Posts
Obama today sent to Congress his leviathan $3.73 trillion dollar budget request for 2011. In hyping the release, he noted that his proposed freeze to the discretionary spending that has exploded under his watch, plus draconian cuts to defense spending not mentioned above, would save $1.1 trillion over ten years. He further stated that, under his budget, discretionary spending as a percentage of the entire budget would be at its lowest in decades. As to his promise to cut our budget deficit in half by the end of his first term, . . .
Let's put the spin in perspective. Our budget shortfall last year was $1.3 trillion. In 2009, it was $1.4 trillion and, in 2011, it is forecast to hit $1.5 trillion. So when Obama hypes saving $1.1 trillion OVER TEN YEARS, he isn't even matching the shortfall of one of those years. It's like putting a band-aid over a severed carotid artery. More responsible savings like that and we will be bankrupt in the foreseeable future.
As to the percentage that discretionary spending is to the entire budget, it is hard to think of a more cynical expression of spin. The only reason discretionary spending will be lowered in the future as a percentage of total spending is because entitlement spending is set to rise exponentially with the retirement of baby boomers. It has us on a course to fiscal Armageddon. And Obama is not proposing a damn thing to reign in entitlements in his 2011 budget. Instead, he is using it as a positive in his spin of the 2011 budget. What an utterly worthless s.o.b.
As to his claim to be on track to cut our budget deficit in half by the end of his first term, good lord, that is so patently false I can't believe he raised it in a speech days ago. I heard him say it. I can't believe he said it. Nor can I wait to see what numbers he is going to use to try and show that he is making good on his promise. I don't think its even possible to torture the CBO numbers to the point where they will support his statement.
I don't know about you, but I really am pining for the good ole' days of fiscal responsibility under the Carter administration.
Showing posts with label Jimmy Carter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jimmy Carter. Show all posts
Monday, February 14, 2011
Obama's WTF Budget
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Heh
I have been predicting this one for the better part of two years . . . .
. . . and the answer, of course, is yes.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Calling Him Incompetent Is An Insult To Incompetent People
The most incompetent President of the past century to sit a four year term, Jimmy Carter is upset - and rightly so - with the comparison drawn in a recent article in Foreign Policy magazine:
In last month's issue of Foreign Policy magazine, leading analyst and Iraq War supporter Walter Russell Mead opined that President Obama's foreign policy agenda was turning into a duplicate of Jimmy Carter's.
. . . [T]he Carter comparison was clearly meant as an insult. After all, the piece was titled "The Carter Syndrome."
It would seem natural for Obama and his allies to find the piece somewhat insulting -- but the one raising the most stink so far is Carter himself.
The former president penned a 1,500-word letter to the editor complaining about the article's treatment of his foreign policy legacy. That's followed by a second letter to the editor from Zbigniew Brzezinski, his national security adviser. . . .
Jimmy was incompetent - and indeed, he was the midwife to the birth of Iran's theocracy that threatens us all today. That said, Obama's foreign policy appears to be in a class all by itself. Even Jimmy finds any comparison to his own level of incompetence to be insulting.
Monday, January 25, 2010
If At First You Don't Succeed, Campaign, Campaign Again
Obama's poll numbers are tanking - as are the poll numbers for his signature legislative effort, universal Obamacare. Obama's coattails are not merely short, but after Massachusetts, Virginia and New Jersey, apparently non-existent. Unable to fathom how he has gone from being the hope 'n change Messiah during the campaign, carrying the Democratic party with him to electoral victory, to someone who makes Jimmy Carter look like a model President, Obama has decided to go back to his comfort zone - campaigning - in a big way.:
After last week's devastating defeat in Massachusetts, President Obama ordered a review of Democratic strategy and has decided to bring back some of the key people who helped him win the presidency, hoping they can work their magic on troubled Democrats. Not wanting to leave anything to chance, the president is taking greater control over party strategy and is bringing back his former campaign manager, David Plouffe, to oversee congressional and governors' races in hopes of preventing a Democratic massacre in November. . . .
The reality is that Obama does not seem yet to have left the campaign mode. Some might think that a detriment in a sitting President. Not Obama and his clique, however, whose response to the problems or governance is to campaign more and harder. Who are we to judge? Oh, that's right. We're the electorate. That's our job.
At any rate, Plouffe, he of campaign magic, is apparently equally as clueless as to the reasons for Obama's downfall. Plouffe has has outlined a sure fire strategy to change Obama's fading fortunes in an op-ed at the Washington Post. Democrats will survive a November massacre if they just "do what the American people sent them to Washington to do." Given that Obama campaigned to the center during the general election, I would have to agree with that. But what Plouffe means is actually to do what the far left base of the Democrats wants them to do. That means, explains Plouffe, first and foremost, immediately passing health care.
One wonders if Plouffe bothered to turn on a t.v. covering the Massachusetts election for TED KENNEDY'S ANCESTRAL SEAT. Apparently not. That said, there might be more to this than meets the eye. Plouffe adds a "P.S." that "[h]ealth care is a jobs creator." Who knew? We can solve all of our problems at once. Given that health care bill would create over 100 new bureaucratic entities, Plouffe's probably not even gilding the lilly with that one. Pass health care and solve our unemployment problem all in one fell swoop. Genuis. No wonder the left feels that they are meant by birthright to govern we, the unwashed masses, by fiat. And if we don't understand that, well, they'll just make a greater effort to explain it to us in the future.
Second on Plouffe's list is that "[w]e need to show that we not just are focused on jobs but also create them." Top down job creation is not how a capitilist system works - or at least not if the goal is the creation of permanent jobs. Government funded jobs from a spending bill are by definition temporary. Of course, it may well be that Plouffe is only concerned about jobs lasting from October to mid November of this year.
On a related note, just on Sunday, the left took credit for creating a whole bunch of jobs - the only problem was that none of the President's staff doing the Sunday talk show circuit could agree on how many. The numbers ranged from "thousands" to "1.5 million" to "2 million." Quite a spread there. Plouffe might want to start out his effort to convince the electorate of the veracity of Obama's job creation claims by making sure that whatever number Obama's speech writer dreams up while on a "fairy dust" bender is the same one used by the rest of the Obama Administration in public.
Plouffe does note, rightly, that "full recovery will happen only when the private sector begins hiring in earnest." What he doesn't explain is why, then, did the Democrats only allocate 2.6% of the $787 billion stimulus bills to helping small business - the hands down best engine of new job creation in America - with another 10% for infrastructure improvements. Well, at least Obama and Plouffe can point to public sector jobs. They did very well from the stimulus.
Unfortunately, as a high school student could probably have explained to Obama and Plouffe, the public sector itself creates no wealth. Public sector employment is wholly dependant upon tax receipts from . . . the private sector (or money borrowed from China which has to be repaid by private sector tax receipts, as the case may be). While public sector functions may be necessary, paying for them is a leech, not a benefit, to the economy. So Obama pissed away close to a trillion in borrowed money for virtually no return on investment. Since Plouffe glosses over those facts, I guess he is taking a mulligan on that one.
Plouffe's ultimate solution is to tell America not to be fooled by Republican criticism as the Bushies are responsible for all of Obama's ills. Apparently Obama was never inagurated and Bush is a year into his third term. If only.
And Plouffe, lastly, calls on Democrats to loudly trumpet their many achievements during the past year. He cites as one of them the great "transparency" instituted by Democrats. Whatever else you may say about Plouffe, the guy obviously has a world class sense of humor.
I am sure the return to a campaign mode that Obama, in reality, never left will work out well for Obama and the Democrats. Indeed, I applaud them for doing so as an alternative to governing and would remind them that, should they fail, not to give up hope. The answer is just to campaign, campaign ever harder.
You know, if this wasn't so deadly serious for our nation, it would be fun just to sit back with some popcorn and watch. These jokers are caricatures - of themselves.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Obama - 180 Degrees of Wrong
Is Obama insane?
The democraticaly elected President of Honduras, Zelaya, makes an extra-Constitutional power grab even after the highest Court in Honduras rules it illegal. On the eve of that act, he is replaced during the final six months of his administration. That wasn't a coup. That was defense of democracy and the rule of law. It was ordered by a properly convened Court. It was supported by a democraticaly elected legislature. And now Obama is joining hands with Chavez, Castro and other enemies of the U.S. and of democracy to condemn the actions in Honduras and reinstate the President?
If you ever needed evidence that Obama should never have been let near the oval office, this completes the mosaic we saw begin over a year ago with Georgia, when their democratic regime came under assault from Russia. Obama did not come out in support of democracy then, not until he took a lesson from McCain. The lesson didn't stick. Two weeks ago, as Iranians were being brutalized and murdered in the streets by a regime that had just engaged in massive vote fraud, Obama sat silent and then, despicably, played down the importance of the revolt. Now, when a country acts to preserve its laws and Constitution against an extra-Constitutional assault from a rabid socialist following the Chavez model, Obama supports the one who was seeking to violate the constitution. Obama really does see the U.S. as the problem. He has no understanding of the intrinsic importance of democracy and the rule of law. He has embraced moral equivalence and is unable to discriminate friend from foe.
History is important, and true, the U.S. has been involved in more than one coup in Central and South America. History should inform all of our acts - but it should never hold us hostage. As Hot Air notes, it may be that, in some incredibly naive burst of deeply opaque motivation, Obama is trying to repair America's image by coming out on the side of Chavez, Castro et al. If so, it is inexplicably foolish.
This is bad - and holds the potential to get much, much worse. The last president that even approached this level of dysfunction was James Earl Carter, and he gave the world the Iranian theocracy. I do not know what Obama's legacy will be, but I fully expect it to be far worse.
For Obama's future reference on such matters, Charles Krauthammer provides a rule of thumb:
Monday, August 25, 2008
Democratic Convention Day 1
A pretty dull night over all. I was looking forward to listening to Jimmy Carter open the festivities and speak about Obama serving out Jimmy's second term, but the DNC wisely pulled the plug on that. The only thing better would have been having Rev. Wright giving the opening prayer - but he is being held by David Axelrod bound and gagged deep in the jungles of Ghana with labels plastered all over his body saying "Do Not Release Until December 2008."
Pelosi spoke - and no one paid any attention. Heh. You couldn't hear her over the chatter from the floor. It was good to see Ted Kennedy make an appearance also. He looked remarkably healthy and gave a stump speech that was vintage Kennedy. We may have been given a hint of how dire is his prognosis when he promised to be at the January swearing in.
The main focus of the night was the speech by Michelle Obama, Barack's bitter half. She gave a very well rehearsed speech that was well delivered and, I thought, a good speech. It checked all the boxes and sounded the utopian hope and change themes. At least it was positive and did no harm. Karl Rove gave it a failing mark for being too much a stump speech and not enough an introduction into she and her husband.
Michelle Malkin has both the first draft of Michelle Obama's speech (heh) and the text of the actual speech.
The real fun was apparently outside of the Convention where the nations breakfast people - assorted nuts and flakes - gathered en masse. Gateway Pundit has all the stories, including:
- An anarchist riot outside the Sheraton Hotel resulting in sixteen arrests.
- Michelle Malkin getting chased about by screaming lefties.
- A Soros funded group has a bus containing a shrine to the evils of Bush and a film showing Americans being attacked by roadside bombs in Iraq.
- Midwest Jim enjoys the accomodations made available to our guests at Club Gitmo, compliments of Amnesty International.
- The People's Press Collective has video highlights of some of the demostrations. You will find some friendly faces in the crowd, including Cindy Sheehan and Ward Churchill.
Stay tuned tomorrow - its PUMA day.
Monday, June 2, 2008
A Primer For Obama On Negotiating With Iran
Engagement doesn't always produce marriage. In the US-Iran case, for example, diplomatic engagements have been repeatedly disastrous. Yet many think the idea of engagement was just invented and never tried. Read the entire post.
Is Barack Obama "both a dangerously naive amateur, and a leftist posing as a liberal?" That's the verdict of Barry Rubin as he discusses the history and pitfals of negotiating with Iran as well as the uses and limitations of negotiations as a tool of foreign policy.
_______________________________________________________
This from Barry Rubin writing in the Jerusalem Post:
President John Kennedy pressed Iran for democratic reforms in the early 1960s. The shah responded with his White Revolution, which horrified traditionalists, provoking them to active opposition. One of them was named Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
President Richard Nixon urged Iran in the early 1970s, under the Nixon Doctrine, to become a regional power, since America was overextended in Vietnam. The shah embarked on a huge arms-buying campaign and close alliance, stirring yet more opposition and fiscal strain, further contributing to unrest.
In the late 1970s president Jimmy Carter pushed Iran to ease restrictions. The result was the Islamist revolution. Next, Carter urged the shah not to repress the uprising, which helped bring about his downfall.
After the 1979 revolution, Carter engaged the new regime to show Khomeini that America was his friend. National security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who today advises Barack Obama, met Iranian leaders. Teheran interpreted this engagement as an effort to subvert or coopt the revolution, so Iranians seized the US embassy and took everyone there hostage.
The Reagan administration secretly engaged Iran in the mid-1980s to help free those hostages. Result: a policy debacle and free military equipment for Iran.
In recent years there has been a long engagement in which European states negotiated for themselves and America to get Teheran to stop its nuclear weapons drive. Iran gained four years to develop nukes; the West got nothing.
. . . There have, of course, been successful engagements - but not with Iran, Syria or the PLO. The most successful was Egypt's turnaround by Nixon and Henry Kissinger. A partial success was changing Libya's behavior.
In those two cases, American power, not compassion, achieved success. Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi and Egyptian president Anwar Sadat ("America holds 99 percent of the cards") knew they were weak and needed to stop America from hitting them hard.
ENGAGEMENTS, OF course, have effects other than direct success. One is to buy time for someone. But for who? If one party subverts other states, builds nuclear weapons, demoralizes the other's allies and sponsors terrorism during talks while the other side... just talks, the first side clearly benefits far more.
Secondly, if one side gets the other to make concessions to prove good faith and keep talks going, that side benefits. Keeping engagement going becomes an end in itself as the weaker side uses a diplomatic version of asymmetrical warfare to make gains.
Finally, while using talks to de-escalate tensions apparently benefits everyone, matters are not so simple. By talking, a stronger side can throw away its leverage. The weaker side does not have to back down to avoid confrontation.
So engagement without pressure or threat benefits the weaker side. If the stronger side is eager to reach agreement, the weaker side has more leverage. The advantage is transferred from the strongest side to the most intransigent one. Here, Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hizbullah have the upper hand.
SEN. OBAMA doesn't understand these points. He favors direct presidential diplomacy with Iran, without preconditions. A normal liberal concept of foreign policy is alien to him. What he should be saying is:
"America must be strong to protect its interests, values and friends against ruthless adversaries. But if America is strong, it can also be flexible. Let us engage countries and leaders by telling them clearly our demands and goals.
"Once Iran understands the United States will counter its threats of genocide against Israel, involvement in terrorism against Americans, and threats to our interests, it may back down. If Iran gives up its extremism, we are ready to offer friendship.
"But if Iran remains extremist, we will quickly abandon engagement and never hesitate to respond appropriately."
This way, a leader shows he knows how to use both carrots and sticks.
But Obama has never said anything like this. He has no concept of toughness as a necessary element in flexibility, nor of deterrence as a precondition to conciliation. Nor does he indicate that he would be steadfast if engagement failed. He defines no US preconditions for meeting or conditions for agreement. He offers to hear Iran's grievances, but says nothing about American grievances.
Radical Islamists interpret this strategy as weakness - of which they will take full advantage.
THAT'S WHY Iran, Syria and Hamas favor Obama. Thus spoke Lebanese cleric Muhammad Abu al-Qat on Hizbullah's Al-Manar television on May 10: "The American empire will very soon collapse... This won't happen as a result of war... An American Gorbachev will surface in America, and he will destroy this empire." (Translation by Memri)
Islamists and radicals want Obama because they understandably expect him to play into their hands. By the same token, more moderate Arab regimes and observers are horrified.
Obama is so scary and is accused of appeasement not because he wants to meet enemies in person, but because he doesn't want to meet them in struggle. He doesn't know how international politics works through power, threats, deterrence, self-interest and credibility. He doesn't comprehend that totalitarian ideologies cannot be moderated by apology or weakness.
Whatever you think of Sen. John McCain, he understands these basic concepts. That's why he's a centrist who can be trusted to protect American national interests. Whatever you think of Sen. Hillary Clinton, she understands these basic concepts. That's why she's a liberal who can be trusted to protect American national interests.
And that's why Obama is both a dangerously naive amateur, and a leftist posing as a liberal.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
A Humor Break
Thanks to Michael Ramierez for pointing out the increasingly obvious parallels between would-be President Obama and our own national train-wreck, Jimmy Carter.
And speaking of Carter, TNOY has the top 9 tag lines for the former President. My favorite, "If only I could have talked to Hitler." The only difference between Carter and Borah was that Borah displayed a bit more common sense. Also at TNOY, they have an exclusive on new Congressional legislation to repeal the law of gravity. Evidently, the Congress is absolutely giddy over their success in repealing the law of supply and demand as it pertains to oil and gas and are now ready for an even more ambitious project.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Interesting Posts From Around The Web - 21 April 2008
The interesting posts from around the web, all below the fold:
Art: The Martyrdom of St. Maurice, El Greco, 1581
Stanley Kurtz is on the trail of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s sermons. "[T]he texts already uncovered raise serious questions about what Barack Obama heard, what he thought of it, and why he remained so close to Reverend Wright." Confederate Yankee paraphrases another bigoted Obama supporter asking "Hey Cracker, who do you hate most?" From the Truth, in Oregon, a twist on the few weeks old story of the locals taking classes in "how to talk to black people."
Q&O asks a prescient question, do you want a third term of George Bush or a second term of Jimmy Carter?
Seraphic Secret blogs that Hamas is "all out for Obama." Stop the ACLU looks at how CNN is trying to spin the Hamas endorsement of Obama into a negative story about McCain. As Redstate notes, CNN is having a real problem with agenda journalism.
From Jammie Wearing Fools, the number of Palestinians who support attacks against Israelis continues to rise and more than half of them favor suicide bombings, according to a poll published this weekend. The Midnight Sun has a post on the utter barbarity of Taliban supporters. The Velevet Hammer has a video on "Islam, why they hate." At Dinah Lord, video of a woman’s rights activist in Bahrain criticizing clerics for issuing fatwas that support the sexual abuse of children. And Sheik Yer’mami has an exceptional post on London’s Mayoral election and the march towards a British mini-caliphate. The Fulham Reactionary believes that whomever wins the London election, the Brits will lose.
Villagers with Torches finds some disturbing news. China is in the process of vastly increasing its stockpile of nuclear warheads. From Barking Moonbat, a massive Chinese arms shipment headed for Zimbawbwe cannot offload in South Africa, so it heads towards Mozambique.
From MK, blogging on the death penalty, recent research shows that each execution carried out is correlated with about 74 fewer murders the following year.
Heh: From American Digest, see if you can spot the second person in this photo. I admit it took me awhile . . . .
At Five Feet of Fury, Ezra Levant discusses the incredible extra-judicial powers of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Omar Fadhil analyzes al Qaeda’s desperate attempts to regain ground in Iraq. They have turned from exhortation to threats and their actions are not likely to make any headway, though much blood is likely yet to be spilled. At 4RightWingWackos, an apache eye view of the last moments of some al Qaeda types. And from Consul at Arms, al Qaeda’s desperation translates into attempting to cause indiscriminate casualties on a grand scale.
A look at TIZA, the Islamic school, funded by Minnesota taxpayers, from Blonde Sagacity, reporting from the bitter hinterlands. While in London, the Saudi school acts as if it is not a part of Britain. From Political Insecurity, the local Saudi school is teaching their kids "we are pigs and monkeys."
From Ankle Biting Pundits, the intersection of greedy unions and populist politicians.
From This Ain’t Hell, attempts by a Wahhabi organization in America to have John McCain stop making the connection between Islam and terrorism – like his Democratic opponents have.
Debbie at Right Truth discusses Time’s desecration of an American icon – the raising of the flag after the incredibly brutal battle to take Iwo Jima.
From the Jawa Report, give a British CNN reporter enough rope, and apparently he will hang himself.
The frozen north, where men are men and the sheep are scared. (H/T Transterrestrial Musings)
A great weekend roundup of world news from milblogger The Shield of Achilles. And Soob has an equally good post, rolling up his own "suggested wisdom."
From KG at Crusader Rabbit a Goracle acolytes lament. "Anti-greens . . . appear to be more willing to comment, more structured, more able to quote peer reviewed research, more apparently rational and apparently wider read and better informed." At Red Alerts, survivalists are closely watching the world food crisis being created by green policies. And at Englishman’s Castle, pondering Britain’s own "environmental madness" and its effect on the local environment.
A short and poignant post on Patriot’s Day at the Irish Elk.
I completely concur with Discriminations in their post on affirmative action and how to combat discrimination.
TNOY has an exclusive on Keith Olbermann’s interview with former President Carter about his multiple meetings with "with some moderate Arab groups including the leadership of Hamas."
Scott Ott reports on his conversation with an Obama spokesman who told him that they viewed Hamas’s decision to endorse Obama as "tantamount to picking up a superdelegate vote. But with Hamas, Sen. Obama didn’t have to compromise his principles or positions, or make any commitments beyond what he has already promised."
The Deleware Curumdgeon observes that the phrase "do whatever you want" should not always be taken literally.
On Sunday, the NYT published a massive piece of pseudo-investigative journalism suggesting that the Pentagon was unduly influencing military analysts. Having spent two hours of my life dissecting it, I came to find others, including Max Boot and Bruce Kessler, had already done it more expertly. Powerline, for their part, says that it reminds them of the "illegal acts of genuine subversion committed by the Times in the course of the war.’ Dave in Boca has taken stock of the NYT's agenda journalism and there stock prices. He is taking enjoyment in watching the Sulzberger family jewels ever shrink.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Interesting Posts From Around The Web - 14 April 2008
the Rev. Jeremiah Wright lashed out at the media, FOX News, America, O'Reilly, Hannity, Thomas Jefferson, Founding Fathers... This is what Wright said about the Founding Fathers of America, a group he sometimes refers to as the "Fondling Fathers", during his eulogy: America’s founding fathers "planted slavery and white supremacy in the DNA of this republic," and adding that Thomas Jefferson wrote, " ‘God would punish America for the sin of slavery.’ I guess that makes Thomas Jefferson unpatriotic." Obama's mentor Wright also said Thomas Jefferson, partook in "pedophilia." And about Obama’s "grass roots" funding and his refusal to take money from PAC’s . . .
The interesting posts of the day, below the fold.
________________________________________________________
Art: The Martyrdom of St. Livinus, Rubens, 1633
The most eloquent post of the day is at Belmont Club, with Wretchard discussing the significance of the Pope’s visit to ground zero. ". . . Bin Laden knows that Benedict will call to each of the hijackers by their name; not as an accuser but as shepherd looking for a long-long flock. He will bid them come forth into the light, for his staff is meant for wolves." (H/T Consul at Arms). Perhaps we just need more interfaith dialogue.
Democrats are attempting to sue John McCain out of the presidential race.
There is trouble ahead for transatlantic relations with our old NATO allies.
Bookworm Room has a superb essay asking whether we can try Jimmy Carter for treason, discussing all of the reasons distilled from history why engaging fanatics rather than challenging then – or killing them – is disasterous. Also a good post on this at JoshuaPundit. And as Seraphic Secret notes, Former President Jimmy Carter not only enables Jew-haters and terrorists, he props ups tyrannies that would murder every Jew on the face of the earth.
From the Barking Moonbat: Extremist ideas are being spread by Islamic study centers linked to British universities and backed by multi-million-pound donations from Saudi Arabia and Muslim organizations. And at Fulham Reactionary, dhimmi children taken on a propaganda tour of a Mosque are given a bit of reality: "A primary school in Amsterdam wished to provide its pupils with an understanding for other cultures. But during a visit to a mosque, the children were told they were dogs."
Religion, politics and our biased media at JammieWearing Fool.
From Investors Business Daily (H/T Right Truth), a truly damning indictment of Pelosi over her refusal to allow a vote on the Colombian Free Trade deal.
The New Mexico Human Rights Commission fine of a photographer for refusing to accept a job photographing a gay wedding is documented by Blonde Sagacity. This has got to be a First Amendment violation. I do hope it makes its way up the court system.
A superb post from Panday’s Gazette (H/T KG at A Western Heart) pointing out how the progressive members of our Supreme Court are ready to throw our nation’s sovereignty out and make our laws subservient to decisions of the UN’s World Court. More on this issue at No Oil For Pacifists.
From the Midnight Sun: The EU quietly reinstates the death penalty – for enemies of the state.
Mil-blogger Shield of Achilles on Iraq: Let’s get this thing done now.
Some real problems across the pond flagged by MK at Crusader Rabbit: One in every five murders or manslaughters in England and Wales is committed by a foreigner, police figures revealed. In one area of London, the figure is one in three. This is despite the fact that foreigners represent only around one in 16 of the general population. The UK is just so screwed. And from Dinah Lord: The Royal Navy, once the scourge of brigands on the high seas, has been told by the Foreign Office not to detain pirates because doing so may breach their human rights.
At the Liberty Corner, a black female prosecutor speaks out: "Race does not enter the equation for me. My question to these black people who believe me to be a traitor is, when will you connect the dots?"
Background on the nightmare that is Zimbabwe at the Transatlantic Conservative.
Tort reform, Islamic style at the Dhivehistan Report.
Philosophical pondering about rhetoric as magic at Soob.
The Whited Sephelcure captures the logic of the farm bill.
The Glittering Eye notes the Robot Hall of Fame.
Heh: A pint and a fag at the 13 mile mark keep the 101 year old marathon runner pumping.
Heh: TNOY has the latest Absolut ad campaign appealing to special interest groups for land grabs – or total world domination. Hillbilly White Trash has a more cautionary ad.
Heh: From Hillbilly Politics, an explanation of the pricing plan for calls to God.
An Obama Round-Up
Obama commits the mother of all gaffes: Letting on that you think rural Americans are straight out of Deliverance. As Discrminations calls it in an excellent post: What a load of Marxist rubbish.
Victor David Hanson at NRO deconstructs Obama’s attempt to explain away his comments.
And at This Ain’t Hell, its Obama versus Madison.
Soccer Dad, in an excellent post, notes the left’s attempts to deflect criticism as "painting" Obama’s remarks as elitist, suggesting it is an unfair assessment.
Classical Values points out that the dust has far from settled on Obama’s remarks, and that the remarks themselves sound far too redolent of Karl Marx’s infamous assertion that "religion is the opiate of the masses."
I personally find it hard to imagine a more obnoxious or elitist view than that Senator Obama espoused when he tied small town values, including religion, a belief in individual rights in gun ownership, and secure borders, to bitterness over a lack of economic opportunities in the hinterlands. As the Politico writes, there are 12 reasons "bitter is bad" for Obama. Obama is a tabula rosa no more, and I have yet to find a single thing filled in on that formerly blank slate that is either genuine or admirable.
Obama’s mainstream pastor of 20 years, the Rev. Wright – he who only gave outrageously racist sermons on days that Obama did not attend church with his family – has done it again. Gateway Pundit provides the information:
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Of John McCain, Kos Coulter and the Goldwater Myth
A vociferous element of the Republican Party, epitomized by Ann Coulter, would destroy the Republican Party rather than see McCain become president. It seems more of a tantrum displaying the irrationality I had thought was only associated with the far left. It is, I believe, incredibly foolish.
McCain was not my first choice for the Republican nomination. No matter. He will be the Republican nominee. I will support him wholeheartedly.
To say that I am appalled by the reaction on the conservative side with the reaction to John McCain being the likely nominee would be understatement. As a threshold matter, much of what I am hearing is a distortion of McCain’s record.
On the single most important issue we face, national security, no one questions McCain’s credentials. McCain was correct in his calls for an increase in troop strength far before 2007. He also supported Iraq and the surge when it appeared that it would end his Presidential bid. That is principle, folks. Most politicians do not have it. If McCain is in the White House, we stand a chance to win the war against terror. Most politicians, Republican’s included, would have folded up in Iraq in 2006 in order to win the Presidency.
On the economy, McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts not because he was against tax cuts, but because he wanted concomitant spending cuts. That is called fiscal responsibility. That is also far more Reganesque than anything we ever got from Bush. Bush has spent like a drunken Democrat, along with the rest of the Republicans in Congress. If he had imposed some fiscal discipline, Republicans may well not have lost the Congress in 2006. Moreover, McCain promises to end earmarks.
On trade, McCain is the single strongest advocate of all the candidates for free trade.
On subsidies, McCain went to Iowa and said it was time to end farm and ethanol subsidies. That’s honesty. That is integrity. That is precisely correct.
On immigration, McCain’s proposal was . . . Reganesque. Don’t claim McCain is not a conservative for proposing this plan. It may be inappropriate for a host of reasons, but so is the frothing of the mouth because McCain proposed it and then claiming him a traitor. Christ, get a grip.
McCain Feingold – McCain made a mistake on this one. He has, as I recall, admitted as much. Get over it.
McCain Lieberman – Someone need to get beat McCain over the head with a two by four on this one.
The gang of fourteen – Get over this one. McCain can reach across the aisle. We got most of what conservatives wanted out of it and we did not create a scenario that could later come back to haunt Republicans in a big way.
Supreme Court Judges - The primary manner through which the socialist left has pursued their agenda over the past several decades is through the courts. In just the past two years, liberal justices have competely gutted the Fifth Amendment right limiting the government's ability to take private property. A few years before that, the liberal justices began looking to the modern laws of other countries to decide how to interpret the Constitution. Both are an incredible travesty. With that in mind, do you want more Scalias or more Ginsbergs. In the end, this may be as important as the issue of national security in whether to support McCain.
What I am hearing now – this utter refusal to support McCain, is a temper tantrum worthy of the far left. Indeed, some, such as Ann “Kos” Coulter, threaten to campaign against McCain. Is she taking a page from Kos and Ned Lamont. That was a real victory, wasn't it. Likewise, the plan to sabotage McCain’s run for the Presidency in order to remake the Republican party into some sort of purist Conservative heaven is dangerous fantasy indeed. The belief that we are reliving the Goldwater years is a myth. Nixon followed Goldwater – and took us out of Vietnam in the name of “surrender with honor” or something like that. He imposed price controls. He was as far from a conservative as you can get.
The belief that if we keep out McCain now and let either Hillary or Obama have at it for four years, that we can then run a “true” conservative as a savior, much as what happened with Carter and Regan, misses a very important point. One, there is no Regan on the horizon. Two, we are still paying for Jimmy Carter's presidency, and the price will likely outlive us. Carter allowed Islamic fundamentalism to take hold by allowing Iran to fall to Khomenei. An Obama or Clinton could well undo the gains we have made against this scourge and, indeed, a precipitous withdraw from Iraq could make it far worse. McCain will not make that mistake. But if a Democratic President does, we will greatly compound the problems our nation must face.
The last thing we need is another middle class entitlement program. The history is that such programs are difficult in the extreme to get rid of once in place. How about trying to unseat Hillary after Hillarycare is in place.
I apologize for the rambling on this one. This is all stream of consciousness under a time crunch at the moment. But regardless, the point is that this outpouring of hatred towards McCain is largely unwarranted and problematic in the extreme. The Republican movement is more than just people who want all illegal immigrants boxed up and sent home yesterday. To the extent some of us would establish a litmus test, we may find the pure conservative Republican party at the end of that road to be very small indeed - and wholly irrelevant.
Update: Other bloggers or articles drawing similar conclusions include:
Daniel Henninger in the WSJ
Powerline
Hugh Hewitt
Dr. Sanity
Victor David Hanson.
Soccer Dad - Campaign Consultant Kang Speaks
The Glittering Eye - The Anti-McCain Republicans
Big Lizards - Why Should We Care Whether Hillary or McCain Wins?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
