What can I say about the demise of Libyan strongman Myanmar Godaffy, the man whose name we never learned to spell ? Quadiffi lived by the sword and died by the sword. His death serves as a warning to would-be dictators everywhere. Your injustices, terrorist acts, and totalitarian trampling of the people's rights will no longer be tolerated, at least not for more than 42 years, max.

Congratulations to President Obama, the liberal who could show George W. Bush a thing or two about being a neoconservative. Godhaffi is the third major bad guy to go to the great spider hole in the sky on Sheriff Obama's watch this year. Awesome. Hopefully, Kwaddaffi, Bin Laden, and Awlaki are all dodging fireballs from Satan in hell as they glimpse the 72 virgins dancing about just beyond their reach. Every time a terrorist bites it, an angel gets it's wings.

Libya will now become a vibrant democracy, a veritable thousand points of light. Mission Accomplished !!! (cough, cough).

The White House has signaled that the Libyan success will be the model for the future:

The death of Gaddafi immediately raised speculation in the US that the same military model – the use of US air power combined with rebel forces on the ground and special forces from Europe – could be used again in Syria.

Vice-president Joe Biden described the military model as a "prescription" for the future, while White House spokesman Jay Carney, when asked about Syria, said Assad had lost his legitimacy to rule.

The former Nato commander, Wesley Clark, asked if the same strategy could be used in Syria, replied: "Could be." He told CNN that every country had to be approached differently: "Syria is going to be different from Libya, but it shows Nato is capable of a sustained effort."

Obama, facing re-election next year, chalked up Libya as another foreign policy success to place alongside the killing in May of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, the drawdown of most US troops from Iraq by the end of the year, and the first phase of a gradual pullout of troops from Afghanistan.

Yes, that Afghanistan "troop pullout" is quite gradual. We'll be there for years yet, according to Obama's timetable. Bonus fact – Afghanistan is the longest war in U.S. history. We're also amassing troops on the Afghan-Pakistan border, which is understandably alarming the Pakistanis.

Now that Libya is (un)settled, we can eagerly look forward to Obama's Next War, a game show premiering next week on NBC. The next war will be decided via viewer response, American Idol style. Go to Nextwar.nbc.com to place your vote, or text 'FIRAN' on your cell phone. Thus far, the leading vote getter is 'Iran', followed by 'Syria' and 'Wall Street'. In related news, reporters from the New York Times polled the Occupy Wall Street squatters about Obama's recent decision to send combat troops into Uganda. The leading responses from the OWSers – 78% said 'What's Uganda ?", and 18% said "I used to own a uganda. That was an awesome lizard, man, but my parents made me get rid of it after it ate my little sister's gerbil". MSNBC praised the OWSer response as being "legitimate and genuine".

Here's a video of Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton yukking it up over Galdafhi's death:

"We came, we saw, he died". This is how our chief ambassador talks ? What's next, Obama saying "Booyah!" ???

VP and Dan Quayle wannabe, Joe Biden, fresh off the heels of insanely saying Republicans want women to be raped, immediately tried to turn Ghaddafi's death into partisan advantage:

Biden, speaking hours before Obama, adopted a clearly partisan approach to news of the dictator's death, bluntly contrasting the apporach of the Obama administration to Libya with George Bush's in Iraq.

"In this case, America spent $2bn total and didn't lose a single life. This is more of the prescription for how to deal with the world as we go forward than it has been in the past," he said, out on the campaign trail in New Hampshire.

While I admit that getting Quaddafi for a mere $2 billion may be one of the most cost effective moves Obama has made to date (that's called 'damning with faint praise'), I wonder if Biden has become too senile to remember that Biden voted FOR the Iraq War ? Biden also came up with the crazy and unworkable idea of partitioning Iraq into three different countries. What a clown. I assume Obama made Biden his VP solely as a form of life insurance. What other possible reason could there be ? Biden's valuable experience riding trains to work ?

Fox News is reporting that a U.S. predator drone and a French jet were involved in a strike on Kaddafi's convoy, leading up to Ghaddaffi's final moments (note to convoluted liberal thought processes – ThinkProgress is reporting the same thing, therefore both Fox News and ThinkProgress must be lying).

Democrats everywhere are understandably jubilant about Obama "getting" Gaddafy and illegally pursuing the Libyan War without the consent of Congress and in violation of the War Powers Act, but there is no truth to the rumor that Libya will now change it's name to 'Obamastan'.

GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain once said foreign policy was not his strong suit.

And he keeps proving himself correct.

Yesterday, Cain said he might release all the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay in exchange for one American hostage.

Apparently, Mr. Cain didn't get the memo – we don't negotiate with terrorists ! Can you imagine an American president releasing Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and friends under ANY circumstances ? I can't.

Cain later said he "misspoke", using the favored obtuse verb of the political class. I would have preferred if Cain said "I was totally out to lunch on that question".

This isn't Cain's first unclear foreign policy position. When asked about the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki, Cain originally said he was against it, but then changed his mind and said he was for it. He's also been vacillating on his comment about putting an electric fence on the Mexican border. He said he was joking (leave the jokes to Jon Stewart, Mr. Cain. You are supposed to be running for President), and then he said maybe he would put up the electric fence. Pick a position, Cain. These are not small issues.

As stated at one of the above links, you get the impression that Cain is making up his foreign policy answers as he goes along. As Cain says himself, he is not a politician. If that means he doesn't read from a prepared script or a teleprompter like Obama does, that's one thing. That's a plus. But if it means he hasn't really thought through some of these foreign policy issues, that's something else entirely. That means he's unprepared.

Cain also has a problem with his 999 tax plan. Namely…Congress will NEVER pass it. Democrats and Republicans alike have problems with it. One of the architects of Cain's 999 plan, economist Stephon Moore, is already saying the 9% national sales tax should be removed and replaced with a 9% payroll tax. This reflects the conservative concern that Cain is opening up another revenue stream for the federal government, when the feds have plenty of revenue streams already. Conservatives fear the 9-9-9 plan could eventually become the 20-20-20 plan. Democrats are concerned that the tax is regressive and raises taxes on the poorer segments of society (in political parlance, the word "regressive" means everyone is taxed at the same rate, which is…bad?…for some reason. Democrats favor discriminating against people).

In the polls, Cain and Romney are neck and neck…for the moment.

And now for a little comic relief, let's play…

Are You Smarter Than A Wall Street Occupier ? (Isn't everyone ?)

It's a quiz given by New York magazine to the Zacotti park squatters, and yes, they are as clueless as they seem. Nearly 90% of them don't know the top marginal tax rate for the "rich". 84% of them don't know what the Dodd-Frank Act is. 94% of them mistakenly believe the government spends more on the military than on health care and pensions. The Occupiers don't know anything about the very issues they are protesting. Classic.

I was upset that President Obama took the side of Hamas and the Muslims on the 1967 Israel/Palestine border issue, but then I remembered, the Rapture is coming today and it doesn't matter. Because neither the Jews nor the Muslims believe Jesus is the Messiah, they're both damned. Ha! Who's the infidel now, Bin Laden ?

Speaking of damnation, it's been about, let's see,….43 years since my last confession. I should probably go in for my 100,000 mile soul tuneup. I don't want to look all morally disheveled and uncleansed when I meet Jesus. I think I'll shave and buy some of those Crest Whitening Strips as well. I want to make a good impression. According to Catholic teaching, as long as you confess your sins before you die, you can still get into heaven. Even the worst sinner has a shot, as long as he says "I'm sorry" before his alcoholic, syphilitic, morbidly obese, diseased-riddled body finally goes kaput. And that's what makes Catholicism a great religion.

On the off chance that the world doesn't end today, maybe I will comment further on Obama's take on Israel/Palestine, even though it doesn't seem very important compared to Armageddon.

In a nutshell, Obama called for a Palestinian state based upon the pre-1967 borders, and Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu responded by saying (I'm paraphrasing here), "you be trippin', boo !". For you sticklers who want to know what Netanyahu's exact words were, fine, here they are:

"We can't go back to those indefensible lines. … I discussed this with the president," Netanyahu said.

"We both agree that a peace based on illusions will crash against the rocks of Middle Eastern reality. … For there to be peace, the Palestinians will have to accept some basic realities — the first is that while Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace it cannot go back to the 1967 lines, because these lines are indefensible" Netanyahu said. He said the two leaders still agree on the "overall direction" for peace in the region.

You see, Netanyahu and his fellow Israelis know something President Obama apparently doesn't know – the Arabs want to kill the Jews and eliminate the state of Israel, or at least move the state of Israel somewhere else, like maybe Nebraska. The Arabs really don't care where the borders of Israel are. They really don't even care about a Palestinian state. Those are just baby steps on the way to their larger goal of wiping Israel off the map. Until that Arab goal changes, the Israelis will by necessity look at things strictly from a defensive, national security point of view. Going back to the pre-1967 borders means Israel would have to concede a huge portion of it's country (the West Bank) to it's sworn enemy, leaving Israel far more vulnerable to that enemy. Here's a map of Israel to illustrate the point:

You may remember what happened the last time Israel tentatively conceded a piece of it's land to the Palestinians. That piece of land was the Gaza Strip. Israel handed it over in 2005. Then in 2006, the Palestinians elected Hamas (a designated terrorist group) into power. Thousands of rockets were launched from Gaza into Israel. Israel erected a blockade of Gaza, and it's been misery and turmoil there ever since. Now imagine how the Israelis feel about conceding the much larger West Bank area to the same people. Obama may believe he's finding middle ground by proposing a Palestinian takeover of the West Bank, but the Jews only see the barbarians at the gate, and Obama wanting to let them in.

Let's also not forget how the 1967 borders became the 1967 borders. That resulted from the Six Day War, when Arab countries banded together, amassed troops along Israel's border, and closed Israeli shipping lanes. Here's a brief description:

In May 1967, [Egyptian President] Nasser received false reports from the Soviet Union that Israel was massing on the Syrian border. Nasser began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF [United Nations Emergency Force] force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19) and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran. Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or justification for war. Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping on May 22–23. On May 30, Jordan and Egypt signed a defense pact. The following day, at Jordan's invitation, the Iraqi army began deploying troops and armored units in Jordan. They were later reinforced by an Egyptian contingent. On June 1, Israel formed a National Unity Government by widening its cabinet, and on June 4 the decision was made to go to war. The next morning, Israel launched Operation Focus, a large-scale surprise air strike that was the opening of the Six-Day War.

Israel won the Six Day War, and the 1967 borders were established. As they say, to the victor goes the spoils, but now the instigators and losers of the Six Day War want their land back.

Both the Jews and the Arabs have historical claims to the land that go back thousands of years. There is no disputing that, but until the Arab world universally accepts and recognizes the state Of Israel as legitimate, there will never be any kind of lasting peace, much less an actual Palestinian state. The Jews have to be the first people in history ever to be accused of "occupying" their own historical homeland. Yet I hear about this alleged "Jewish occupation" all the time, and I hear from our own President how Israel shouldn't be building settlements in JERUSALEM, of all places. Jerusalem is the Jewish holy city, the center of the Jewish faith. If they can't build settlements there, where can they build them ? Auschwitz ?

***Update – Here's the video of Netanyahu explaining things to Obama. Well worth watching.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

President Obama withdrew support from Hosni Mubarak when the protests started in Egypt. Obama took the side of the democratic protesters, calling for Mubarak's removal, and now Egypt is being ruled by a secret military government allied with the Muslim Brotherhood, according to the New York Times:

CAIRO — In post-revolutionary Egypt, where hope and confusion collide in the daily struggle to build a new nation, religion has emerged as a powerful political force, following an uprising that was based on secular ideals. The Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group once banned by the state, is at the forefront, transformed into a tacit partner with the military government that many fear will thwart fundamental changes.

It is also clear that the young, educated secular activists who initially propelled the nonideological revolution are no longer the driving political force — at least not at the moment.

With the Brotherhood taking the lead, there is evidence emerging that Egypt will beome an Islamist state:

When the new prime minister, Essam Sharaf, addressed the crowd in Tahrir Square this month, Mohamed el-Beltagi, a prominent Brotherhood member, stood by his side. A Brotherhood member was also appointed to the committee that drafted amendments to the Constitution.

But the most obvious and consequential example was the recent referendum on the amendments, in the nation’s first post-Mubarak balloting. The amendments essentially call for speeding up the election process so that parliamentary contests can be held before September, followed soon after by a presidential race. That expedited calendar is seen as giving an advantage to the Brotherhood and to the remnants of Mr. Mubarak’s National Democratic Party, which have established national networks. The next Parliament will oversee drafting a new constitution.

Before the vote, Essam el-Erian, a Brotherhood leader and spokesman, appeared on a popular television show, “The Reality,” arguing for the government’s position in favor of the proposal. With a record turnout, the vote was hailed as a success. But the “yes” campaign was based largely on a religious appeal: voters were warned that if they did not approve the amendments, Egypt would become a secular state.

“The problem is that our country will be without a religion,” read a flier distributed in Cairo by a group calling itself the Egyptian Revolution Society. “This means that the call to the prayer will not be heard anymore like in the case of Switzerland, women will be banned from wearing the hijab like in the case of France,” it said, referring to the Muslim head scarf. “And there will be laws that allow men to get married to men and women to get married to women like in the case of America.”

A banner hung by the Muslim Brotherhood in a square in Alexandria instructed voters that it was their “religious duty” to vote “yes” on the amendments.

In the end, 77.2 percent of those who voted said yes.

That's all we need, another Iran. Because this information comes from the New York Times, we have the usual credence given to the incredible. This time, the Times takes at face value statements by the Muslim Brotherhood indicating that they are NOT interested in creating an Islamic state. Here we go:

This is not to say that the Brotherhood is intent on establishing an Islamic state. From the first days of the protests, Brotherhood leaders proclaimed their dedication to religious tolerance and a democratic and pluralist form of government. They said they would not offer a candidate for president, that they would contest only a bit more than a third of the total seats in Parliament, and that Coptic Christians and women would be welcomed into the political party affiliated with the movement.

None of that has changed, Mr. Erian, the spokesman, said in an interview. “We are keen to spread our ideas and our values,” he said. “We are not keen for power.”

He would not comment on whether the Brotherhood had an arrangement with the military, but he said the will of the people to shift toward Islam spoke for itself and was a sign of Egypt’s emerging democratic values. “Don’t trust the intellectuals, liberals and secularists,” Mr. Erian said. “They are a minor group crying all the time. If they don’t work hard, they have no future.”

Sure, New York Times. Whatever. The Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamic transnational movement whose slogan is "Islam is the solution", is allegedly NOT interested in establishing an Islamic state in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood, whose stated goal is to instill the Qur'an and Sunnah as the "sole reference point for … ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community … and state", is allegedly NOT interested in establishing an Islamic state in Egypt.

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about the Muslim Brotherhood:

In the group's belief, the Quran and Sunnah constitute a perfect way of life and social and political organization that God has set out for man. Islamic governments must be based on this system and eventually unified in a Caliphate. The Muslim Brotherhood's goal, as stated by Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna was to reclaim Islam's manifest destiny, an empire, stretching from Spain to Indonesia.

These are the people the New York Times believes when they say they aren't interested in establishing an Islamic state in Egypt. There really is a sucker born every minute.

Btw, guess what the Egyptian military/Muslim Brotherhood government is banning ? They are banning PROTESTS. There's a clear indicator these guys are interested in democracy. Or not.

There is a battle consuming Egypt about the direction of its revolution, and the military council that is now running the country is sending contradictory signals. On Wednesday, the council endorsed a plan to outlaw demonstrations and sit-ins.

And now we are supporting Libyan rebels in their war with Qaddafi. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but we don't know what the Libyan rebels ultimately want either. There are reports that some of them are jihadists who were fighting against the United States in Iraq.

What's becoming crystal clear is, we have no idea what we're doing in the Middle East. Our leaders don't even seem to understand what's going on there, what we're getting into, or what the eventual outcome will be. Obama has finally verbalized an Obama military doctrine with last night's speech, and that doctrine seems to be that the United States will still be the policeman of the world (when we feel like it), and we'll still push against dictators for regime change (when we feel like it). Obama's policy officially became Bush Lite last night. It's kind of surreal to watch liberal Democrats turn into neocons right in front of our eyes. Tell me if Obama's speech last night doesn't fit this definition of neoconservatism to a tee:

Neoconservatism in the United States is a branch of American Conservatism that focuses on foreign policy, where it defines national interests to include ideological interests e.g. the defense of other nations with similar ideologies for geopolitical purposes, proposing to use American economic and military power to bring democracy and freedom to other countries.

Now here's one line of many such lines from Obama's speech:

For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and as an advocate for human freedom

Ding, ding, ding. Neoconservatism is exactly what Obama is pushing. Hillary too. Kerry too. Makes me wonder what the Democrat leadership was bitching about for all those years…other than the fact they were out of power.

With a popular Egyptian revolution unfolding in front of us, I thought I'd provide a little Egyptian background info. I'm not going to get into what the United States should do or should not do, because we don't control Egypt. Our options are limited. We can withhold aid and make a plea for human rights, but Egyptians will determine the future of Egypt, not us. Contrary to the belief of some, we don't run the world.

The best thing Jimmy Carter accomplished as President was to broker a peace deal between Israel and Egypt in 1979. That might be the only good thing Carter accomplished as President, but it was significant. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin received the Nobel Peace Prize for that peace treaty. You can tell it was a good treaty by who hated it – the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), the Arab League, and assorted Islamic jihadists. The peace treaty was hated by the people who didn't want peace. Following the treaty, Egypt was suspended from the Arab League for ten years, and Sadat was assassinated in 1981 by members of Egyptian Islamic Jihad. While Egyptian Arabs still consider Israel the enemy, there have been no armed conflicts between the two nations in the subsequent 31 years.

As part of Carter's 1979 agreement, the United States began sending economic and military aid to Egypt, and also agreed to back subsequent Egyptian governments. We sent $38 billion to Egypt between 1979 and 2000. We gave Egpt an average of about $2 billion a year, and sent $1.3 billion last year. Most of that aid was military.

After Anwar Sadat was assassinated by the warmongering a-holes, Hosni Mubarak took over as the President of Egypt in 1981. America was committed to back him, and we have ever since. Egypt also helped us. Egypt was a member of the allied coalition to evict Saddam Hussein's Iraq forces from Kuwait in 1991. There was a payoff, of course. After the war, the U.S., England, and the Arab states of the Persian Gulf forgave Egypt around $20 billion of it's debt.

In 2003, President Mubarak spoke out against the Iraq War, saying the Israeli-Palestinian situation should be resolved first, and also saying an Iraq invasion would create "100 Bin Ladens".

Mubarak had American backing, but his government was an authoritarian and corrupt one. He was re-elected by sham referendums in 1987, 1993, 1999. Mubarak was the only candidate in those "elections". Under pressure to make democratic reforms, Egypt amended it's constitution in 2005 to allow multiple candidates to run for President. It didn't make much difference, because the electoral institutions and the state run media was stilled controlled by Mubarak. In addition, there were widespread reports of Mubarak rigging the election, and there were political persections, including the arrest and conviction of the election runner-up to Mubarak in December 2005.

Wikipedia has more on Mubarak's corruption:

While in office, political corruption in the Mubarak administration's Ministry of Interior has risen dramatically, due to the increased power over the institutional system that is necessary to secure the prolonged presidency. Such corruption has led to the imprisonment of political figures and young activists without trials,[18] illegal undocumented hidden detention facilities,[19][20] and rejecting universities, mosques, newspapers staff members based on political inclination.[21] On a personnel level, each individual officer can and will violate citizens' privacy in his area using unconditioned arrests due to the emergency law.

And this:

Egypt is a semi-presidential republic under Emergency Law (Law No. 162 of 1958)[23] and has been since 1967, except for an 18-month break in 1980s. Under the law, police powers are extended, constitutional rights suspended and censorship is legalized.[24] The law sharply circumscribes any non-governmental political activity: street demonstrations, non-approved political organizations, and unregistered financial donations are formally banned. Some 17,000 people are detained under the law, and estimates of political prisoners run as high as 30,000.[25] Under that "state of emergency", the government has the right to imprison individuals for any period of time, and for virtually no reason, thus keeping them in prisons without trials for any period. The government continues the claim that opposition groups like the Muslim Brotherhood could come into power in Egypt if the current government did not forgo parliamentary elections, confiscate the group's main financiers' possessions, and detain group figureheads, actions which are virtually impossible without emergency law and judicial-system independence prevention.[26] Pro-democracy advocates in Egypt argue that this goes against the principles of democracy, which include a citizen's right to a fair trial and their right to vote for whichever candidate and/or party they deem fit to run their country.

Mubarak is 82 years old, and different Egyptian groups have been planning for a post-Mubarak Egypt. Unfortunately, the number one anti-Mubarak group in Egypt is the Muslim Brotherhood, a transnational Islamist movement. Another major figure is Egypt is the former head of the Atomic Energy Commission, Mohamed ElBaradei. He has been calling for Mubarak to step down as well, as follows:

"You are the owners of this revolution. You are the future," the Associated Press quoted ElBaradei addressing the crowd after nightfall. "Our essential demand is the departure of the regime and the beginning of a new Egypt in which every Egyptian lives in virtue, freedom and dignity."

We don't know how the Egyptian situation will play out, but as far as U.S. interests go, the last thing we want to see is the Islamists take over for Mubarak. I don't know if that will happen, but it is a real possibility. We already have one Iran. We don't need another. Here's to hoping the revolution really does end up with democratic reform and human rights being the ultimate winners in Egypt.
===
Correction – Mohamed ElBaradei is the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), not the Atomic Energy Commission. My bad.

Welcome To The Machine - On the same day President Obama invited Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT) to the White House to pressure him to switch his vote on health care reform, Obama appointed Matheson's brother, Scott Matheson, to a judgeship on the 10th Circuit Court Of Appeals. I'm sure that was an entirely random, coincidental event with absolutely no underlying political calculations whatsoever…not at all similar to the way things are done in Obama's old stomping grounds…not at all similar to the Chicago way….not at all. This is the most ethical administration ever…especially when they aren't lying about everything.
===
Global Warming Kettle Calls Pot Black – "First of all, we just got five feet of snow in Washington and so everybody is like — a lot of the people who are opponents of climate change, they say, see, look at that, there’s all this snow on the ground, this doesn’t mean anything. I want to just be clear that the science of climate change doesn’t mean that every place is getting warmer; it means the planet as a whole is getting warmer. But what it may mean is, for example, Vancouver, which is supposed to be getting snow during the Olympics, suddenly is at 55 degrees, and Dallas suddenly is getting seven inches of snow." – Barack "The Weatherman" Obama.

The glaring problem with Obama's "everything is climate change now" rhetoric is that Vancouver doesn't usually get much snow in February. The average temperature there in February is 48 degrees Fahrenheit. Not exactly snow weather, and a temp of 55 degrees is just an example of normal weather variation. Exit questions – What if Sarah Palin said something this dumb ? How many months would it be before the media stopped talking about it ?
===
Nominee For Idiot Of The Year - The following video shows MSNBC talker Dylan Ratigan "interviewing" a Tea Party representative, and hijacking his own interview by refusing to allow the Tea Party guy to answer the questions put to him. Ratigan instead used the segment as a transparent ploy to parrot the constant MSNBC propaganda point that the Tea Party movement is a racist movement.

This might be a new low in what passes for journalism. Either that, or Ratigan fancies himself the next Keith Olbermann, a dubious aspiration at best.

While I'm on the subject of the Tea Party movement…I keep hearing from liberals that the Tea Parties are chock full of racist signs, and having attended Tea Parties, I haven't seen any. Not one. I have seen a couple signs on the internet that COULD be interpreted as racist (and could also be liberal plants), out of the hundreds of thousands of signs from which to choose at Tea Party events. Can some liberal please show me all these racist Tea Party signs ??? I really want to see what all the fuss is about.
===
A Good Day To Die – "Today is a big day in America. Only 36,000 people lost their jobs today, which is really good." – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) link

I've heard of the bigotry of soft expectations, but this is ridiculous. By Reid's standard, if only 20,000 people lost their jobs next month, that would be, as Tony the Tiger used to say, "GRRREEAAT !"

Time for a new Senate Majority Leader. This one's broken.
===
Rules ? We Don't Need No Stinking Rules - From NBC News:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said today the American people ought to know more about what she called "total obstruction" by the Republican Party in the Senate. Referring to Sen. Jim Bunning's hold-up of unemployment benefits earlier this week, Pelosi said, "It's not about rules, it's about a decision they've made to obstruct."

Here we have Pelosi admitting that the Pay-Go rules passed by the Democrats a couple weeks ago are basically meaningless. They bypassed them the first time they had the opportunity to enforce them, and then they have the gall to portray the one Senator who called the Dems on their dishonesty an obstructionist. Wow. Words fail me.

Time for a new Congress. This one's broken.
===
Obama As The New Bush - Students in Jakarta, Indonesia are protesting President Obama's upcoming visit to that country. Obama previously has been very popular in Indonesia, having spent part of his childhood in Jakarta. From the Associated Press:

Scores of Islamic students staged protests outside Jakarta's parliament and in at least three other major Indonesian cities on Friday against President Barack Obama's upcoming visit to this predominantly Muslim country.

The students carried banners branding Obama as an enemy of Islam and an imperialist in downtown Jakarta as well as in the provincial capitals Padang, Yogyakarta and Surabaya.

They also threw shoes at large pictures of Obama's head. An Iraqi journalist was sentenced to a year in prison for throwing his shoes at U.S. President George W. Bush during a news conference in Baghdad in 2008.

Protest organizer Ahmad Irhamul Fikri, spokesman for the Coordinating Board for Campus Proselytizing Institute, said bigger rallies will be staged next Friday in more Indonesian cities ahead of Obama's March 20-22 visit.

If there's a bright side here…maybe this will shut up some of the fringe element nuts known as the Birthers, who think Obama is a foreign-born Muslim who wants to establish a Caliphate here in America, or something.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke

In march 1964, a twenty-eight-year-old woman named Kitty Genovese drove home from work and parked her car in Queens, a borough in New York City. She lived in a nice neighborhood there, Kew Gardens. Genovese exited her car and a man came after her, stabbing her in the back. The assault took place on the sidewalk in front of a row of shops and across the street from a ten-story apartment building called the Mowbray. The assailant, twenty-nine-year-old Winston Moseley, retreated to his car and backed it down the street out of view. Moseley returned to the scene of his crime, sexually assaulting Genovese and stabbing her again. The stabbing and and sexual assault went on for 35 minutes, then Moseley went back to his car and drove home. Kitty Genovese was left dead.

This is a horrible story, one that is played out all too frequently. The Genovese story, however, became national news due to a New York Times article that was written about it. The article stated the following:

For more than half an hour, thirty eight respectable, law-abiding citizens in Queens watched a killer stalk and stab a woman in three separate attacks in Kew Gardens…Not one person telephoned the police during the assault; one witness called after the woman was dead.

The apathy of Genovese's neighbors sparked outrage across the nation. People couldn't understand how they could be so cold-hearted. It was generally agreed that the incident represented a new low in human civilization. The inaction of the neighbors in the face of such evil was itself a form of evil, known in legal circles as "depraved indifference."

Now let's expand that Queens neighborhood. Let's expand it to include the entire world. What is our proper response in the face of evil ? What responsibility do we have ? Do we get involved, or do we stand by watching and doing nothing like the neighbors of Kitty Genovese ? An easy example of this is our response to the warmongering of Adolph Hitler. All but the most feeble-minded among us know that our only choice there was to get involved, no matter how high the price. If we had stood by idly then chanting simple-minded flower-child slogans like the 60's-era "war harms children and other living things," it would have had disastrous results. The body count would have been far more astronomical, the Holocaust many times larger, and Hitler's endgame was to attack the United States after Europe and Russia were defeated, thereby conquering the world. We know this from Hitler's own writings. In an unpublished sequel to Mein Kampf, Hitler acknowledged this endgame. He considered the United States his most dangerous enemy, and he was proven correct, fortunately for the world.

But not all evil in the world represents a direct existential threat to the United States, as Hitler did. We can stand by and watch the human carnage and do nothing if we wish, just as the neighbors of Kitty Genovese did. We can adopt a policy of depraved indifference and watch the genocide in Darfur, the brutal repression of the Taliban, or the mass murders of Saddam Hussein, the Butcher of Baghdad. Often we have sat back and watched the human carnage play out as we went happily about our daily lives. We good men have watched the triumph of evil as we did nothing, or at least nothing effective. We get together with other alleged civilized countries and draft meaningless U.N. resolutions condemning mass murderers, while the mass murderers go right on pillaging, slaughtering, raping, and mutilating. As grateful as I imagine the genocide victims are for those spineless U.N. resolutions, it seems a country like the United States, a superpower, should do more than talk or pass an economic sanction. Sometimes, it takes armies to do the talking, and sometimes, even though war is as terrible as it gets, war is the answer. Sometimes, as Orwellian as it sounds, only war can bring peace. If humans were a more noble species, it might not be so, but if human history teaches us anything, it teaches us that humans have been on a thousands of years long struggle for power. That says something dark about the human heart, or at least some human hearts, but we can't deny it. That power struggle will be quite fruitless if evil wins in the end, and the depraved indifference of the free world, led by the United States, can only help to bring about that very result.

And that is why people of a certain political stripe should shut the hell up about U.S. military spending, as if it's all a tremendous waste of money on the "war machine." That is a self-defeating view, and naive beyond belief. I'm sure we can streamline our military spending and make it more effective, but I doubt any spending we do is more essential. If we disarm, I guaran-fricking-tee you our enemies will not. Our enemies will be absolutely thrilled if we disarm, and I'm all for NOT pleasing them. I want the USA to be the strongest, because I believe in our principles far above those of Iran, China, Cuba, North Korea, etc. It should be obvious, but for some it isn't. They take freedom for granted in a critical failure of logic. I will never understand what they can possibly be thinking. Maybe they have a death wish or maybe they just live in lollipop land, but I know one thing for sure – we should not listen to them, ever.

This column is dedicated to the folks who believe ObamaCare, with it's alleged 31 million more people being covered by health insurance, and with it's 2,500 pages of myriad rules, regulations, and taxes being implemented on business and the citizenry by Congress…..will somehow make health care LESS expensive. To all such folks, I bestow upon you the Reality Deniers Of The Year award.

The ObamaCare debacle is so massive and will ravage such a huge slice of our economy that I should have bestowed the Reality Deniers Of The Decade award on the aforementioned people, especially when the previous decade ended only a few days ago, right ?

Except the previous decade didn't end a few days ago, no matter how often we hear the news media say it did. That's something we believe that just isn't so. Because there was no year zero on our calendar, the first year A.D. was year one. That means means a new decade doesn't start until year 11. Our next decade starts on january 1, 2011, not 2010.

That's a small thing, but columnist Walter Williams mentioned it in his latest article, in which he tackled another thing we believe is true but just isn't so. I've even bought into this false belief myself, more than I should have. The belief is that America doesn't make anything anymore, that we've lost our manufacturing sector. This belief comes from all the losses of manufacturing jobs in this country over the last thiry years. The job loss is true, but much of that loss is due to technological advances in industry that make manufacturing less labor intensive. From the Williams piece:

According to the Federal Reserve, the dollar value of U.S. manufacturing output in November was $2.72 trillion (in 2000 dollars). Today's manufacturing worker is so productive that the value of his average output is $234,220. Output per worker is three times as high as it was in 1980 and twice as high as it was in 1990. For the year 2008, the Federal Reserve estimates that the value of U.S. manufacturing output was about $3.7 trillion (in 2008 dollars). If the U.S. manufacturing sector were a separate economy, with its own GDP, it would be tied with Germany as the world's fourth richest economy. The GDPs are: U.S. ($14.2 trillion), Japan ($4.9 trillion), China ($4.3 trillion), U.S. manufacturing ($3.7 trillion), Germany ($3.7 trillion), France ($2.9 trillion) and the United Kingdom ($2.7 trillion).

With a manufacturing sector that produces more revenue than the entire GDP of all but two other countries, it sure seems we still make things here in the U.S., lots of things. It just doesn't take as many people to make them. Are we to roll back our technological advances just so we can employ more people ? I don't think so. Such a move WOULD sound the death knell for our manufacturing sector. Just as advances in the agricultural industry over the last century made farming far less labor intensive, so it is with manufacturing today. We could go the China route and pay manufacturing workers slave wages to produce cheap goods, but that isn't a desirable solution either. What we must do is adapt to a changing world. That is always going to be what we have to do to succeed. Instead of saying 'America doesn't make anything anymore,' it would be more accurate to say 'America doesn't make everything anymore.'

The next belief some hold that just isn't true is about the Guantanamo Bay prison. Even President Obama believes closing Gitmo will lessen the fervor of terrorists to attack us. Obama says Gitmo is a key recruiting tool of the jihadist movement. This is absolute nonsense. In order to share Obama's feeling, you have to believe that the simple act of moving the terrorists from Cuba to Illinois will somehow make the terrorists respond, "okay, things are alright now." This is absurdity taken to the nth degree. We'll still be holding the terrorists in prison, it'll just be in a different place. The idea that this will somehow appease the Islamic jihadists is inane. Do you really think they care WHERE Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his like-minded brethren are being held by the U.S. ??? It's the fact WE ARE HOLDING THEM that they care about. The fact we are fighting them in the first place is what they care about. The closing of Gitmo will have zero effect on the recruitment of jihadists. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA. Of course, we could always release more terrorists to Yemen or some other country sympathetic to the jihadists, as we've been doing, in the hopes it will appease the terrorists. That WOULD have an effect on terrorist recruitment. It would go UP by the number of terrorists we released, and it already has. Our lax policies have already resulted in over 70 terrorists going back to the jihadist fight against us. Brilliant policy, eh ? Let's try to appease ruthless murdering religious extremists who wish to establish dominance over the entire world. I'm certain that will work (NOT).

My final belief that just isn't so is about enacting more government entitlements in a country already $12 trillion in debt, that can't pay for all the unfunded entitlements already in existence, and with a government that invariably robs us blind, as it has with Social Security. That is completely insane thinking, but liberals think it's the right way to go, because they somehow believe it's "compassionate." (to bankrupt the entire nation).

But you've all heard me rant on about that enough already, so I'll spare you the details this time. Peace out.

1. How can President Obama hold a jobs summit and not invite the Chamber Of Commerce ? That's like holding a football game and forgetting to invite the offense.

2. How can the unemployment rate drop from 10.2% to 10% when 11,000 more jobs were lost in november 2009 ?

3. From 1776 to 1913, the value of the dollar increased by 13%. In 1913, the Federal Reserve was implemented. Since 1913, the value of the dollar has dropped by 92%. Why do we have a Federal Reserve ?

4. Why would the President announce a withdrawal date of july 2011 from a war that is not yet won ?

5. Why would President Obama call the november 2009 jobs report "the best jobs report since december 2007" and talk about White House administration officials hugging each other in joy over the good news, when the november unemployment rate is 10% and the december 2007 unemployment rate was 4.9% ? FYI – the january 2008 unemployment rate was also 4.9%.

6. Why are the extramarital affairs of golfer Tiger Woods a big news story ?

7. If the Federal Reserve prints money out of thin air, backed by nothing, in order to, say, lend $85 billion to AIG, and then AIG pays back that money from profits, isn't the net effect nothing but a devaluation of the dollar ?

8. Isn't a devaluation of the dollar nothing but a hidden tax on the assets of all Americans ?

9. If a citizen continually spends more money than he/she makes, he/she will go bankrupt. How is it any different when the government does the same thing, except that the government will take all the citizens down along with it ?

10. Why would we hand health care over to government control when the part of health care the government does control (Medicare/Medicaid) is already so far in the red ?

11. How can the Obama stimulus possibly be working when it is based upon money borrowed or printed out of thin air, backed by nothing, and is therefore entirely artificial ? (See questions #3, #7, and #8).

12. If question #11 is too confusing, perhaps this will help simplify the matter. Does a man up to his neck in credit card debt improve his financial situation by getting more credit cards ?

13. What is wrong with asking the President of the United States to produce his original birth certificate ?

14. Is there any major Obama policy that is supported by the American people ?

15. Why don't we just put Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in front of a firing squad and save everyone a lot of time and money ?

16. How do tax increases ever help the private sector economy ?

17. Shouldn't there have to be at least one act of Tea Party-related violence (from the Tea Party side) before the media denounces the crazy, violent, extremist Tea Partiers ?

18. On the same subject, why is it considered crazy and extreme to be in favor of fiscal responsibility, liberty, and the U.S. Constitution, as the Tea Partiers are ? What does that say about the state of our country ?

19. On the jobs front, which Obama policies are pro-business ?

20. Why are Democrats now in favor of cutting Medicare, when they've been against Medicare cuts for four decades ?

The USA is making progress with Iran on the nuclear issue.

That's what I keep hearing, anyway. Progress in this case is defined as Iran allowing the UN's nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, to inspect it's uranium processing facility outside Qom on October 25th. IAEA head Mohammed El Baradei said the inspection is to insure Iran's nuclear plant is "for peaceful purposes." This is interesting, because the Iranians attempted to hide that "peaceful" nuclear facility from the outside world for years, and didn't acknowledge it's existence until very recently, after several Western intelligence agencies blew Iran's cover. I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that the IAEA will not find nuclear weapons sitting around at the Qom facility during their inspection. I'm basing my prediction on the fact that the Iranians are not the Three Stooges. They are not THAT dumb. They just think we are.

Even more interesting is the fact that we don't know how many other secret nuclear enrichment plants Iran has. Back in january, the NY Times reported the following about a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that concluded Iran had suspended it's pursuit of nuclear weapons in 2003:

The public version [of the NIE] made only glancing reference to evidence described at great length in the 140-page classified version of the assessment: the suspicion that Iran had 10 or 15 other nuclear-related facilities, never opened to international inspectors, where enrichment activity, weapons work or the manufacturing of centrifuges might be taking place.

The Israelis didn't buy the American conclusion in 2007 that Iran had stopped working on nuclear weapons, and reportedly presented evidence to the U.S. that Iran was still pursuing nukes. Israel requested bunker-busting bombs from the U.S. in 2008, which were capable of penetrating Iran's underground nuclear facilities. Israel also requested refueling equipment that would allow Israeli aircraft to fly to Iran and back to Israel, along with the right to fly over Iran. Obviously, Israel wanted to take out Iran's nuclear sites. President Bush turned the requests down. Bush pursued further covert ops instead. Israel wasn't the only one who thought the CIA's 2007 NIE was wrong. British intelligence agreed.

So here we are in 2009, knowing for certain that Iran has engaged in deception regarding it's nuclear ambitions, and the problem has been kicked down the road to President Obama. The Iranians continue with their nuclear plans unabated, while America and the UN continue the same path as always, negotiations and threats of sanctions. In the meantime, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is meeting with Vladimir Putin to ask Russia to stop helping Iran build a nuclear bomb. I assume Russia cannot stop helping unless they have already BEEN helping.

The problem with negotiating with Iran is simple – the Iranians lie.

The problem with sanctions against Iran are mainly two – Russia and China, who have shared economic interests with Iran, namely, oil. India is also heavily interwined with Iran's oil industry, along with many other countries. The Russians and the Chinese help Iran negate the power of any sanctions. One of the sanctions being discussed against Iran now is a ban on importation of oil products to Iran. Even though Iran is an oil-rich country, a lack of oil refining facilities causes Iran to import much of it's gasoline and other petroleum products. China opposes those sanctions and has restated it's prioritization of Iranian oil. Russia said recently it will "consider" new sanctions against Iran (my translation: Russia will vote against any truly harsh sanctions, or will continue to help Iran get around them. I'd love to be wrong about this).

If negotiations are fruitless, and sanctions can be gotten around, what's left ? Military action against Iran ? Non-military regime change ? Can anyone see Obama or the UN actually taking military action against Iran ? Very doubtful, and the American people are extremely war weary already. The way I see it, Israel is the only one who'd be willing to take military action, but they'd most likely have to do it without American or UN approval, which makes that a lot more dicey, and since we don't even know how many nuclear facilities Iran has, it may not even work.

In conclusion, welcome to the dawning of a new age – an Iranian theocratic, terrorist-supporting government, with a holocaust-denying, apocalyptic President who openly states that he wants to destroy Israel, having nuclear weapons. What could possibly go wrong ? Besides everything. Various experts say Iran could have a bomb between next year and 2013, but the experts have been wrong about quite a lot in the Middle East in recent years, so who knows ?

I sure hope I'm wrong. We need your help, President Obama. This is way beyond partisanship or political ideology. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it could and probably would start an arms race throughout the Middle East. I can barely think of a less desirable outcome.

"For those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months." - President Barack Hussein Obama, narcissist, addressing the United Nations, September, 2009.

I'm sure glad Barry came along and fixed the character and cause of this nation after 232 years of American villainy, aren't you ? On the bright side, at least he didn't call pre-Obama America "The Great Satan." And our President spoke these words in front of an audience that included the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, Moammar Gadhafi, and a slew of other human rights violators (many of whom are on the Orwellian UN Human Rights Council).
===
"Since Americans can only be prodded into doing something with money, we need to tax crappy foods that make us sick like we do with cigarettes, and alcohol." - pot-smoking comedian Bill Maher, September, 2009.

Unbelievably, Maher calls himself a Libertarian. In reality, he's just another authoritarian left-winger. Someone should familiarize Maher with the words "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It's none of Bill Maher's business who smokes, drinks, or eats what, which Maher would quickly realize if someone took his weed away. Maher's "libertarianism" extends only to his desire to get high. What a hypocrite.
===
"Is capitalism a sin ?" - Leni Riefenstahl Award-winning, Castro-loving filmmaker Michael Moore, in a trailer from his forthcoming movie, Capitalism, A Love Story.

The answer from Moore's questionee is "yes," by the way, capitalism IS a sin. Hugo Chavez couldn't have said it better.
===
"President Obama didn't make much news on his round of five Sunday talk shows … with one notable exception. The President revealed a great deal about his philosophy of government and how he defines a tax increase. It turns out the President thinks a health-care tax is not a tax if he thinks the tax is for your own good. … Mr. Obama was asked by [ABC] host George Stephanopoulos about the 'individual mandate.' Under Max Baucus's Senate bill that Mr. Obama supports, everyone would be required to buy health insurance or else pay a penalty as high as $3,800 a year. Mr. Stephanopoulos posed the obvious question about this kind of coercion when 'the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't [buy insurance]. … How is that not a tax?' 'Well, hold on a second, George,' Mr. Obama replied. 'Here's what's happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average — our families — in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I've said is that if you can't afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn't be punished for that. That's just piling on. If, on the other hand, we're giving tax credits, we've set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we've driven down the costs, we've done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you've just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that's…' 'That may be,' Mr. Stephanopoulos responded, 'but it's still a tax increase.' (In fact, uncompensated care accounts for about only 2.2% of national health spending today, but that's another subject.) Mr. Obama: 'No. That's not true, George. The — for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore…' In other words, like parents talking to their children, this levy — don't call it a tax — is for your own good. … Mr. Obama complains that 'My critics say everything is a tax increase,' as if that is his political problem. His real problem is that the individual mandate really is a tax, but the President doesn't want voters to think of it that way, because taxes are unpopular." –The Wall Street Journal, September, 2009.

Yes, of course, Obama's penalty for not having health insurance is a tax, no matter what he wants to call it. Obama probably wouldn't consider his cap-and-trade proposal a tax either, but that's exactly what it is. The creative subterfuge being engaged in by Democrats these days is to pass tax increases without calling them tax increases. Instead, they are called penalties, mandates, fees, carbon allowances, etc. Does this stuff actually fool anyone ? (except for liberals, that is). I hope not. Obama isn't "helping the little guy" one bit, in case anyone hasn't noticed (and the media sure hasn't). He's only raising the little guy's expenses, through both direct and indirect means. This brings to mind Ronald Reagan's quote about the most terrifying words in the english language – "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
===
"We understand the gravity of the climate threat. We are determined to act. And we will meet our responsibility to future generations." - Barack Obama, speaking at the UN climate change conference, September, 2009.

"Responsibility to future generations," eh ? More than a tad ironic, coming from the President who is running up the debt faster than every other administration in history combined, thereby irresponsibly ruining the prospects of future generations.
===
"It doesn't smell of sulfur here anymore. It smells of something else. It smells of hope." - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, addressing the UN, September, 2009.

The "sulfur" smell was Bush, whom Chavez called "the devil" at last year's UN meeting. The "hope" smell is Obama. It's sure nice that we've won over Chavez, don't you think ? Yes, he may be a tyrannical nut who nationalizes industries, shuts down opposition media, and puts opposition political figures in jail, but that's the socialist way. Because Chavez's version of "hope" would be hope of a worldwide socialist revolution, I wonder what it is he likes so much about Obama ??? I can agree with Chavez on this much – something smells alright.

When the democratically elected Honduran president, Manuel Zelaya, was removed from office by the Honduran military, President Obama immediately denounced it as an illegal military coup. Obama stated "our goal now is on restoring democratic order in Honduras." Obama was joined by a slew of others criticizing Honduras for removing Zelaya. United Nations chief Ban Ki-Moon called the Honduran actions "an unconstitutional change of power." The Organization of American States (OAS) issued an ultimatum to Honduras to either restore Zelaya within 72 hours or be suspended from the OAS. Latin Leftist leaders (dictators) are in an uproar and threatening violence. Cuba's Fidel Castro called the Zelaya coup "a suicidal error," and urged a reverse coup. Venezuela's Hugo Chavez pledged that "we will bring them [the new Honduras leaders] down," and said Venezuelan troops are on alert. Chavez, who in addition to being a Leftist strongman, is also a coked up lunatic, also blamed the USA for the coup, by saying the Honduran coup leaders "had Yankee support," though Chavez admits that Obama was against the coup (it must be that other US government that supported it). Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega called on President Obama to stand firm against the Honduran coup (pretty ironic when only a few months ago, Ortega blasted Obama with a 50-minute long diatribe railing AGAINST the USA's interference in Central America).

With all this condemnation taking place, it's easy to forget what actually happened in Honduras. What makes it even easier to forget is that our media doesn't tell us what really happened there. They gloss over the details by saying something like "the military removed Zelaya shortly before a vote about term limits." Well, that doesn't quite cover it. There's more to that story. A lot more.

First, a few words about the government of Honduras. It is a democratic constitutional republic. Honduras holds free elections. It has a Constitution (since 1982), a Congress, and a Supreme Court. A division of power.

The Constitution of Honduras sets strict term limits and bars any changes to those term limits, and that is where the current problem started. President Zelaya would have been term-limited out of office next january, and Zelaya, a Chavez wannabe, wasn't too keen on that idea. He wanted term limits repealed, and moved unilaterally to have a referendum vote on the matter, in violation of the Honduran Constitution, against the Honduran attorney general, and in violation of the Honduran Supreme Court, who ruled against him. Zelaya went ahead with his referendum anyway. When the military refused to pass out the illegal ballots, Zelaya fired the head of the military, then he had (drumroll, please) his buddy HUGO CHAVEZ print up the ballots for the illegal term limits vote. With the illegal vote only hours away, the Supreme Court ordered Zelaya be arrested. At that point, Zelaya was removed from office and kicked out of the country.

Is that a coup, or is it enforcing the constitutional rule of law against Zelaya's illegal power grab ? I think it's far more the latter than the former. It's true that Zelaya didn't get any due process according to our standards, but the Honduran standards are not our standards. Here's article 239 of the Honduran Constitution:

Article 239 — No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President.

Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.

The Constitution mandated that Zelaya be removed from office IMMEDIATELY, and that's exactly what happened. The rule of law prevailed over Zelaya's selfish interests. So, when you hear the new interim President of Honduras, Roberto Micheletti, say ""We are abiding by the Constitution of our country and that's why we have national support," he is correct. That's also why the Congress of Honduras voted to keep Zelaya out of office.

I understand why Leftist leaders around the world are condemning the so-called coup in Honduras, because they are interested in obtaining power through any means necessary, but why did President Obama join in so strongly and immediately in denouncing the removal of Zelaya ? What does Obama stand for, the constitutional rule of law, or the unilateral and illegal bullying tactics of Manuel Zelaya ? There's a question I'd love to hear the press ask our President.

We have another Obama nominee who didn't pay taxes (notify the CDC. This is becoming an epidemic):

President Obama’s choice as chief of protocol for the State Department, a position that carries the status of an ambassadorship, did not file tax returns for 2005 and 2006, errors she corrected last November. The nominee, Capricia Penavic Marshall, has placed blame for the problem on the Postal Service and on miscommunication between her husband and their accountant.

Ah, the old "it got lost in the mail" excuse. I'm also wondering what kind of an accountant forgets to file one's income taxes. Perhaps the Dems all use the same one. Time for a switch.
—
President Obama is in trouble with a liberal group – for killing a fly during a television interview, in an impressive display of hand-eye coordination by our prez. PETA is upset. They are terming Obama's act an "execution," and called for President Miyagi to show compassion for "the least sympathetic animals." Compassion for unsympathetic creatures is a liberal trait, so PETA has a point here. I mean, who is a more unsympathetic animal than 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed ? Liberals have sympathy for him. They'd even like to put President Bush in prison for swatting KSM. I have more sympathy for the fly.
—
An Iranian envoy to the IAEA, the UN atomic watchdog group, is gonna be in big trouble with the Mullahs back home, because he let the cat out of the bag regarding Iran's intentions to acquire nuclear weapons (like we didn't already know):

After saying as usual that Iran was only pursuing nuclear energy for civilian purposes, Ali Asghar Soltanieh strayed alarmingly from the Islamic republic's usual line.

"The whole Iranian nation are united… on (the) inalienable right of (having a) nuclear weapon," the envoy to the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency said.

Oops. Maybe what Soltanieh meant was, Iran would only use their nuclear weapons for civilian purposes, like to nuke those civilian protestors and their crazy ideas about fair democratic elections.
—
It seems the Israelis have lost their appetite for Hopenchange. They no longer think Obama is pro-Israel, according to the latest poll:

The percentage of Jewish Israelis who see the Obama administration as being pro-Israel has declined from 31% to 6% since May 17 according to a JPost/Smith poll published in Friday's editions. In the intervening month, Obama gave his homily to the Muslim world in Cairo on June 4, and his administration has come into open conflict with Israel's leaders over a 'settlement freeze' and over the opening of the Gaza crossings without the release of kidnapped IDF corporal Gilad Shalit.

In related news, more Americans are starting to catch on to what Hopenchange really is – total domination by the federal government. Obama's poll ratings are dropping here too, down to 56% approval for the prez, according to an NBC/Wall Street Journal survey:

According to the survey , the greatest loss of support was registered among those who described themselves as "politically independent."
"President Obama’s honeymoon is coming to an end," affirmed Chuck Todd, the NBC correspondent to the White House, while presenting the results of the survey.
"The public appears to be judging the president for some of his actions. There is now a growing concern over the budget deficit, as well as other government measures with respect to the economy," he added.

Outrageous. Judging the president for his actions ?!?! What kind of right-wing claptrap is Chuck Todd trying to pass off here ? You just gotta B-E-L-I-E-V-E, people. Don't worry your pretty little heads. Remember, Obama is "saving" jobs, even though we've lost 1.6 million jobs since the $800 billion Porkulus package was passed. Remember, Obama is "fiscally responsible," even though we're going to have the largest single year deficit in American history, with more enormous deficits as far as the eye can see. Don't worry, be happy. Besides, the Federal Reserve is in charge now, with the new financial rules Obama has put in place. The Fed will oversee everything, so it's all being handled. Problem solved.

As a reminder of how well the Fed handles things, just remember what a great job Ben Bernanke, the current Fed chairman, did in predicting the housing market crash and recession we're in now. Let's go to the videotape !

In Bernanke's defense, except for housing, energy, the automobile industry, the stock market, the economy, the coming recession, jobs, and just about everything else, Bernake NAILED it from 2005-2007. Also, once we were up to our necks in the recession, Bernanke DID recognize it. He's the expert leading the Fed now, so, no worries. What could possibly go wrong ?

This morning I wanted to write about President Obama's speech in Cairo, Egypt. I thought it was a very good speech, once you get past our President's troubling penchant to go overseas and heap blame on America again and again. That drives me nuts. Somebody should tell Obama that it is a real bad idea to condemn the Iraq War when OUR SOLDIERS ARE STILL IN IRAQ FIGHTING IT. Has any other U.S. President ever done such a thing ? I can't think of one.

But I'm not going to write about that, because I can't stop thinking about the murder of Dr. George Tiller, the late term abortionist. Not surprisingly, the family of the alleged assassin, Scott Roeder, says that Roeder is mentally ill. The Wichita District Attorney handling the case said Tiller's murder was the act of a lone gunman. No doubt, the lone gunman theory is a disappointment to certain liberal groups who want the culprit to be – the entire pro-life and conservative movements. Maybe someone should evaluate the mental fitness of those liberal groups.

Since the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision in 1973, we have aborted 49 million babies here in the land of the free. Anti-abortion extremist nuts like Scott Roeder have killed 5 doctors. As much as I condemn the killings of those 5 doctors, maybe we should try to do something about that 49 million number too. I'm just saying. 49 million seems like a much bigger problem than 5. Let's start by getting rid of late term abortions (third trimester).

In the aforementioned Roe v. Wade decision, the court ruled that a mother may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes viable.’" The Court defined "viable" as follows:

"[The fetus is] potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."

Here in the year 2009, with current medical technology, fetuses are viable at 24 weeks, and even earlier. Roe v. Wade also ruled that abortion after viability was allowed in order to protect a woman's health. A woman's "health" was defined in the lesser known Doe v. Bolton Supreme Court case, also from 1973. Here's the relevant definition of "health" from that case:

“Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age – relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health."

In other words, a woman's "health" can mean almost anything. If a woman is merely upset that she is pregnant, a doctor like George Tiller can say the woman's emotional or psychological "health" is at risk, and provide a late term abortion five minutes prior to the baby's birth, according to the Doe v. Bolton ruling. Oddly enough, the anonymous "Mary Doe," who was the plaintiff in Doe v. Bolton, is in real life Sandra Cano. Cano describes herself as pro-life, and tried to get Doe v. Bolton overturned. Cano said her attorney lied to her in order to get a plaintiff to bring the case. Cano said she was not aware she was even the plaintiff in the case, and if she had been aware of it, she wouldn't have supported the litigiation. In 2003, Cano filed a motion to get the case reopened. The District and Appellate courts denied her motion, and the Supreme Court declined to hear her case.

I would not want to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision. I'm grudgingly pro-choice (for this week, at least). I don't want to return to the days of back-alley abortions, but I most definitely think the Doe v. Bolton case is a travesty. It makes the abortion right virtually unlimited, and allows for viable fetuses (commonly known as "babies"), to be killed. When a baby is killed, there is no word for that other than murder, whether it's legal or not. It's morally wrong, without doubt. It was also legal in this country at one time to hold slaves and deny women the right to vote. Those things were morally wrong as well, and they were corrected. This should be corrected too. The only time a late term abortion should be allowed is if the mother's life is at significant risk. We love to talk about human rights in this country, and then we withdraw ALL human rights for the most innocent and fragile humans among us. That is a stain on our national soul, and it occasionally gives rise to acts of extremism like that of Scott Roeder, who decided that if a person can be aborted in the third trimester, why not abort one in the 270th trimester (which is about where Dr. Tiller was at age 67). I'm certain that Scott Roeder thought he was murdering a murderer. While I don't approve of his actions in any way, I find it difficult to disagree with him on that point.

But don't hold your breath expecting sanity on the abortion issue to come from our current President. Obama even voted against the Born Alive Protection Act when he was an Illinois legislator. That act only required that babies surviving abortion not be thrown in the trash can and left to die. Obama voted AGAINST that. He's every bit as mentally ill as Scott Roeder when it comes to the issue of abortion.

Baffle 'em with you-know-what.

If Washington D.C. has a credo, that must surely be it. The media isn't far behind.

But before I get into that, I'd like to take a moment to thank President Obama for saving us all from last week's swine flu pandemic (worldwide epidemic). Just think, if Bush was still the President, we'd probably all be dead now. Plus, Obama saved the country for the bargain basement price of $1.5 billion, which hasn't even been spent yet. Oh man, that Obama is GOOD.

The media was speculating today that the recession has bottomed out, because we only LOST 539,000 jobs in April. This rosy optimism came because the experts had predicted job losses of over 600,000. The media left out that the government hired 66,000 people to do the census, and the government hired many others as well (which accounts for almost the entire difference between the projections and the actual job numbers). Those government jobs are all on the taxpayer dime, of course, and add nothing to economic growth. The private sector is still hemorrhaging jobs as fast as ever, but I guess the media is looking for something positive to hand their hat on, because Obama is the president now, and that means CHANGE has come. Call me crazy, but I'll say the recession is over when we start CREATING jobs instead of losing them. The media's optimism comes in spite of the fact that GDP shrunk by 6.1% in the first quarter, and that we're $11 trillion in debt, and that we'll be running a $1.8 trillion deficit this year, and that we have massive deficits projected as far as the eye can see, and that Obama is projected to double the national debt in four years and triple it in eight years, and that unemployment is 8.9%, the highest in 25 years, and that we had a Treasury bond auction with demand so weak that we had to pay higher interest rates just to continue selling our long-term debt (which will raise Obama's deficit and debt projections even higher), and that our industrial base is vanishing, and that what's left of it is collapsing, and that we have massive unfunded entitlement liabilities looming on the horizon (growing at the rate of $2 trillion yearly), and that most of our state governments are broke, and that many banks failed the stress tests (they need $75 billion more bailout dollars, with more surely to come), and that credit still isn't flowing after $700 billion spent on TARP, and that companies all across the country are cutting back the hours of the workers they are retaining, and that if you add the folks who have fallen off the unemployment rolls to the unemployed numbers, unemployment comes out close to 15%, and that the federal government is spending dollars it doesn't have at an all-time record pace, and that the government is printing trillions of dollars out of thin air, and that the government has committed a total of $12 trillion thus far in fighting the recession, and that on top of that, Obama wants to raise energy prices through the roof and create lots more entitlements…………

I guess other than that, happy days are here again.

Oh yeah, and we're still fighting two wars, Obama has no idea what to do with the Gitmo prisoners, we're funneling money to Hamas, we're pondering whether to charge Bushco with war crimes, Pelosi's STILL lying about her knowledge of waterboarding even after the leaked CIA information proves she lied her butt off, Obama is looking for a Supreme Court Justice who is "empathetic" to certain groups as opposed to one who follows the law, the price index is rising in while we're in the depths of recession, Iran is almost certain to have nuclear weapons soon, the Pakistan government is in jeopardy (and Pakistan has nukes, which just maybe could be a problem if the Taliban gets their hands on)…

But other than that, everything's coming up roses.

Plus, Obama cut $17 billion from the budget. Golf clap for Obama. What the media left out of that story was that Obama isn't reducing the deficit by that $17 billion, oh no, he's going to use that money for OTHER government programs, so the net savings to taxpayers is ZERO. This is what passes for fiscal responsibility in the new Obama CHANGE era.

But it's all good. Thar's a new sheriff in town, and he reads that thar teleprompter REAL good.

Never mind that in order to avert fiscal armaggedon, Obama is going to have to come up with a tax increase of proportions never before contemplated in this country's history. By my reckoning, it will have to be at least $2 trillion per year to cover the deficits, interest on the debt, and the unfunded entitlements. It's either that or make drastic government spending cuts, and you know our new sheriff ain't 'bout to do that. Only them thar rightwing extremist fellas talk that kind o' crazy talk.

Welcome to the age of universal government.

I've gone on several rants on this blog previously about what a Ponzi scheme Social Security is. I now realize I've been thinking too small. It isn't just SS that is a Ponzi scheme. It's our entire federal government, and that Ponzi scheme is unraveling. The new funds required from the taxpayers can no longer keep up with the demand for funds the federal government requires. Like all Ponzi schemes, even one on as grand a scale as our government, it is destined to collapse.

But remember, put your hand over your mouth when you cough, and wash your hands frequently. Then everything should be fine.

In it's first 100 days, the Obama administration has shifted gears on national security issues. Does political ideology now trump national security ? Here are a few things to think about.

- The release of the Bush OLC "torture" memos. There was NO reason to release those memos, other than political ones. Obama cited a lawsuit as the reason, but Obama is the President. He could have resisted the lawsuit. The President Of The United States ALWAYS has the right to keep classified information secret. Obama's cited lawsuit justification was bogus. This was pure politics.

- The coming release of photos of alleged Iraq prisoner abuses. Obama is citing the same reasons as he did over the OLC "torture" memos. They are equally as bogus. Politics over national security again. The OLC memos and alleged abuse photos do NOTHING to help our national security, and do plenty to harm it as propaganda tools for the enemy.

- Janet Napolitano, head of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), said illegally crossing the border "isn't a crime." Since when, and in what country is that true ? Illegally crossing the border into any country is a crime. I'm sure glad Napolitano isn't concerned with border crossings, since she's only the head of HOMELAND freaking SECURITY. Good lord.

- Janet Napolitano released the absurd report about "rightwing extremism" that didn't cite a single rightwing group posing a threat (except for Timothy McVeigh, who is dead), but still managed to imply national threats from veterans, pro-lifers, border enforcers, and those who believe in the Constitution of the United States. Napolitano's rightwing extremist report may as well have cut to the chase and identified the "extremist" group she is really worried about – REPUBLICANS. Can I get a second on the idea that Janet Napolitano should be replaced as DHS head, and perhaps get a job more suited to her skills, like maybe as a Corporate Diversity Trainer at Moveon.org ?

- Obama is wavering on European missile defense, and said he'd be willing to abandon it in exchange for Iran's cooperation on nukes. Russia loves the idea, but, being old-school, I always thought the POTUS was supposed to advanced AMERICA'S interests, not Russia's.

- Obama announced the closure of the terrorist prison in Guantanomo Bay before he knew what to do with the detainees being held there. Strictly a public relations move. Since then, other countries have said they won't take the terrorists off our hands (what a shocker), and now Obama is saying he'll release 17 Chinese Gitmo terrorist detainees into the United States. What an improvement over the Bush policies ! NOT. No word yet on whether Obama will Free Mumia.

- Obama made a public announcement in banning ALL of the enhanced interrogation techniques used by the Bush administration following 9/11. Hurrah ! Our moral integrity as a nation is restored (and now the terrorists know exactly how to resist our new wimpy interrogation methods, which we've spelled out for them). I'm sure this will never be a problem, because the terrorist threat is all over…..right ?

- Obama closed all the overseas CIA detention centers. I guess this is okay, because we can't do anything to get captured terrorists to spill the beans anymore anyway. An unnamed source (which I can neither confirm nor deny as being me) says the Obama administration will replace the CIA detention center interrogation program with a new Take A Terrorist To Starbuck's program that is more "moral." Janet Napolitano says terrorists are known to have a fondness for double mocha lattes, and will surely not be able to resist. Victory is at hand.

- Obama halted the military commissions trial of the mastermind of the USS Cole bombing, for the obvious reason that we can't trust our own military to do anything right, especially during wartime. I'm sure that will boost soldier morale. We should use a more objective court to try detainees instead, preferably one selected by the ACLU, or even better yet, by the anti-semitic U.N. Human Rights Council. Musn't overlook international law, because Europe and Asia are better than us.

- The Obama administration made some critical changes in terminology. "Terrorism" is now "man-made disaster." (Does this make CO2 emissions a terrorist act ? I'm sure Algore would think so.) The "war on terror" is now the "overseas contingency operation." And "Republicans" will now be called "Evildoers," but that is only for internal White House communications. The official stance of the Obama administration will still be "tolerance and inclusivity." And naturally, "hope and change."

- Obama has given over $20 million in aid to the Palestinians in Gaza. The one itsy-bitsy problem here is that Gaza is run by Hamas, a designated terrorist group, and Hamas is known to intercept any and all humanitarian aid that heads it's way, diverting the aid for Hamas' own use. Even the U.N. has stopped sending aid to the Palestinians for this reason. In Obama's defense, he might see this as a key terrorist trust-building exercise. I don't know. In any case, it's only $20 million. It's not like we're talking about real money, and maybe we can make some new terrorist friends. It's not like we have any substantive ideological differences with Islamic extremists. We may be infidels, but we're inclusive infidels now.

- Obama's World Apology Tour 2009. Obama has apologized to Europe, the Middle East, Mexico, and South America. What can I say ? America sucks and the liberals know it. It's their new-fangled "power through weakness and self-doubt" theory. Come to think of it, it isn't that new.

- On the plus side, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says that we are now "on track" in Iraq. This is certainly good news. In only 100 days, Obama and company have us "on track" after six years of Bush ineptitude. Hillary's own intellectual journey on Iraq is also, um, "transformative." In 2002, she condemned Saddam for his wmd, echoing her hubby's position. In 2005, she condemned Bush for lying to her about Saddam's wmd. In 2006, she opposed the surge (which is the reason Iraq is "on track" today), and now she has come full circle back to supporting the US effort in Iraq. Hillary is most definitely a woman of principle. No transparent political motives in her. No sirree.

- Also on the plus side, Obama is ramping up the fight in Afghanistan, continuing the NSA surveillance Bush started, and is striking at Pakistan with drones (which Congress has never approved, in contrast to the Congressionally approved actions in Iraq and Afghanistan). No word yet on why the far lefties aren't calling Obama a war criminal and demanding he be prosecuted. I'm going to guess it's because he's a Democrat, but maybe there's another reason. If so, I'd love to hear it.

President Obama has been criticized in conservative circles for going around the world and apologizing for America, and also for reaching out to America's enemies. I have criticized Obama myself for the apologizing, which I consider counterproductive. America does, after all, engage in diplomacy in order to advance America's interests, not to immolate itself on the world stage or score political points back home. Obama's latest apology was to Mexico, where Obama repeated the false statistic, previously cited by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and others, that 90% of the weapons used by the Mexican drug cartels come from America. The real number of weapons traceable back to the U.S. is 17.6%. The Obama administration should have known better.

Where I think the conservatives are wrong is in criticizing Obama for engaging antagonist foreign powers in the first place. As an opening foreign policy gambit, which is what Obama's world tour is, a first act in a longer foreign policy play, I think it's quite smart of Obama to engage our enemies as well as our friends. Without opening the channels of communication, how is progress even possible ? It isn't. As long as Obama isn't making strategic concessions to our enemies, there is no harm in talking to them, and there is a potential benefit. In that sense, pushing the reset button is a good thing.

So far, there are few tangible foreign policy benefits. Cuba has signaled that it is willing to put discussions of everything on the table, including Cuba's political prisoners and human rights violations. If true, some real good could be accomplished there. In South America, Obama has had to endure a litany recitation of America's alleged sins against our Latin neighbors. The coca-head Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez gave our President a book as a gift. The book was "Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent" by Uruguayan author Eduardo Galeano. As you can probably tell by the title, it is a highly critical portrait of American and European foreign policy in South America. Obama sat through a 50-minute long anti-American tirade by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, where Ortega spoke of "terroristic U.S. aggression in Central America." While Hillary Clinton dodged questions about Ortega's inflammatory words, Obama eventually said this:

"To move forward, we cannot let ourselves be prisoners of past disagreements. I'm grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old. Too often, an opportunity to build a fresh partnership of the Americas has been undermined by stale debates. We've all heard these arguments before."

That's only a mild slap at Ortega, but Obama's words were well-chosen. We can't move forward on foreign policy while looking only at the past. Several other Latin American leaders complained about U.S. foreign policy as well.

Obama has made a couple recent moves on foreign policy that I wholeheartedly agree with. The first was in allowing the Navy to take out the Somali pirates if the American captain's life was under imminent threat. There was no other decision to make there, and Obama made the right one, even though it took a couple days longer than it should have for him to make it. America's policy of non-negotation with thugs remains. Secondly, Obama pulled out of the United Nations international council on racism, because of the U.N. inclusion of a draft document that is itself racist. The UN Human Rights Council has long singled our Israel for human rights violations while ignoring the human rights violations of other countries. Much of the UN Human Rights Council is anti-semitic, and Obama was correct in not legitimizing racism in the name of fighting racism. Australia, Canada, Israel, Italy and Sweden are also not attending.

By traveling around the world, our new President is getting the education in foreign affairs that he needs. We have a long way to go, and the tough decisions remain, but overall, for a new President, Obama is off to a pretty good start on foreign relations. The conservatives would be well-served by not engaging in knee-jerk criticism solely for political gain, because that's what it's starting to sound like. With the exception of easing travel restrictions to Cuba, Obama hasn't abandoned any long-held American foreign policies yet, and a change in American-Cuban relations is probably overdue anyway. When you criticize, it's only helpful if there's actually something of which to be critical. If you're critical of open dialogue only because 'thy name is Obama,' well, then that is the conservatives problem, not Obama's.

What if Bush or Palin said this ?: "It was also interesting to see that political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate. There's a lot of — I don't know what the term is in Austrian — wheeling and dealing — and, you know, people are pursuing their interests, and everybody has their own particular issues and their own particular politics" – Barack Obama, who apparently doesn't know that Austrians speak German.

Yes, but freedom fries were before Sarkozy: "In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." – Barack Obama, Apologist-In-Chief. Maybe you didn't notice Barry, but Europe was pretty dismissive of YOU during your overseas lovefest. The NATO countries are bailing on the Afghanistan War. Someone please remind me, why does NATO still exist ?

Um, weren't those JUDEO-CHRISTIAN ideals and values ?: "One of the great strengths of the United States is — although as I mentioned, we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation; we consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values." - Barack Obama in Turkey.

The times, they are a changin': "London hosted a Group of 20 meeting amid chaos. Chinese communists are now the capitalists, France's president is Hungarian, the Anglo-Saxons are being led by a socialist and a Kenyan, and Germany is refusing to send troops into other countries. Astronauts aboard the Space Station report the Earth is spinning backwards." – comedian Argus Hamilton.

This guy knows liberals: "The Huffington Post is organizing "citizen journalists" to attend the protests, allegedly to "report." Which means that they will try to find someone in a crowd who says something stupid, will post it on the internet, and build an argument around it trying to demonize the movement. And left-wing bloggers will react in unison like dogs responding to a whistle, about the "dangerous" and "violent" and "racist" tea parties. This tactic is as old as time; or at least as old as the internet." - William Jacobson, creator of the website Legal Insurrection, describing the pre-emptive faux-horror strategy of the left about the upcoming "treasonous and seditious" tea party rallies. Which reminds me, I'll see you at the Cleveland Tax Day Tea Party rally on April 15th at Mall C from 4-6pm.

And here's the reason why we are having Tea Party rallies: "Finally, what of the claim not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 a year? Even ignoring his large energy taxes, Mr. Obama must reconcile his arithmetic. Every dollar of debt he runs up means that future taxes must be $1 higher in present-value terms. Mr. Obama is going to leave a discounted present-value legacy of $6.5 trillion of additional future taxes, unless he dramatically cuts spending. (With interest the future tax hikes would be much larger later on.) Call it a stealth tax increase or ticking tax time-bomb.
What does $6.5 trillion of additional debt imply for the typical family? If spread evenly over all those paying income taxes (which under Mr. Obama’s plan would shrink to a little over 50% of the population), every income-tax paying family would get a tax bill for $163,000. (In 10 years, interest would bring the total to well over a quarter million dollars, if paid all at once. If paid annually over the succeeding 10 years, the tax hike every year would average almost $34,000.) That’s in addition to his explicit tax hikes. While the future tax time-bomb is pushed beyond Mr. Obama’s budget horizon, and future presidents and Congresses will decide how it will be paid, it is likely to be paid by future income tax hikes as these are general fund deficits." – Michael Boskin.

For science lover's only: "New research from NASA suggests that the Arctic warming trend seen in recent decades has indeed resulted from human activities: but not, as is widely assumed at present, those leading to carbon dioxide emissions. Rather, Arctic warming has been caused in large part by laws introduced to improve air quality and fight acid rain. Dr Drew Shindell of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has led a new study which indicates that much of the general upward trend in temperatures since the 1970s – particularly in the Arctic – may have resulted from changes in levels of solid “aerosol” particles in the atmosphere, rather than elevated CO2. Arctic temperatures are of particular concern to those worried about the effects of global warming, as a melting of the ice cap could lead to disastrous rises in sea level – of a sort which might burst the Thames Barrier and flood London, for instance.
Shindell’s research indicates that, ironically, much of the rise in polar temperature seen over the last few decades may have resulted from US and European restrictions on sulphur emissions. According to NASA:
Sulfates, which come primarily from the burning of coal and oil, scatter incoming solar radiation and have a net cooling effect on climate. Over the past three decades, the United States and European countries have passed a series of laws that have reduced sulfate emissions by 50 percent. While improving air quality and aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates." – Lewis Page, The Register.

Snort. I knew those NASA guys were nothing but a bunch of evangelical religious nut holocaust denying flat-earther zealots in the pocket of big oil. Geez. Don't they know the "debate is over," as the pre-eminent [non]scientist Al Gore says ? Enough with this so-called "science." It only confuses people.

In 2006, North Korea attempted a launch of a Taepodong-2 ballistic missile. The launch failed, with the missile blowing apart about 40 seconds after takeoff. In response to the North Korean launch, the United Nations issued Resolution 1718, which stated, "[We demand] that the DPRK [North Korea] not conduct any further nuclear test or launch of a ballistic missile." The North Koreans ignored the resolution, and launched another test of the Taepodong-2 ballistic missile last week. Rogue regimes like North Korea treat UN resolutions like the toothless requests that they usually are. Saddam Hussein ignored about 14 UN resolutions regarding WMD inspections in Iraq during the 1990's. Iran hasn't cared a whit about multiple UN resolutions calling for Iran to alter it's nuclear ambitions.

So, now that North Korea has proven it will ignore UN resolutions, guess what President Obama wants in response to the Korean missile test ??? He wants ANOTHER UN resolution, of course. Here's Obama on the missile test:

We will immediately consult with our allies in the region, including Japan and the Republic of Korea, and members of the U.N. Security Council to bring this matter before the Council.

I don't mean to single out only Obama here. Things were much the same under Bush and Clinton too. If countries like North Korea and Iran were responsive to the international community, they wouldn't be considered rogue regimes in the first place. NK and Iran didn't comprise two of the three countries in Bush's "axis of evil" for nothing (notably absent from the axis of evil now is IRAQ. I wonder what happened there ?)

President Obama called an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council in response to North Korea's launch. After a three hour closed door session, the Security Council announced…..nothing. They couldn't agree on a response. Obama is urging for a strong response to North Korea, whatever that means, but Russia, China, Libya, Uganda, and Vietnam all called for restraint by the UN (is the UN ever anything OTHER than restrained ?). These countries are saying a strong UN response will endanger the Six Party Talks (that North Korea is already ignoring). Russia even laughably claimed to be "studying" whether North Korea actually violated any UN resolutions, which NK so obviously did.

Ironically, the North Koreans launched their Taepodong-2 missile on the same day Obama called for "a world without nuclear weapons." While I applaud Obama's notions to reduce strategic nuclear weapons, stop their proliferation, and secure nuclear material around the world, there will NEVER be a world without nukes. That genie is out of the bottle. There's no going back. Obama was being naive in that respect. At this point, it is the dark threat of mutually assured destruction that keeps nuclear weapons from being used. If the major powers like the U.S., Russia, and China abandoned their nuclear weapons, it would actually increase the threat that rogue regimes and terrorist groups like Al Qaeda could pose to the world if they acquired nukes. The rest of the world would be defenseless.

Obama also reversed course on European missile defense, and is attempting to use it as a bargaining chip to get Iran to stop it's nuclear program. Here's Obama again:

"Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the US, but to Iran's neighbours and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system."

I guess you could call this a kind of nuclear cap-and-trade policy, but to my way of thinking, this bargain should not be struck, even if Iran does agree to it. Iran isn't the only nuclear threat to Europe, not to mention that Iran cannot be trusted to keep their side of the bargain, any more than North Korea could be trusted to keep it's past pledges.
—
FYI – Don't forget to attend the Cleveland Tax Day Tea Party on April 15th. The event will take place from 4-6pm. The location has been moved from Public Square to Mall C. Nuclear weapons aren't the only thing proliferating. So is the government confiscation of our hard-earned money.

I'm no expert in international protocol, so maybe someone can explain this to me:

The Queen of England, our greatest ally, gets a little nod from Obama, but the Saudi Arabian monarch, who heads a repressive and radical regime, gets a deep submissive bow (notice that the Saudi didn't return the gesture). Former President Bush was criticized for holding hands with the Saudi king (a show of friendship), but I'd say Obama's gesture goes quite a bit further.

With Obama caving to Russia and the EU, and apologizing to Europe for America, maybe submission is the new American foreign policy.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is quite pleased that the United States government is approaching foreign policy with a new attitude. He is willing to deal with the USA based upon "mutual respect and equality." Ahmadinejad is all about CHANGE.

As long as it's the United States that does all the changing. (link)

In an interview with Iranian state-run television, Mr Ahmadinejad once again called upon Washington's new administration of President Barack Obama to implement changes that could make a "real" difference in the region.

"If they accept the rights of the Palestinians, the Afghans… if there is a real change, relations can change," he said.

"We are waiting to see the change. A lot of people are awaiting the change and if they [the United States] do change the relationship will change itself."

However, Mr Ahmadinejad also said his country's controversial nuclear programme which the West suspects is aimed at making atomic weapons is a "closed" chapter.

"If anybody wants to talk of the nuclear issue, they would be hurting themselves," he said in the television interview.

So, if the USA allows Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, and if the USA gets out of Afghanistan, and if the USA drops it's support of Israel, and if the USA supports the Palestinians instead, then that is change that Ahmadinejad can believe in. As for anything else, forget it.

Piece of cake. Who said it would be difficult to deal with Iran ?

Iran has decided the nuclear issue is "closed" without letting the UN know what Iran is up to.

"Iran right now is not providing any access, any clarification with regards to the whole area of possible military dimension," said Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

It must be those failed Bush policies that are causing Iran to be so uncooperative.

North Korea also showed it's willingness to change during Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton's meeting with Asian leaders in Tokyo, by immediately threatening to test launch a new missile capable of reaching the United States. (link)

In an apparent attempt to command attention, North Korea hinted that it will test-launch a Taepodong 2 missile from its eastern coast.

"One will come to know later what will be launched," the government's state-run Korean Central News Agency said as the regime celebrated the 67th birthday of leader Kim Jong Il. It said the effort was related to "space development," rather than military ambitions.

At an appearance today with Japanese Foreign Minister Hirofumi Nakasone, Clinton responded that a missile launch by Pyongyang "would be very unhelpful in moving our relationship forward."

North Korean technicians have been assembling a Taepodong missile, and intelligence officials believe it is nearly ready to be fired, according to South Korean media. The missile may have the potential to reach Alaska and possibly the West Coast.

North Korea is also threatening to attack South Korea over a border dispute.

Quick, somebody send Kim Jong Il tapes of a couple Obama speeches, so he can see the error of his ways.

Pakistan has agreed to stop fighting extremists in the northwest part of the country, allowing Taliban-style Islamic rule to be imposed there. Big victory for the bad guys. (link)

Battle-weary residents welcomed a pro-Taliban cleric dispatched by the government Tuesday to convince militants in the former tourist haven of Swat to stop fighting in exchange for the imposition of Islamic law and suspension of military offensives there.

Sufi Muhammad arrived in a caravan of some 300 vehicles in Swat Valley's main city of Mingora a day after he struck the truce, which a U.S. defense official called "negative" and critics said represented a surrender to extremists fanning out from nearby strongholds close to the Afghan border.

NATO also expressed dismay. "We would all be concerned by a situation in which extremists would have safe haven," NATO spokesman James Appathurai said at a news briefing. "It is certainly reason for concern."

In response to these troubling signs coming from the world's most repressive and unstable regimes, President Obama said…….well, I couldn't find anything, but I'm sure he's on top of the situation. Obama didn't cause these problems, you know. Um, Bush did ?

The media's obsession with John McCain's VP nominee, Sarah Palin, is matched only by it's total lack of curiosity regarding Obama's VP pick, Hillary Clinton Joe Biden. In one short month, America has become intimately acquainted with Palin's entire life history, including, at last count, about 125 phony smears. If you want to know what Sarah Palin was doing on, say, August 14th, 1996, just ask the New York Times. They know, or at least they think they know. We even know her husband Todd's life story. At the same time, I bet 99.9% of America couldn't tell you the name of Biden's wife. An army of reporters didn't descend on Scranton, or to Delaware, or to anywhere, to dig up the dirt on Joe Biden and blast it all over the airwaves. All the media wants you to know about Biden is, he is very, very experienced and Obama made a very, very deliberative and wise pick in choosing him. Now, I don't really care about Biden's story either, to tell the truth, but somebody has to talk about him. I promise the same unbiased and respectful treatment the mainstream media has shown Palin. In other words, I'm just going to make fun of Biden. All in the name of fair play, of course.

Let's start at the end. In an interview with Katie Couric a couple days ago, Biden brought his decades of experience and knowledge to bear, weighing in on how the White House should act in a financial crisis. He said, “When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the princes of greed, he said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.’”

Excellent point, Joey. Except that FDR wasn't the president when the stock market crashed in 1929, Herbert Hoover was, and television wasn't available yet. In the same interview, Biden condemned the Obama ad about McCain's lack of computer skills, then said Obama wasn't behind the ad (in spite of the "I am Barack Obama, and I approve this message" endorsement at the end). Then Biden claimed he hadn't seen the ad at all.

While trolling for votes in Ohio this week, Biden took a firm stand against the use of coal for energy, in direct contradiction to Barack Obama's stance in favor of clean coal technology. Three days earlier, Joey praised the possibilities of coal to a crowd at the United Mine Workers of America annual fish fry in Castlewood, Virginia. Biden also became a sudden pro-gun rights advocate at that same Virginia fish fry, saying, “I guarantee you Barack Obama ain’t taking my shotguns, so don’t buy that malarkey. Don’t buy that malarkey. They’re going to start peddling that to you.” The National Rifle Association has given Biden a rating of "F", it's lowest grade, meaning he votes for gun control at every turn.

As you can see, Biden is a man of principle. It's just that his principles change with each campaign stop. Help like this, Obama doesn't need. At times, it almost seems like Biden is running against Obama rather than for him.

Okay, that gets us through the last week or so. Let's see, what else has the gaffemaster said ? A couple weeks back, Biden asked a man in a wheelchair (Missouri State Senator Chuck Graham) to stand up and be recognized at a campaign rally. Oops. Biden also said that Hillary Clinton was more qualified than him to be Vice President (no argument there). Biden said paying more in taxes was "patriotic." And speaking of running against Barack Obama, Joe Biden did, in the Democratic primaries, where Biden made an early exit, in spite of all his many qualifications.

So here are a couple Biden quotes about Senator Obama.

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.” And to think Dems find racial code-speak when Republicans say "community organizer."

“When this campaign is over, political slogans like ‘experience’ and ‘change’ will mean absolutely nothing. The next president has to act.”

Here's a Biden quote about Senator McCain.

“John McCain is a personal friend, a great friend, and I would be honored to run with or against John McCain, because I think the country would be better off."

But enough quotes. Let's look at Biden's resume (at least the part he didn't plagiarize). Biden has been in the U.S. Senate since 1972. He is a long-time member and current charman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. With all that experience, Biden is an expert on foreign policy (look out, Palin). Here are Biden's positions on the biggest foreign policy decisions of the last three decades: Biden was against the Reagan Cold War buildup that led to the collapse of the USSR. Biden voted against the Gulf War after Saddam Hussein invaded our key oil ally, Kuwait. Biden voted for the Iraq War. Biden was against the Surge in Iraq that has transformed the war…

Question: Does being WRONG about everything count as experience ? I guess so. If you want a guy in the Oval Office who will always make the wrong call, Joe Biden's your guy.

Oh yeah, Biden's wife's name is Jill.

Anybody want to go double or nothing on his daughter's name ?

As ABC's Charlie Gibson started interviewing Governor Sarah Palin (R-AL), asking her this series of questions:

"Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked John McCain about you, and it is really the central question. Can you look the country in the eye and say "I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?""
and
"…didn't say to yourself, "Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I — will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?""
and
"Didn't that take some hubris? [to run for VP]"
and
"When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?"
and
"I'm just saying that national security is a whole lot more than energy".
and
"Did you ever travel outside the country prior to your trip to Kuwait and Germany last year?"
and
"Have you ever met a foreign head of state?"

I found myself wondering why no reporter EVER sat down with Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and asked him these same questions during the 19 months of Obama's presidential campaign, when here they are asking Palin within 2 weeks of her VP nomination. Obama, with no executive experience, no governing experience, no management experience, no foreign policy experience prior to running for the presidency, no experience running any type of military outfit, indeed, no military experience of any kind, and none of the energy experience that Palin has either. Why didn't they ever ask him if HE had hubris, if he had the experience, if he had the qualifications, not just to be Vice President, but to be the leader of the free world, the Commander-In-Chief, the President of the United States ??? Even during 21 Democratic primary debates, I don't remember any reporter ever questioning Obama's credentials, not for one second. Hillary Clinton did question Obama's credentials, and the media castigated her for it. They called her mean-spirited. What incredible double standards we have in this country. Charles Gibson's first EIGHT questions all implied that Sarah Palin is not qualififed for the job.

When Gibson got done impugning Palin's experience, he tried to cast her as a religious kook, with these questions and statements:

"You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?"
and
"I take your point about Lincoln's words, but you went on and said, "There is a plan and it is God's plan."
and
"…are you sending your son [to Iraq] on a task that is from God?"

Again, Obama, who is a Christian, has never been asked any questions of this kind that I can recall. Apparently, "God's plan" is only important if you're running for Vice President. The only questions asked regarding Obama's church had nothing much to do with theology, they had to do with Obama's spiritual mentor of 20 years being an anti-american racist.

So, Gibson tried to establish right up front that Sarah Palin is a provincial holy roller who has never set foot outside the igloo. All in the spirit of fairness, I'm sure.

That being said, I thought the interview was tedious and repetitive (how could it not be, with Gibson asking the same question over and over and over ?), and I thought Palin looked nervous, and at times confused. She made some errors. She referred to Russia's aggression toward Georgia as "unprovoked", but that is an oversimplification. It was reported that way in the American media, but Russia's actions weren't unprovoked. Russia's response wasn't proportional, however, and was a clear act of aggression. In the later part of the interview that was broadcast on Nightline, Palin said we should do something about global warming whether it is man-made or merely the result of natural weather cycles. Uh, no. If global warming is the result of natural weather changes (i.e. solar activity), there isn't anything we can do about it. The last I heard, we don't have any control over the sun.

Gibson asked Palin over and over whether the USA should support Israel if Israel decided to act to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, and Palin repeatedly gave the same answer, that Israel is an ally and we shouldn't second guess Israel regarding it's own national security. Gibson tried real hard to get Palin to say Israel should destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, and I applaud her for not saying that.
Gibson asked Palin over and over whether we should cross into Pakistan without Musharraf's permission to take out Al Qaeda, and Palin repeatedly gave the same answer, that we must do what is necessary to defeat Al Qaeda and shouldn't take any options off the table. Gibson tried real hard to get Palin to say we should invade Pakistan, and I applaud her for not saying that. Gibson tried to get Palin to say we'd have to go to war with Russia if we let Georgia into NATO, and Palin took the bait on that one a little bit, indicating that was perhaps a possibility according to the terms of the NATO alliance, which, of course, it is.

Are y'all getting the drift of all these 'will you take military action ?' questions from Gibson ? The more times he can get Palin to answer in the affirmative to military action, or even acknowledge the possibility of military conflict, the more the media can portray her, and Republicans in general, as warmongers. Or maybe I'm just being paranoid from watching this same sort of thing happen my entire lifetime. When Obama says we should invade Pakistan, well, that's just sensible, because that's where Bin Laden is. When a Republican says the same thing, they are unilateral fascist warmongers.

I heard some response from the left. I heard Alan Colmes allege that Palin didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was, but that was specious. Palin only asked for clarification on that question from Gibson, for specifics. I heard Clinton supporter Lanny Davis say he was shocked by Palin's declaration that we would go to war with Russia, but that was a severe misrepresentation of what she said.

I'm sure the furious spin will start today, as every word Palin spoke will be parsed, dissected, and recast.

Warning to liberals – I am going to talk about Barack Obama again, so please read carefully.

I extend this warning because, in the past, when I write something like "Obama's foreign policy regarding Iran doesn't make sense", liberals read it as "I'm a heartless racist Republican dittohead who hates black people and the poor". This time, I'd like to point out the difference between those things up front, to hopefully avoid any further misunderstanding.

If that is understood, then I can continue, by saying…

Obama's foreign policy regarding Iran doesn't make sense.

Two things stand clear about Barack Obama's presidential campaign. First, he's going to be critical of all things Bush, that's a given, and second, he is going to try to link Bush to John McCain at every turn. Obama and the Democrats in general are running against George W. Bush much more than they are running against John McCain, even though Bush isn't running. That's why Obama's foreign policy speech from last week didn't discuss just how Bush's policies were wrong, his speech discussed how the "Bush/McCain" policies were wrong. Obama said "Bush/McCain" so many times (at least 10) that I started thinking maybe those guys are really one person rather than two, or at least conjoined twins. The second that John McCain became the de facto Republican presidential nominee, he stopped being the Democrats favorite ethical stand-up bipartisan maverick Senator who bucked his own party in the name of truth, justice, and the american way, and he started being McCain the Bush clone, the Bush third termer. Funny how that works. The New York Times can't find anything nice to say about John McCain anymore. It's so sad when a love affair ends.

Here are some examples of Obama's 'Bush/McCain Are Conjoined Twins' strategy on Iran from that speech:

"George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for…[Their foreign policy] made Iran stronger. George Bush’s policies. They’re [Bush/McCain] going to have to explain why Hamas now controls Gaza, Hamas that was strengthened because the United States insisted that we should have democratic elections in the Palestinian authority. They’re going to have to explain why it is that Iran is able to fund Hezbollah and poses the greatest threat to the United States and Israel in the Middle East in a generation. That’s the Bush-McCain record on protecting this country. Those are the failed policies that John McCain wants to double down on, because he still hasn’t spelled out one substantial way in which he’d be different from George Bush when it comes to foreign policy…Our Iran policy is a complete failure right now, and that is the policy that John McCain is running on right now. He has nothing to offer except the naive and irresponsible belief that tough talk from Washington will somehow cause Iran to give up its nuclear program and support for terrorism. I’m running for President to change course, not to continue George Bush’s course. I believe we need to use all elements of American power to pressure Iran, including tough, principled and direct diplomacy".

I think you all get the message here. Barack Obama is clearly against George John Bush McCain's Iranian policy. Clearly.

Now for the kicker, the mind-blowing mother of all hypocrisies. About 10 seconds later, in the exact same speech, after savaging Bush's Iranian foreign policy, Barack Obama said this:

"It’s time to present Iran with a clear choice. If it abandons its nuclear program, its support for terrorists and its threats to Israel, then it can rejoin the community of nations. If not, Iran will face deeper isolation and steeper sanctions. But in the Bush-McCain view, everybody who disagrees with their failed Iran policy is an “appeaser.”"

For those of you who don't recognize it, presenting Iran with a choice between it's nuclear program, it's support for terrorists, it's threats against Israel, and suffering sanctions and further isolation IS THE BUSH POLICY TOWARD IRAN !!!!! After trashing Bush's Iranian policy, Obama turns right around and adopts it as if it's his own !!! And then Obama pretends that Bush doesn't even hold his own policy !!! IS ANYBODY OUT THERE LISTENING TO THE WORDS COMING OUT OF BARACK OBAMA'S MOUTH ??? The media sure isn't, because none of them even appeared to notice. By the way, did any of you notice how Obama had pretty much the entire mainstream media at his beck and call last week ? He had about 30 minutes of free campaign commercials all over the news networks, on demand. In the interests of fairness, the media later gave John McCain-Bush III about 30 seconds too. It's only fair. The media also couldn't be bothered to point out that Obama's new position on Iran (the Bush position) is a complete about face from his previous stance of negotiating with Iran without preconditions (the position Hillary ridiculed in the Democratic debates). Obama has now completely surrounded Iranian foreign policy by taking both sides of the argument, as he attempts to do on so many issues. That is as hypocritical as can be ("nuanced" in New York TimesSpeak). My reaction to Obama's foreign policy drivel is the same reaction Lebron James has to that obnoxious chubby guy in the lawnmower commercial: "get that weak stuff outta here !"

I suggest Obama change his campaign theme from 'Change You Can Believe In' to 'Change That Isn't Change', or maybe he can use that old David Byrne/Talking Heads blurb from the 80's, 'Stop Making Sense', because when it comes to foreign policy, Obama stopped making sense a while ago. In sports terms, Obama might be the Rookie Of The Year, but he sure doesn't deserve the MVP.

I could write 10 posts about what was wrong with Obama's foreign policy speech last week, and perhaps I will. It was riddled with falsehoods, doubletalk, and distortions. I only pointed out some of the more egregious ones this time. See ya later.

Isn't it sad to see the President Of The United States begging Saudi Arabia to pump more oil ? And then being turned down ? It didn't have to be this way.

Isn't it sad that the war funding bill has to be kicked around like a political football by Congress ? The Democrats attempted to add all sorts of non-war related domestic items to the bill, the Republicans revolted and sat out the vote, and the end result was, the war funding bill was voted down. The troops appreciate your non-support, you sorry politicians.

Isn't it sad that every bill that comes before Congress seems to go over budget and is full of all kinds of unnecessary earmarks to inflate the cost, as was seen in the Farm Bill that Congress sent to Bush's desk ?

Isn't it sad that we've spent a billion dollars on this presidential election race, and we haven't even reached the general election phase yet ? There are still 5 1/2 months until november. This election seems like it's gone on forever. There has to be a better and more cost effective way, not to mention one which doesn't disenfranchise millions of voters in Florida and Michigan.

Isn't it sad how Barack Obama thinks any political opinion that differs from his own is "divisive" and "the politics of fear" ? What an ego. Bush told the Israeli Knesset that he disagreed with those who would negotiate with terrorists and radicals, and Obama went into what John McCain termed "hysterical diatribe" mode to denounce Bush's words. Why is it that Obama's endless attacks against the Bush administration AREN'T "divisive", but Bush says one thing (that wasn't even directed toward Obama) and you'd think the world just collapsed ? Here's just one of many overblown comments from the Obama campaign yesterday:

“Obviously, this is an unprecedented political attack on foreign soil,” Obama Communications Director Robert Gibbs told CNN’s John Roberts.

Ludicrous political theater. It makes Bush's comments sound equivalent to, say, Pearl Harbor. By the way, during his hissy fit, Obama repeated his schizoid foreign policy of NOT negotiating with Hamas because they are a terrorist group, but YES to negotiating with Iran, a state sponsor of terrorist groups Hamas, Hezbollah, the Iraqi insurgency, and a designated terrorist group themselves (Iranian Revolutionary Guard). Is anyone ever going to call Obama on any of his nonsensical and contradictory rhetoric ? It seems not. He's historic, after all.

Speaking of Obama, here's another in a growing number of very sad quotes from him: "We need to stand up to the special interests, bring Republicans and Democrats together and pass the farm bill immediately". Uh, stand up to WHAT special interests ? The Farm bill by it's nature is a bundle of money thrown at special interests in the form of subsidies. Here are only a few of the special interests being catered to in the Farm bill, courtesy of Jacob Sullum of Townhall.com:

"…tax breaks for racehorse owners, "marketing aid" for fruit and vegetable growers, research funding for organic farmers, enhanced price supports for domestic sugar producers, increased subsidies for dairy farmers, a $170-million earmark for the salmon industry, and billions of dollars in automatic payments and "permanent disaster assistance" for corn, wheat, cotton, rice and soybean growers. Take that, special interests!"

To be accurate, Obama would have to say passing the Farm bill required a bipartisan CAVING IN to special interests (which Congress did, as usual, and it was bipartisan, just as Obama requested). Is anybody really listening to the words coming out of Obama's mouth ? It seems not. The more I hear Obama talk, the less sense he makes.

And the very saddest thing of all on the political front yesterday also involved Obama's words, when Obama criticized the Bush administration for promoting democracy in Palestine and Iraq. I assume this means democracy would no longer be an important part of american foreign policy during an Obama presidency. That would be a major foreign policy reversal. Yeah, who needs liberty and open government ? Bah, humbug. Like I asked before, is anybody listening to the words coming out of Obama's mouth ? Obama said "words count". I couldn't agree more, and Obama's words are scary, not to mention, dare I say, divisive.