. He passed a “Castle doctrine” bill that was supported by the NRA. He favors a law-and-order approach to immigration, but opposed REAL ID on civil liberties grounds. Though he avoids showy displays of piety, he is reliably pro-life.
Unlike Obama, who can preach fiscal responsibility until he turns blue in the face, turn around and call for trillion-dollar-plus budget defecits (or lecture Americans about conserving energy and then crank up the thermostat in the White House), Sanford can talk the thrifty talk AND walk the walk. Perhaps the biggest thing holding back Sanford from a serious White House run is himself; if he found the drive and desire to win, he could do some serious damage in three years, grabbing support from the libertarian wing of the party and a healthy proportion of fiscal conservatives (sounds like a good recipe for New Hampshire, doesn’t it?). Should we read much into Sanford going from proclaiming that his 2006 campaign was his last to declaring that he has learned to “never rule out anything”? Only time will tell.
