Monday, November 30, 2009


This is a moving letter from an American Vet, and is worth sharing. Hat tip to Earl B of The Conservation Underground, who mentioned the validity is still to be determined but the point is still clear.

This letter is profound, when you consider how many lives have been sacrificed in American history to keep our country free, and help allow the same freedom for others, most of them strangers.

Attention Patriots. Get out that hankie.

This venerable and much honored WW II vet is well known in Hawaii for his seventy-plus years of service to patriotic organizations and causes all over the country. A humble man without a political bone in his body, he has never spoken out before about a government official, until now. He dictated this letter to a friend, signed it and mailed it to the president.

Dear President Obama,

My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don't believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.

I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos'n Mate. Now I live in a "rest home" located on the western end of Pearl Harbor, allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.

One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.

So here goes.

I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.

I can't figure out what country you are the president of.

You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:

" We're no longer a Christian nation"

" America is arrogant" - (Your wife even announced to the world,"America is mean-spirited. " Please tell her to try preaching that nonsense to 23 generations of our war dead buried all over the globe who died for no other reason than to free a whole lot of strangers from tyranny and hopelessness.)

I'd say shame on the both of you, but I don't think you like America, nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.

After 9/11 you said," America hasn't lived up to her ideals."

Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War? I hope you didn't mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.

I don't think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.

Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man.

Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don't, I'll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue. You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.

And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don't want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts, who was putting up a fight? You don't mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don't want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.

One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you're the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you're not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you're thinking of.

You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president.

You're not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That's not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now.

And I sure as hell don't want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle.


Harold B. Estes

Sunday, November 29, 2009


How many will stand and voice their opposition to this horrendous Obama/Holder decision to hold the terrorists trial in our criminal courts blocks from their attacks in New York City? Since both Holder and Obama have assured us the terrorists will be found guilty, why hold a trial at all? Answer: so they can put President George Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney on trial.

Rather than hold the trial in a military tribunal where it belongs as acts of war, this administration has chosen to risk the safety of our country and New York City for pure revenge, giving these terrorists a platform to spew their vile hatred for America. The cost of doing this is another story, and one that America cannot afford, especially when it is not necessary.

Amanda Bowman writes an excellent piece in PajamasMedia:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? Not In My Backyard!
For those who lost loved ones on 9/11, and for the safety of our city, New Yorkers must speak out against the decision to try KSM in the Big Apple.
by Amanda Bowman, November 29, 2009

The week after domestic terrorist Nidal Hassan went on a shooting spree at Fort Hood, Attorney General Eric Holder announced his decision to send five 9/11 terrorists to New York to face trial in a civilian federal court.

The Fort Hood massacre was the most serious act of domestic terror since 9/11. Why give the similarly inspired the incentive to make the pilgrimage to New York and act on their rage? This well-meaning but misguided decision by the Obama administration could hold deadly consequences for New York.

Holder has vigorously defended his decision and argues that to try these terrorists in a civilian court is the “right” thing. Trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his fellow terrorists yards away from Ground Zero might provide a civics lesson for the world, but it displays a reckless disregard for common sense, with no discernible benefit and the risk of grievous harm.

Let me be clear about something: I am confident that the U.S. attorney and his team of prosecutors will do a spectacular job of upholding the high standards of the Justice Department, and they will get these guys convicted. But getting them convicted is not the sole measure of success. The key issue here is our national security — more specifically, the security of all New Yorkers.

If we are at war, as the attorney general affirmed this week, we have to treat it like a war. War criminals are not tried in civilian courts. The 9/11 conspirators were originally charged by a military commission, a congressionally approved system which is a safe and fair means of trying enemy war criminals, be they members of traditional militaries or non-state terrorists. To move these terrorists into the civilian justice system is to give them legal rope that they intend to hang us with.

The discovery process required by a civilian trial could compromise the critical intelligence we have gained since 9/11. Andrew McCarthy, former assistant United States attorney for the Southern District of New York recently explained that in a military trial, only lawyers with the right security clearances have access to intelligence secrets. But the rules are different in a civilian trial, where the terrorists can use their constitutional “right” to act as their own counsel and demand to see the legal discovery. We would be forced to hand our secrets to our enemies on a platter.

In voicing his support for a New York trial, Mayor Bloomberg has graciously provided cover for what was surely a unilateral decision of the administration. The mayor correctly asserted that the NYPD can handle the additional security demands. Commissioner Ray Kelly has shaped New York’s police force into the best law enforcement agency in the world, as well as the leading counterterrorism and security organization.

But just because we are ready for those who wish us harm does not mean we should hang a piece of fly paper out for them just blocks from Ground Zero. Drawing terrorists out into the open in Iraq and Afghanistan makes strategic and tactical sense, but not here in the Big Apple. While the NYPD can reduce risk, they cannot eliminate it.

In late 2008, Commissioner Kelly warned a congressional commission: “Everything we know about al-Qaeda tells us they will try to hit us again, possibly next time with a weapon of mass destruction. We must do everything in our power to stop them before it is too late.” Holding this trial in New York is like encouraging them to try again. For the sake of all who lost loved ones on 9/11, and for the safety of our wonderful city, New Yorkers must be vocal advocates of the NIMBY philosophy: Not In My Back Yard!

NIMBY-ism was given public voice just this week at a press conference held by an organization called the 911 Never Forget Coalition. A diverse group of victims, family members, first responders, active and reserve members of the military, veterans, and concerned Americans, they stand resolute against Holder’s decision. At the conference, they announced that they will hold a large rally in New York City on December 9. Who will stand with them?

Amanda Bowman is the former New York director of the Center for Security Policy. She is currently the C.E.O. of the Atlantic Bridge, a policy organization whose mission is to promote the special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom.

Saturday, November 28, 2009


Never before in our history have we seen such assaults on our Constitution. But, never in our history have the far left radicals had the power in all three branches of government, with the Executive Branch run in Chicago style fashion. They cannot push through new legislation fast enough, before they lose their power, but the damage may be irreparable.

An excellent explanation of how Congress is violating the Constitution, aided by the liberal radical left court system by Adam Graham in PajamasMedia.

Constitutional Law's Tyranny of Complexity
If we don’t stop rewriting our basic law into gobbledygook that the average person can’t understand, this country faces a dark future.
by Adam Graham, November 27, 2009

Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) recently said that, as he is not a constitutional scholar, he could not say whether it is constitutional or not to require an individual mandate to purchase health insurance. Nelson’s statement is problematic for many reasons.

The Constitution is a simple document. I read through it for the first time when I was eight. The Constitution is 4,400 words long and takes fifteen to twenty minutes to read through carefully. It was made so that it could be understood by a New England plow boy. This is important considering that Senator Nelson is a two-term United States senator and former two-term governor who four times has sworn to uphold this document he can’t quite understand. Not only that, but he is a University of Nebraska-trained lawyer.

Is the reason for Senator Nelson’s uncertainty merely that we’re not as bright as we once were? To a degree, this might be part of the problem. In The Truth Project video series, Del Tackett recounts the story of a law professor who assigned his constitutional law students the Federalist Papers. One student complained that the papers were hard to understand. The professor responded that this was understandable, as the Federalist Papers were written for the average 18th-century New York farmer and encouraged the law student that he might someday attain their level of understanding.

But there’s a greater problem that leads to a situation where a sitting senator can’t review the list of seventeen powers granted to Congress in the Constitution and see if forcing individuals to buy health insurance is on the list.

The problem is that complexity has been introduced over the past century. It has not come through the passage of constitutional amendments, but rather through those who have wanted to accomplish ends that the Constitution does not allow the federal government to do. To do so, they’ve come up with novel and complex theories to justify government interference that the Constitution never condoned.

This isn’t to say these efforts were malicious. Many were as well-intentioned as an elderly woman writing bad checks to give money to charity. Many meant well in backing things like Social Security, the war on drugs, or the New Deal. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

What all of these well-intentioned efforts have created is a labyrinth of a convoluted “constitutional law” that has nothing to do with the written text of the Constitution. Rather, it keeps score of all the ways in which courts have let Congress get away with violating the plain text of the Constitution. Those folks without specialized training in the legalese of “constitutional law” will find their plainspoken objection to a violation of the Constitution greeted with babbling legalese.

Fans of this redefinition of the Constitution claim the Constitution is a living document that changes to suit the times. While this may sound very progressive, it’s scary when you consider the purpose of the Constitution is to set boundaries for the government to protect the freedoms of the people.

The Constitution is like a wall. Who wants a living wall surrounding their home? One day, the wall protects your house, another it expands into the neighbor’s yard, and on yet another day it contracts and breaks through the wall of your extra bedroom. It sounds like a low-grade horror film, but it’s the reality of our constitutional law.

Complexity and uncertainty are the enemy of liberty. Those who play with the boundaries to make it so no one but the “experts” can understand what’s going on are akin to the clerics of the Middle Ages, who kept the Bible out of the mother tongue, so it could not be understood by the common man. Working to create incomprehensibility out of plainness in order to make yourself powerful goes back thousands of years. It was Christ who said to the scholars of his day, “Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge.” (Luke 11:52a)

The key of knowledge has been taken away under this current speaker as bills are rushed to the floor with reckless abandon, with members herded to vote without even knowing what they’re voting on. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) and Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) scoffed at the idea of reading the bill and knowing what’s in it. Most disturbing about this is that Carper’s committee wrote one of the Senate bills.

Democrats complain that provisions being touted by opponents are misunderstood or, less charitably, misrepresented by opponents. I have to chuckle when people who haven’t read something criticize others for mischaracterizing it. If the bill has been misunderstood, it’s because it was not written to be understood.

Unlike the writers of the 2,000-page monstrosity making its way through Congress, the writers of our Constitution wanted to be understood. So the answer to the question asked of Senator Nelson as to whether individual mandates are constitutional is “no.” But then again, most of what Congress does is unconstitutional.

The danger to our republic is clear. If we don’t stop rewriting our basic law into gobbledygook that the average person can’t understand, let alone respond to, we face a dark Orwellian future. Like at the end of Animal Farm, we’ll discover that “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.” The bulwark that once protected our liberties will become our prison wall.

Adam Graham is a contributor at and host of the Truth and Hope Report podcast. His personal site is Adam's Blog.


The cure for our health care system seems so simple. Is that the reason why the Libs will have nothing to do with it? Instead both houses compile behemoth legislations, full of atrocities that no one can follow, much less understand.

Considering the Constitution of only 4 pages long (4,400 words, not pages), Congress should be ashamed of themselves. Their obvious attempt to deceive the American people should be highly reprimanded, and with any hope, they will be in the 2010 elections.

Syndicated writer, Charles Krauthammer writes an excellent piece in National Review Online:

Kill the Bills. Do Health Reform Right.
The bill is irredeemable.

by Charles Krauthammer, November 27, 2009

The United States has the best health care in the world — but because of its inefficiencies, also the most expensive. The fundamental problem with the 2,074-page Senate health-care bill (as with its 2,014-page House counterpart) is that it wildly compounds the complexity by adding hundreds of new provisions, regulations, mandates, committees, and other arbitrary bureaucratic inventions.

Worse, they are packed into a monstrous package without any regard to each other. The only thing linking these changes — such as the 118 new boards, commissions, and programs — is political expediency. Each must be able to garner just enough votes to pass. There is not even a pretense of a unifying vision or conceptual harmony.

The result is an overregulated, overbureaucratized system of surpassing arbitrariness and inefficiency. Throw a dart at the Senate tome:

• You’ll find mandates with financial penalties — the amounts picked out of a hat.

• You’ll find insurance companies (who live and die by their actuarial skills) told exactly what weight to give risk factors, such as age. Currently, insurance premiums for 20-somethings are about one-sixth the premiums for 60-somethings. The House bill dictates the young shall now pay at minimum one-half; the Senate bill, one-third — numbers picked out of a hat.

• You’ll find sliding scales for health-insurance subsidies — percentages picked out of a hat — that will radically raise marginal income tax rates for middle-class recipients, among other crazy unintended consequences.

The bill is irredeemable. It should not only be defeated. It should be immolated, its ashes scattered over the Senate swimming pool.

Then do health care the right way — one reform at a time, each simple and simplifying, aimed at reducing complexity, arbitrariness, and inefficiency.

First, tort reform. This is money — the low-end estimate is about half a trillion per decade — wasted in two ways. Part is simply hemorrhaged into the legal system to benefit a few jackpot lawsuit winners and an army of extravagantly rich malpractice lawyers such as John Edwards.

The rest is wasted within the medical system in the millions of unnecessary tests, procedures, and referrals undertaken solely to fend off lawsuits — resources wasted on patients who don’t need them and which could be redirected to the uninsured who really do.

In the 4,000-plus pages of the two bills, there is no tort reform. Indeed, the House bill actually penalizes states that dare “limit attorneys’ fees or impose caps on damages.” Why? Because, as Howard Dean has openly admitted, Democrats don’t want “to take on the trial lawyers.” What he didn’t say — he didn’t need to — is that they give millions to the Democrats for precisely this kind of protection.

Second, even more simple and simplifying, abolish the prohibition against buying health insurance across state lines.

Some states have very few health insurers. Rates are high. So why not allow interstate competition? After all, you can buy oranges across state lines. If you couldn’t, oranges would be extremely expensive in Wisconsin, especially in winter.

And the answer to the resulting high Wisconsin orange prices wouldn’t be the establishment of a public option — a federally run orange-growing company in Wisconsin — to introduce “competition.” It would be to allow Wisconsin residents to buy Florida oranges.

But neither bill lifts the prohibition on interstate competition for health insurance. Because this would obviate the need — the excuse — for the public option, which the left wing of the Democratic party sees (correctly) as the royal road to fully socialized medicine.

Third, tax employer-provided health insurance. This is an accrued inefficiency of 65 years, an accident of World War II wage controls. It creates a $250 billion annual loss of federal revenues — the largest tax break for individuals in the entire federal budget.

This reform is the most difficult to enact, for two reasons. The unions oppose it. And the Obama campaign savaged the idea when John McCain proposed it during last year’s election.

Insuring the uninsured is a moral imperative. The problem is that the Democrats have chosen the worst possible method — a $1 trillion new entitlement of stupefying arbitrariness and inefficiency.

The better choice is targeted measures that attack the inefficiencies of the current system one by one — tort reform, interstate purchasing. and taxing employee benefits. It would take 20 pages to write such a bill, not 2,000 — and provide the funds to cover the uninsured without wrecking both U.S. health care and the U.S. Treasury.

— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2009, The Washington Post Writers Group

Friday, November 27, 2009


As if this government-run health care bill isn't horrific enough in its assaults on our liberty, an analysis of its words is truly telling. Makes you wonder what goes on inside the mind of these left wing radicals running our congress. Liberalism is definitely a mental disorder.

An interesting study in word choices in RedState:

Words Mean Things
by Hogan, November 24, 2009

The Senate healthcare bill has numerous flaws – but you needn’t know the details to know that it erodes freedom, restricts your ability to care for your family according to your wishes, costs trillions of dollars, increases taxes, increases premiums and is so massive that it is impossible to comprehend fully. In fact, the 2074 page behemoth in the Senate is an interesting study in word choices that tell you all you need to know about the bill. See below for a list of select words – and I am not the only one to do such a review (I noticed, e.g., Lee DeCovnick over at American Thinker from yesterday here).

The word “shall” appears 3607 times, but “freedom” only twice. The word “penalty” and its various forms 163 times, but “liberty” doesn’t appear at all. The word “require” and its forms 1025 times, but the “Constitution” is absent both literally and figuratively. The word tax and its forms appears 183 times, fee 234 times, and “Internal Revenue” 104 times. Other words like apply, rule, culture, diverse, enforce, provide, authority - all words that appear repeatedly, while a word like “own” appears only 11 times. See the full list below. It is quite telling.

   Words in the Senate healthcare bill:

(including the various forms of each, e.g. plural)

Pages = 2074
Shall or Shall Not = 3607
Provide = 1910
May or May Not = 1047
Secretary = 2500
Penalty = 163
Sanction = 8
Oversight = 39
Study = 150
Report = 789
Require = 1025
Authority = 115
Culture = 40
Allow = 162
Cost = 562
Fund = 563
Fee = 234
Tax = 183
“Internal Revenue…” = 104
Enforce = 47
Government = 117
Qualify = 482
Apply = 1741
Monitor = 55
Rule = 310
Certify = 177
Law = 283
Authorize = 408
Reasonable = 61

Compare to:

Freedom = 2
Free = 15
Liberty = 0
Choice = 40
Choose = 4
Own = 11
Constitution = 0
Federalism = 0

Wednesday, November 25, 2009


As the resounding words "We are 5 days from fundamentally transforming the United States of America" rang out, the country was not prepared for what was about to come. Obama really did tell us his intentions, but he did it in such a way that broadsided America. It's the indescribable deceit of this man.

As we gather together with family and friends to give thanks this week, Dennis Prager has some sobering words. I literally needed a hankie:

A Troubled Thanksgiving 2009
by Dennis Prager, November 24, 2009

I have always loved Thanksgiving. It is my favorite national holiday. It reminds Americans how fortunate we are to be Americans. And it unites Americans around gratitude, the greatest human trait. Gratitude is the mother of both goodness and happiness. The ungrateful cannot be either happy or good.

So, it is with a heavy heart that I write that my mood on this Thanksgiving will not be the same as on any other I have ever experienced.

My gratitude will be marred by a dark cloud.

Not the cloud of economic crisis; Americans have lived through worse economic crises.

Not the cloud of war. America is at war in Afghanistan, and troops remain in Iraq in the war against Islamic terror; but Americans have fought far more bloody wars.

Not the cloud of politics; whatever an American's political persuasion, every American has lived through political battles and political losses.

No, this is a new cloud. This is the cloud of "transformation." This is what candidate Barack Obama promised; this is what President Barack Obama seeks to achieve -- nothing less than the transformation of America.

But those of us who love America and its unique value system don't want either America or its value system transformed. The former can always be improved, but should never be transformed. And the latter should always remain what it has been for centuries: the American Trinity -- E Pluribus Unum, In God We Trust and Liberty -- as well as limited government and individualism. It also includes an abiding belief in American exceptionalism, meaning that America has usually known better what is good for the world than any world body, that America's moral compass is generally more accurate than that of other nations, let alone the United Nations. This is not because Americans are born better or any such nonsense, but because American values have produced a particularly uncynical, idealistic nation, more willing to die for others than any nation in recorded history.

Every element of this is being transformed, perhaps permanently. The American economy and/or its health system may be fatally damaged if either the House or Senate health care bill is passed. America will descend under a mountain of debt that may permanently undermine the power of the dollar. If this happens, America will no longer be the preeminent economic power of the world. The terrible political and human consequences of this will be felt around the globe.

The abandonment of American exceptionalism -- President Obama said recently that he believes in American exceptionalism just as Brits believe in British exceptionalism and Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism -- will lead to America becoming just another nation. When you no longer consider yourself special, you cease doing much that is special.

Here is the bottom line: I take nothing good for granted. That includes the future of the blessed country in which I live. A country as good as America is an aberration. There is no reason to believe that it will always remain an aberration; and those in power on Thanksgiving 2009 loathe the idea of America being different from all other nations.

Every great civilization has declined. There is nothing that guarantees America will be any different. And those in power on Thanksgiving 2009 see America more as a pompous civilization than a great one. So its decline from its self-perceived greatness is not only not a tragedy, but it's a welcome respite from arrogance.

The idea that people should first take care of themselves, then their family, then their neighbors and then other nations is also an American aberration. The norm, advocated by those in power on Thanksgiving 2009, is to want to be taken care of by the state, have the state take care of everyone else and abandon other countries (such as Afghanistan) to their fate, just as other nations are willing to do.

As it happens, I am in Africa this Thanksgiving, volunteering with my son to distribute mosquito nets and other lifesaving necessities to the poorest of the poor in Zambia and Zimbabwe. Not coincidentally, it is an American charity (Rock of Africa) that has organized this trip. While half a world away, my heart is in America this Thanksgiving. But for the first time, it is a worried and unsettled American heart.

Nevertheless, though my mood is dark, it is not pessimistic. The very narrow victories in the House and Senate on health care reform, despite Democrats' overwhelming majorities in both Houses, tell me that Americans are not ready to abandon the values that make our country unique. And that is something to be thankful for on this troubled Thanksgiving 2009.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009


With Obama's approval numbers in the 40's, the fastest decline in history, it's not hard to understand why. A Narcissist holds himself in such high esteem, and when he falls, it's hard and fast, especially when you live in a universe of lies. His junk science, 'jobs saved', vapor 'My Plan', non-stimulus Stimulus bill, if-you-like-your-doctor-you-can-keep-him health care, are all part of the unveiling.

Victor Davis Hanson writes about the fraud in PajamasMedia:

Where Has the Obama Thrill Gone?
by Victor Davis Hanson, November 23, 2009

The Harder They Fall?

Who appointed over 40 ambassadors on the sole basis of campaign contributions, or has as many lobbyists in government as did any President in memory? And who releases touchy news—whether increased unemployment or trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in civil courts—on Friday nights, or wants his Democratically-controlled Congress to debate unpopular legislation on Saturday nights?

You see where this is going. Prophets fall harder than normal politicians. When you claim that seas recede and planets cool before your presence, and that Latin mottos, new presidential candidate seals, neo-classical victory trophies, and faux-Greek temple sets are the appropriate backdrops for Your speeches, then you raise the bar a bit high. Obama is not necessarily any more partisan than a Nixon or Reagan or Bush, only just as partisan—but when he claimed something quite different.

Add in the hope/change mantra, and a cadre of lackeys talking about tingling legs, his majesty Caesar, and apotheosis into a “god”, and our young Icarus was simply soaring too near the sun for his own fragile wax-feather wings. The problem is not just that Obama is proving Clinton-like in his Chicago hardball partisanship (cf. the trash-talk of Rahm Emanuel, Mao-admirer Anita Dunn, or the Truther Van Jones), but that his entire persona was fabricated on a touchy-feely “there is no red state, no blue state America.”

Despite Obama’s vows to restore science to its rightful place in government (I think that was his dig at George Bush’s opposition to human embryo, stem-cell research), we get superstition. Instead of the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ non-partisan, depressing unemployment figures, we are instead to rely on a new unproven notion of jobs “saved” and “created”, and in nonexistent, made-up congressional districts, listed, no less, on a government official website. War against reason?

Remember the “reset” button promises abroad? Do we have a safer, saner relationship with Putin? Is Iran closer to disarmament? North Korea quieter? Did George Mitchell transform the Middle East? Is the “good” war still good, the “bad” one still bad? Do the Brits feel the special relationship is stronger? Maybe Sarkozy is more impressed now with America, or are the Poles and Czechs?

And do Chavez, Castro, Ortega, Morales, Zelaya, and others in Latin America feel more pressure to be democratic or less? Is one third of the planet in India and China more comfortable with the messiah Obama or with the hated Bush?

At Home

And the future? Will the country look eagerly forward to cap-and-trade taxes? The new income tax rates? Will small businesses like the caps off FICA taxable income, and health care surcharges? Perhaps the people can get behind impending “comprehensive immigration reform” (in the way we are now for “comprehensive health care”), which will de-emphasize enforcement and emphasize amnesty?

As Obama’s popularity falls, expect his own partisanship to increase, and the Chicago brass knuckles to be more evident. Obama knows that he can hope and change only until he hits 35-40% approval ratings, and is rendered shouting to half-empty audience halls and a triangulating congress.

Full Steam Ahead

A final prognosis—or why Obama is in deep, deep trouble, since he won’t quit in his dream to transmogrify American into something like Belgium at best and Brazil at worse.

Millions of independents and swing voters went for Obama for five reasons: (1) they believed the media hype that Bush was the “worst” (fill in the blanks); (2) the sudden financial panic of September 2008 and the anger at Wall Street banditry and bail-outs; (3) Obama’s youth, charm, and oratory; (4) the feel-good novelty of voting in our first African-American president; (5) Obama’s centrist campaign message of paying down debt, working with allies, drilling, being tough against Al Qaeda, and being bipartisan.

It’s taken almost 11 months, but voters now know that propositions 1-5 are now refuted or irrelevant:

1) Bush is history. Like Truman, in time he will begin to look better not worse. More importantly, Bush’s sins that bothered voters— too much big government and big deficits—were simply trumped by Obama’s gargantuan deficits and federalization of health care, banking, and the auto industry. “Bush did it” doesn’t work any more. “Obama did it even more” is the new worry.

2) The panic that we would lose all our 401(k’s) and home equity has passed. What we are left with in its wake is a sinking feeling that badgering small business and the Chamber of Commerce, as if they are Goldman Sachs grandees, isn’t working. Raising income, payroll, and surcharge taxes at a time state, local, and sales taxes are surging, is, well, a good way to turn a recession into a depression—or at least a stagflating, weak recovery. Sometime around next March, “Bush’s did it” will transmogrify into Obama’s recession. Obama can’t run against the economy, but must fix it—or take the blame. His best hope is that the Republicans don’t run a demagogic figure such as he himself acted in 2007-8.

3) Obama’s smoothness is getting old. All of us can almost write the next Obama speech: a) “some” say/do, but “I” say/do… The bad straw man is set up, followed by the contrast of the annointed “I” and “me” ad nauseum. b) then comes the apology for the sins of the rest of us—mitigated somewhat by the election of , yes, Barack Obama, the first black President; c) third is the impossible: spending more on health care saves more; cap and trade massive taxes will result in economies; no more lobbyists means gads of them, Bush shredded the Constitution equates into I’m copying his anti-terror protocols; d) an end with hope and change ruffles and flourishes. Bottom line: the oratory is old and trite, given the lack of commensurate accomplishments.

4) On the matter of racial landmarks, some of the voters think, rightly or wrongly, that they did their thing, proving America is not racist by the fact of Obama’s election. Now? A lot of independents, however, won’t seem obligated to vote in 2010 or 2012, motivated by the same sense of liberal assuagement of guilt. This been there/done that feeling will be accentuated should Obama’s supporters continue to play the race card as his popularity dips as a result of a statist and neo-socialist agenda.

5) We know now that the campaign was a centrist deception. Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright make logical the presence of the Truther Van Jones and Anita Dunn (cf. her encomium to Mao). His most partisan Senate record presages his near suicidal effort to ram through statist health care, tax hikes, and partisan appointments, in addition to polarizing rhetoric. His campaign promises to meet with Ahmadinejad were not only met, but again trumped by serial apologies, selling out the Poles and Czechs and outreach to Chavez and Castro. In other words, the so-called right-wing nuts who tried to scare the hell out of voters are proving to be Nostradamuses of sorts.

All sorts of things can happen. Printing and borrowing can give us a brief, though unsustainable recovery around 2010. A war could break out. We could get hit big-time again as in 9/11.

That said, I think not merely the thrill is gone, but a righteous anger about an Obama trifecta— of serial apologies and bows abroad, massive borrowing and deficit spending, and government-take overs of private spheres of life—is swelling up in the electorate. I haven’t seen in my lifetime anything quite like it. And this furor of being had has the potential not just to take Obama down, but also his ideology and supporters along with him for a generation.

Monday, November 23, 2009


Now Obama decides to address deficit spending. Now he decides to address unemployment with another 'summit'. The last 10 months have clearly displayed how good Obama is at keeping his word, and these recent displays of concern are no different.

This borrow and spend is no way to run a household, much less a country, especially when you are stealing other people's hard earned money. Look at what he just gave Sen. Mary Landreiu of Louisiana to bribe her healthcare vote. Redistribution of wealth is nothing more than highway robbery, and against the 8th Commandment.

If we stay informed, we can beat back these 60s radicals, but it will take every bit of energy we can muster. The Heritage Foundation has an excellent piece on this:

The Impending Obama Borrow and Spend Disaster
November 23, 2009

Speaking at Georgetown University on April 14th, President Barack Obama promised: “We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand. We must build our house upon a rock. We must lay a new foundation for growth and prosperity — a foundation that will move us from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest.” Nice words. But the Obama administration actions have produced all sand and no rock. From the Wall Street Bailout, to Cash for Clunkers, to Obama’s failed stimulus, this administration has been all about borrowing and spending. And as the New York Times reports today, it will not be long before we begin paying a real price for these policies:

With the national debt now topping $12 trillion, the White House estimates that the government’s tab for servicing the debt will exceed $700 billion a year in 2019, up from $202 billion this year, even if annual budget deficits shrink drastically. Other forecasters say the figure could be much higher.

In concrete terms, an additional $500 billion a year in interest expense would total more than the combined federal budgets this year for education, energy, homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

$700 billion a year in interest payments alone. That is more money than our entire defense budget for next year including the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. And that is a low end estimate. As Heritage fellow J.D. Foster has previously noted, governments around the world are also furiously borrowing, feeding a global debt bubble that will eventually force the U.S. Treasury to pay much higher interest rates. And much of the debt we took on this past year is coming due soon. The NYT reports that to take advantage of low rates today, the Treasury issued a huge amount of short-term debt. Treasury officials estimate that about 36 percent of the government’s marketable debt — about $1.6 trillion — is coming due in the months ahead. The Concord Coalition’s Robert Bixby comments: “The government is on teaser rates. We’re taking out a huge mortgage right now, but we won’t feel the pain until later.”

The American people are rightly concerned about this impending disaster. According to Rasmussen Reports, deficit reduction has remained the number one issue for voters ever since President Obama listed his four top budget priorities in a speech to Congress in February. Forty-two percent (42%) say cutting the deficit in half by the end of the president’s first term is most important, while only 24% say health care reform should be the top priority. Despite the clear wishes of the American people, the Senate voted Saturday night to move forward on a $4.9 trillion in new health care spending. The leftist majorities in Congress say that they will follow with the promised spending cuts and tax hikes to make their bill deficit neutral, but nobody believes them. According to the latest Quinnipiac University poll only 19% of Americans believe President Obama’s promise that health insurance reform will not add to our federal budget deficit over the next decade. 72% of Americans tell Quinnipiac they right understand that Obamacare will only add to our nation’s record breaking $12 trillion national debt.

There are a number of highly credible conservative plans for reducing our national debt. But Congress should take a tip from the medical profession on health reform and “first do no harm.”

According to the Associated Press, rising unemployment taxes are killing small business job creation.

Unemployment rose in 29 U.S. states last month including Michigan’s nationwide highest 15.1%.

President Obama supporter and MSNBC host Chris Matthews said Obama is making ‘Carteresque’ mistakes.


Disguising themselves as Blue-Dog, fiscally responsible Democrats, the truth came out again this weekend. Again, because everytime it comes down to the final vote, these "Lap" Dogs always vote with Obama. This time Mary Landrieu of Louisiana pimped herself out for $300 Million tax payer dollars. This should disgust every tax paying American. Did you have a say in this bribe?

The 2010 elections are critical, and keeping a list of moderates on both sides will be helpful. RedState is doing a fantastic job of tracking them, and Erick Erickson writes about this latest assault on our freedom:

The Louisiana Purchase
by Erick Erickson, November 22, 2009

Back in the old days, people would at least look ashamed when caught being bribed, but not Mary Landrieu. It’s being called the Louisiana Purchase. Senator Harry Reid put a provision on the health care plan that originally called for $100 million to be funneled to Louisiana exclusively.

Mary Landrieu refused to vote for cloture on the motion to proceed to the health care debate. Reid raised the offer to $300 million and Mary proved she wasn’t a cheap date after all — she took the increase, voted for cloture, and then bragged about the $300 million bribe.

In a statement sure to be repeated by Republicans endlessly over the coming weeks of Senate health care debate, the senator flaunted the inclusion of the provision. “I will correct something. It’s not $100 million, it’s $300 million, and I’m proud of it and will keep fighting for it,” Landrieu told reporters after her floor speech. “But that is not why I started this health care debate; I started this health care debate for all the reasons I just mentioned in my statement” on the floor.

Sunday, November 22, 2009


This socialized health care being rammed down our throats just burns by bacon. It reminds me of the era of Louis XVI and his precious Marie Antoinette. What a parallel, the whole "Let them eat cake" thing.

We all know that the government-run health care for the little people will be far different than the health care for the elite members of congress, et al. And on our dollar, too, which is why this is not about health care, but redistribution of wealth -- robbing from one to give to another.

Roger Simon writes in PajamasMedia:

Congress: Gov’t Healthcare for Thee but Not for Me
by Roger L. Simon, November 21, 2009

I guess many Members of Congress secretly realize the Dean of Harvard Med was correct when he attacked the proposed healthcare legislation as a virtual anti-health boondoggle in the WSJ last week, because those members aren’t signing onto the legislation for themselves. They are only signing on for you.

Yes, the healthcare legislation still does not require Members of Congress to be part of the public plan, option, call it what you will, only poor sucker citizens. Those Congressmen are no fools. They know government-run medicine hasn’t worked in Canada and the UK. You think they want their wives lining up for a mammograms?

Here are some interesting tidbits that have been pointed out to me on my current brief visit to DC:

Ways and Means Committee – Rep. Heller (R-NV) offered an amendment to require all (”exchange eligible”) Members of Congress and their families to get insurance through the government-run plan. It failed, by a vote of 18-21, with three Democrats supporting the amendment: Berkley, Davis (AL), and Yarmuth. You can read all about it on p. 518 of this interminable document. (Who says PJM isn’t a full-service media company?) When a similar amendment was offered at the Energy and Commerce markup, it was dismissed by chairman Henry Waxman as “nongermane.” That’s my Congressman, of course. No comment necessary.

Over at the Rules Committee several amendments were filed on this subject, but ultimately not permitted under their rules. Rep. Sessions moved to make an order and provide the necessary waivers for amendment #1 offered by Reps. Fleming (R-LA), Wilson (R-SC), Gingrey (R-GA), and Herger (R-CA), which would automatically enroll all Members of Congress and all Senators in the public option. His motion was defeated on a party line vote of 4-6, with the following Members absent: Slaughter, Matsui, Pingree.

There’s more passed on to me by PJM’s “undercover correspondent,” but you get the point. It’s pretty depressing. You won’t read about this nonsense in the MSM, of course, but we’re going to try to deliver more on PJTV and the pages of Pajamas Media. That’s why I’ve been in Washington the past few days, helping to set up a team to do some investigating. The results won’t be immediately evident, but as we move into the new year, I hope you’ll see more of it.

Speaking of depressed, I don’t think I’ve even seen the nation’s capital in such a genuinely depressed mood. In my job, I have made multiple visits in recent years, but the atmosphere now is almost unnerving. No one seems to really like this healthcare legislation (how can you like what you couldn’t possibly read?). People just care about enacting or defeating it. The level of discussion is nihil; there is no discussion. Cap-and-trade, Afghanistan, everything is in a weird stasis. Some Republicans gloat that the administration seems to be imploding – and perhaps they are right – but there should be a cautionary note in all this. Imploding seems to be the natural state of this city. A party arrives in victory and months later they are in shambles. What’s astonishing about the Obama crew, however, is that they arrived on the wings of untold optimism supported by almost the entire media and still they have plummeted to near nothing in less than a year. Scary.

Saturday, November 21, 2009


Thanks to Obama and his puppet, Eric Holder, we are walking down a dangerous path. Never in the history of our country have terrorists been brought in from foreign countries and given our constitutional rights in a court of law. As acts of war, they have all been tried in a military tribunal, and 9-11 is no exception. If anything, it should (and will)be landmark decisions, God help us.

Charles Krauthammer writes a brilliant article in National Review Online:

Travesty in New York
We are giving KSM a farcical show trial.
by Charles Krauthammer, November 20, 2009

For late-19th-century anarchists, terrorism was the “propaganda of the deed.” And the most successful propaganda-by-deed in history was 9/11 — not just the most destructive, but the most spectacular and telegenic.

And now its self-proclaimed architect, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, has been given by the Obama administration a civilian trial in New York. Just as the memory fades, 9/11 has been granted a second life — and KSM, a second act: 9/11, The Director’s Cut, narration by KSM.

Sept. 11, 2001 had to speak for itself. A decade later, the deed will be given voice. KSM has gratuitously been presented with the greatest propaganda platform imaginable — a civilian trial in the media capital of the world — from which to proclaim the glory of jihad and the criminality of infidel America.

So why is Attorney General Eric Holder doing this? Ostensibly, to demonstrate to the world the superiority of our system, in which the rule of law and the fair trial reign.

Really? What happens if KSM (and his co-defendants) “do not get convicted,” asked Senate Judiciary Committee member Herb Kohl. “Failure is not an option,” replied Holder. Not an option? Doesn’t the presumption of innocence, er, presume that prosecutorial failure — acquittal, hung jury — is an option? By undermining that presumption, Holder is undermining the fairness of the trial, the demonstration of which is the alleged rationale for putting on this show in the first place.

Moreover, everyone knows that whatever the outcome of the trial, KSM will never walk free. He will spend the rest of his natural life in U.S. custody. Which makes the proceedings a farcical show trial from the very beginning.

Apart from the fact that any such trial will be a security nightmare and a terror threat to New York — what better propaganda-by-deed than blowing up the entire courtroom, making KSM a martyr and making the judge, jury, and spectators into fresh victims? — it will endanger U.S. security. Civilian courts with broad rights of cross-examination and discovery give terrorists access to crucial information about intelligence sources and methods.

That’s precisely what happened during the civilian New York trial of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers. The prosecution was forced to turn over to the defense a list of 200 unindicted co-conspirators, including the name Osama bin Laden. “Within ten days, a copy of that list reached bin Laden in Khartoum,” wrote former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, the presiding judge at that trial, “letting him know that his connection to that case had been discovered.”

Finally, there’s the moral logic. It’s not as if Holder opposes military commissions on principle. On the same day he sent KSM to a civilian trial in New York, Holder announced he was sending Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, mastermind of the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, to a military tribunal.

By what logic? In his congressional testimony Wednesday, Holder was utterly incoherent in trying to explain. In his November 13 news conference, he seemed to be saying that if you attack a civilian target, as in 9/11, you get a civilian trial; a military target like the Cole, and you get a military tribunal.

What a perverse moral calculus. Which is the war crime — an attack on defenseless civilians or an attack on a military target such as a warship, an accepted act of war which the U.S. itself has engaged in countless times?

By what possible moral reasoning, then, does KSM, who perpetrates the obvious and egregious war crime, receive the special protections and constitutional niceties of a civilian courtroom, while he who attacked a warship is relegated to a military tribunal?

Moreover, the incentive offered any jihadi is as irresistible as it is perverse: Kill as many civilians as possible on American soil and Holder will give you Miranda rights, a lawyer, a propaganda platform — everything but your own blog.

Alternatively, Holder tried to make the case that he chose a civilian New York trial as a more likely venue for securing a conviction. An absurdity: By the time Obama came to office, KSM was ready to go before a military commission, plead guilty and be executed. It’s Obama who blocked a process that would have yielded the swiftest and most certain justice.

Indeed, the perfect justice. Whenever a jihadist volunteers for martyrdom, we should grant his wish. Instead, this one, the most murderous and unrepentant of all, gets to dance and declaim at the scene of his crime.

Holder himself told the Washington Post that the coming New York trial will be “the trial of the century.” The last such was the trial of O. J. Simpson.

— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2009, The Washington Post Writers Group


One after another, each of the Obama appointee's far left idiologies are revealed. This past week, we've seen startling actions of this administration such as bringing the 9-11 terrorists to New York City for trial, halting the investigation into the terrorist attack at Fort Hood, and this president's 'treasonous' bow to Japanese emporer, just to name a few.

Each day brings another assault on our country. In an excellent recap of the nightmare appointments since Obama's inauguration, the ever brilliant, lovely Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum writes:

Obama's Radical Rogues Gallery?
by Phyllis Schlafly, November 20, 2009

Another kooky Barack Obama appointee became publicly known this month and quickly was thrown or voluntarily threw herself under the bus. Anita Dunn, the White House communications director (who led Obama's war on Fox News), said that Mao Tse-tung was one of her two favorite "political philosophers" whom "I turn to most" for answers to important questions.

History identifies Mao as a ruthless savage, not as a philosopher. He probably holds the record for ordering the mass murder of more people (50 to 100 million) than anyone else in history.

Dunn tried to claim that her statement was a joke, but anyone can look at her actual statement on YouTube and see that she spoke in deadly earnest. Dunn was part of Obama's inner circle and a senior media adviser during the 2008 presidential campaign.

Dunn's husband, Bob Bauer, an expert on campaign financing, fundraising, and voter mobilization, is Obama's personal lawyer. He has just been appointed White House Counsel where he will be in charge of vetting Obama's appointees.

Obama's Green Jobs Czar, Van Jones, had to exit in disgrace after he admitted that "I was a Communist." We can thank Glenn Beck for exposing him.

Obama's Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein, wrote a book in 2008 in which he declared that the government "owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone's permission." So, after the death consultants authorized in Nancy Pelosi's health care bill convince you to reject life-saving procedures, the organ-transplant team can remove your body's organs immediately.

Czar Sunstein also argues that animals are entitled to have lawyers to sue humans in court. Bow, wow; more business for trial lawyers. His wife, Samantha Power, is now on Obama's National Security Council. She is famous for writing a Pulitzer Prize-winning book about genocide, which she defined so narrowly that it excluded Stalin and Mao.

Obama's nominee for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chai R. Feldblum, signed a 2006 manifesto endorsing polygamous households. This lengthy document, called "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage," argues that traditional marriage should not be "privileged above all others."

Obama's education appointments, who came out of the Chicago political machine right along with Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, will have nearly $100 billion in new money to indoctrinate America's youth. Obama's Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is notorious for trying to start a gay high school in Chicago.

Obama's Safe Schools Czar, Kevin Jennings, founded the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a homosexual activist group that now has thousands of chapters at high schools across the nation.

GLSEN chapters and materials have promoted sex between young teens and adults and sponsored "field trips" to gay pride parades. Jennings was the keynote speaker at a notorious GLSEN conference at Tufts University in 2000 at which HIV/AIDS coordinators discussed in detail, before an audience including area high school students, how to perform various homosexual acts.

Obama's Science Czar wrote in a college textbook that compulsory "green abortions" are an acceptable way to control population growth. We assume that what makes an abortion green is when the motive for the killing is population control to serve environmentalist dogma.

Affirmative action is in vogue in Obama's administration: his Diversity Czar has spoken publicly of getting white media executives to "step down" in favor of minorities. Obama's first appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court is a woman who said repeatedly that a "Latina woman" would make better judicial decisions than "a white male."

Obama's top lawyer at the State Department, Harold Hongju Koh, calls himself a transnationalist. That means wanting U.S. courts to "domesticate" foreign and international law, i.e., integrate it into U.S. domestic law binding on U.S. citizens.

Koh is eager to put us under a global legal system that would diminish our "distinctive rights culture" such as due process, trial by jury, and our First Amendment "protections for speech and religion" that give "far greater emphasis and judicial protection in America than in Europe or Asia." Under global governance, the United States will be forbidden to allow more freedom and constitutional rights than other countries.

When Obama's appointee for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, David Hamilton, was a District Court judge, he prohibited the Indiana State Legislature from giving an invocation that mentioned Jesus, while mention of Allah was allowed. Hamilton worked for ACORN and the ACLU, and even the liberal American Bar Association rated him "not qualified."

And we thought the Rev. Jeremiah Wright was an embarrassment to Barack Obama when he was running for President! We never dreamed Obama would actually appoint such a collection of weirdos.

Further reading:

Obama Makes Polygamy a 21st Century Issue, 11-06-09
If Obama Had Told Us Before His Election, 10-16-09
Un-American and Unlawful White House Projects, 9-04-09
Obama Is Remaking America Into Socialism, 6-05-09

Friday, November 20, 2009


Now that we are 10 months into this administration, it is important to review theories that were dismissed as ridiculous one year ago. The most important being Obama's socialist/marxist agenda, as witnessed by his appointees and the many destructive attacks on our system. Destroy the economy, bring the whole thing down; blame capitalism, blame big business.

Thank you, Mark Levin, who spoke of this yesterday again, saying: We are in the midst of a massive takeover, and it's all about collapsing the system. The 1960s retreads are in power, and they are advancing the Cloward/Piven Strategy. The CPS was first proposed in 1966, and is the strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. Take the threat of a Value Added Tax (VAT), a Nancy Pelosi pet.

Mark suggested this piece from last Feb, 2009 in the American Thinker:

The Cloward/Piven Strategy of Economic Recovery
by Nancy Coppock, February 7, 2009

Using borrowed money for a band-aid bailout of the economy should seem backwards to most people. However, it likely is a planned strategy to promote radical change. Those naively believing that President Obama is simply rewarding his far-left base, and will then move to the political center, must wise up.

The assumption that Obama will need the nation to prosper in order to protect the 2010 mid-term election incorrectly assumes that he esteems free market capitalism. He does not. Rather than win through superior ideas and policies, the Democrat plan for success in the mid-term elections is to win by destroying political opposition.

Obama adheres to the Saul Alinksy Rules for Radicals method of politics, which teaches the dark art of destroying political adversaries. However, that text reveals only one front in the radical left's war against America. The Cloward/Piven Strategy is another method employed by the radical Left to create and manage crisis. This strategy explains Rahm Emanuel's ominous statement, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."

The Cloward/Piven Strategy is named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. Their goal is to overthrow capitalism by overwhelming the government bureaucracy with entitlement demands. The created crisis provides the impetus to bring about radical political change.

According to Discover the

Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation... [Emphasis added.]

Making an already weak economy even worse is the intent of the Cloward/Piven Strategy. It is imperative that we view the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan's spending on items like food stamps, jobless benefits, and health care through this end goal. This strategy explains why the Democrat plan to "stimulate" the economy involves massive deficit spending projects. It includes billions for ACORN and its subgroups such as SHOP and the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Expanding the S-Chip Program through deficit spending in a supposed effort to "save the children" only makes a faltering economy worse.

If Congress were to allow a robust economy, parents would be able to provide for their children themselves by earning and keeping more of their own money. Democrats, quick to not waste a crisis, would consider that a lost opportunity.

The Cato Institute reports that the plan will harm a faltering economy, intentionally causing increased job losses leading to increased demands for the aforementioned programs. Even the jobs to be created are set apart to render social justice, not economic revival. Robert Reich believes new infrastructure jobs should not go to white construction workers. Meanwhile, workers at Microsoft, IBM, Texas Instruments, and the retail market find themselves experiencing the life of the welfare poor.

If highly educated and trained workers continue to lose jobs and business falters as a whole, where will these jobless workers go? Could this be construed as revolutionary social reorganization that puts the underachiever above the achiever? Where is the future economic strength when jobless professionals collect welfare and unemployment while dreaming of a minimum wage job? For whites, there's not even the hope of a good paying construction job.

Because these programs are financed with deficit spending, the effect of the Cloward/Piven Strategy becomes doubly destructive. Talk about a perfect storm! The Democrat stimulus plan is a mechanism whose goal is the destruction of the traditional American way of life. It is bitter irony that the American taxpayer will actually fund the destruction of his own ability to live according to the values of our Founding Documents. It is not alarmist to identify this situation as a coup d'etat.

As the flow of money from the top of the economy dries up, job losses and mortgage busts will mount exponentially. The Democrat stimulus plan provides for welfare expansion but not for a robust economy that creates high paying jobs. Is this what Obama means when he warns, "It's going to get worse before it gets better?" If we are not bailing out corporate America so they can regain profitability, we must conclude Obama is working toward another end goal. Recognizing these attack methods reveals the only logical response -- an unwavering wall of "No!"

Nancy Coppock publishes The Jackalope's Voice.


How refreshing it is to watch Sarah Palin 'unplugged" -- without any harnesses, constraints, or restrictions. She is speaking from the heart, without the phony talking points one hears from the run-of-the-mill politicians. No wonder the opposition is terrified of her, and no wonder they vilify her. Cowards.

When asked if she was going to run for president in 2012, she did not hem and haw. You had a very different feeling watching her answers than watching the polished veterans running for, or in, office today.

Victor Davis Hanson writes an excellent in-depth piece about Sarah in PajamasMedia:

What Drives the Fear and Loathing of Sarah Palin?
by Victor Davis Hanson, November 18, 2009

The furor

The AP supposedly hired 11 fact-checkers to discredit Ms. Palin’s memoir (Did Fox News hire 11 to question the very questionable things found in the two Obama memoirs?)

Bloggers post on Palin’s live interviews minute by minute; few, if any, opponents of Barack Obama do the same.

Every statement she makes is parsed, to prove she is ignorant or parochial—though most of her so-called lapses are the sort of things Biden and Obama are accustomed to committing weekly.

So what?

The list could go on, but two fundamental questions arise:

1) What drives this fear and loathing?

2) How does one, then, assess the Palin phenomenon?

Question one is easy, and we can be systematic in our exegeses:

1. Why does she create hysteria?

. Feminists are enraged that her can-do, have a Down’s Syndrome child in her 40s, shoot-moose persona will be used as a paradigm of a liberated women. She is quite attractive, fertile, and married to a Jack-Armstrong 19th-century man.

Her success as an independent female, who was an up-from-the-bootstraps small-town council member, mayor, state regulator and governor, is antithetical to doctrinaire feminism. The latter devolved into a political and grievance-based creed. It is often whiny, and increasingly dominated by single, childless shrill elites. Many try to equate their own unhappiness in matters of family and sex into some sort of cosmic complaint against male patriarchy—as a way of leveraging influence, access, money, and power or simply justifying now regrettable life choices made in their 20’s and 30’s.

Feminism is not about ensuring that Dorothy at K-Mart is not fired because she is female. It is more about an upper-middle-class Dedi Wilson-Reynolds getting to the top of the university food chain, law firm, or government bureaucracy, on the assumption that her gender deserves compensation, in the manner of being non-white or foreign-born or non-Christian.

In such a climate, here comes snazzy, breezy, winking Sarah—happy, good-looking, a mom, and in no need of a rich husband or well-connected dad (in the manner of her critics like a Andrea Mitchell, Sally Quinn, Nancy Pelosi, etc). She inherently exposes feminism as a liberal advocacy movement rather than a bipartisan effort to ensure equal opportunity for women in the workplace and society at large.

ii). Liberal elites are, well, deemed elites because they predicate their stature on things such as where they went to school, where they live, how much money they have access to, where their children attend university, and whom they know—all done in a sort of understated, coded fashion. The best snobbery is the least stated.

When a Wasilla, you betcha, no abortion, Christian PTA mom comes on the scene with an Idaho BA, then red flags go up. Poor Sarah—had her mom only been a Colombian aristocrat, she might have at least pulled it off as Sarah Maria Dias-Palin, and compromised some of the furor. Poor Sarah, if she only could speak through nose. Poor Sarah, if she could only show up at her Wellesley reunion.

Moreover Palin does not have Audrey Hepburn/Jackie Kennedy boney looks, or even superficial John Edwards blow-dry smugness: she comes across as real, earthy, and warm, unaffected, the sort of wife most men prefer to a Maureen Dowd or Barbara Boxer shrewish whine.

iii). Right-wing populism also scares the left since grassroots movements are supposed to reflect democracy and the instant expression of popular will. And that is supposed to be good all the time. Yet average Joes listen to Rush Limbaugh in their cars, not Air America, and watch Bill O’Reilly, not MSNBC. Barack Obama was supposed to be a populist phenomenon, by virtue of being an African-American organizer, and we were to like him for his supposed ease with hoi polloi. But we surely cannot be consistent, and extend that notion of authenticity to a Christian, moose-hunter from the snow-bound, wacko far north who talks like the clerk at Wal-Mart—and draws crowds as large as Obama’s.

2.Where Does It All Lead?

Palin faces many of the same problems that sunk Reagan in 1976: the moderate Republicans think she is a shallow, superficial head-nodder, the way they wrote Reagan off in his quest to dethrone Ford. She earns as much resistance from Republican Old Guarders as she does the Obamians. In the elite center-right way of thinking, she knows little of foreign affairs and is not wonkish about domestic issues.

Her supporters’ argument is that any woman who can have five kids, pull herself out of Wasilla to the national political scene, juggle job, husband, family, and press, and take on the old boy Republicans in Alaska while being an anathema to the liberal elite, must have brains and guts. Such experience will easily allow her, given the proper time and campaigning, to master the issues every bit as not well as do Barack Obama or Joe Biden.

Yet since many conservative elites imagine that a Harvard Kennedy School degree is superior to multifaceted knowledge of .357 Magnums, chain-sawing, skinning game, and fishing, they will judge her only in terms of a traditional cursus honorum—spiced up with invective about creationism and Christian fundamentalism. (I have some experience with such snobbishness: when I used to speak before hostile university audiences, I was often introduced along these lines: “Mr. Hanson is a raisin farmer from Fresno State of Jerry Tarkanian fame.” [and therefore, presto, must be an idiot].)

Yet Palin won’t quite go away, given her opposition to the two most unpopular institutions in America today: Big Government and High Finance.

The voters are tiring on left-wing, condescending big government. An Eric Holder, Timothy Geithner and Barack Obama are the best reflections of the contradictory urge to redistribute money, and hector the productive upper-middle classes—while at the same time indulging their rarefied tastes and desire for privilege through government administration.

Yet Wall Street elites are no more popular. They are seen as selfish, conniving, and of no political persuasion other than kowtowing to the particular powers that be in Washington. Their creed is not conservatism or liberalism, but rather statism and the marriage of the federal government and high finance. And we now know these one-eyed jacks. Federal regulators (cf. e.g., Timothy Geithner, Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, Hank Paulson, Franklin Raines, etc) drift in and out of Wall Street. In exchange for guaranteeing that firms don’t fail and get sweetheart attention, federal officials are promised that during their sabbaticals from Washington they are to be accorded ceremonial jobs with access to near automatic multimillion-dollar bonuses.

Again, Palin is not an inside-the-beltway hack, and has never held federal office. She is honest and won’t go to Goldman Sachs or get a government auditorship over Bank of America. She seems like a fish out of water in New York and Washington. For someone in government for nearly 20 years, she ended up, until the latest book blitz, broke. You can’t serve for two decades in local and state government and be poor—without being perceived as honest.

Her populism is anti-bailout, anti-take-over, anti-federal loan guarantees—and as anti-Wall Street as it is anti-Washington. And for many, that is found appealing: it cuts the legs from under both Rockefeller, beltway Republicans, and high-rolling Kerry-Gore-Edwards-Kenney-Pelosi multimillionaire liberal Democrats.

All of which brings us, again, back to the second question, where does Palinism lead? (It matters little that were she not so attractive, and were she not picked by John McCain, we would not now be discussing her; since were Jack Kennedy not charismatic and the son of a zillionaire, we would not have known him either.)

Palin must have at her fingertips far more elucidating answers than offered by any liberal icon—or what she showed in the 2008 campaign. If Sarah Palin thinks FDR was President in 1929, or that he could speak on non-existent TV, she is through; if Biden says that, it’s “just old Joe again.” If Obama does not know the first thing about our most prestigious medals, the language of Austria, or diplomatic protocol about presidential bowing, it’s because he is deliberately trying to be cool; if Palin did the same, she’s a buffoon hockey mom. That is the way it is, and her supporters should accept it, deal with, and overcome it.

In other words, Palinites should assume that there is no margin of error for her at all. Like it or not, she must, like Reagan, not only communicate, but also be able to draw on abstract concepts about conservatism. It does no good to say the media is biased, or to review the talking points offered above. She must be better than, not as good as, mainstream Democratic and Republican candidates in matters of foreign policy, gottacha recall, and talking points on health care, taxes, etc. Specificity, detail, and exactness, not generalities or whines about an unfair press, will make her a serious candidate.

The best thing she can do is to go out and talk, take her licks, promote her book, fend off foes, and gain experience in the arena of ideas—while spending her evenings reading and debating wonks and politicians. The marketplace of politics then will decide her fate, not pundits or political insiders. If she swims in the next year, she’s on her way; if she sinks, she will recede from our memory.

My own views?

I am prejudiced because what I learned over years of farming—dealing with California labor, environmental, legal, and tax regulations, pruning, tractor driving, listening to my grandfather, and handling unsavory characters, understanding plant physiology and fruit-production, etc.—I think gave me a different, but in the long run, as good an education as a BA/PhD in Classical languages.

I found the former harder to do than the latter, the world of the one rather brutal and existential, of the other sheltered and protected. In other words, I would trust the judgment of someone with Palin’s background on matters of Iran or Honduras or Putin far more than I would someone of Obama’s resume. I would trust my neighbor who farms 180 acres more than I would a chairman of an academic department. I know, I know, there are extreme binaries, but they are reflective of the lack of autonomy and physicality today and the undue emphasis on elite schooling as prerequisites for success. We know now that you can do nothing and still finish as the head of Harvard Law Review, or win a Nobel Prize, but if you miss an antlered moose, or run out of gas in the tundra, or fall overboard on a salmon boat, there is no Norwegian committee or Harvard Law Dean to bail you out.

Such is not an argument for anti-intellectualism or a dismissal of in-depth scholarship and research, but rather a reminder that Palin has led a full life than can be enhanced by more formal investigation. A chatty, rarified Obama misses dearly a concrete past, where he had to succeed or fail on his own merits, in a competitive unkind environment, where the muscular world often conspires against the intellectual.

And boy, it sure shows as we are learning in just 10 months of his uninspired governance.

Thursday, November 19, 2009


"We're making history here, Mr. Attorney General." And isn't that what it's all about for them? Especially Obama, who thinks every time he steps up to the podium is a historic moment. But this is far too serious to ignore or accept, as the security of our country is at stake.

President Bush kept America safe for 8 years because he knew what he was doing, sans ego, and had knowledgeable people to support and advise him. But this is a new administration hell bent on blaming and destroying Bush, and, in the process, America.

Heritage Foundation writes further:

A Historically Bad Decision
November 19, 2009

Last Friday, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and five other terrorists would be tried in a civilian court in New York City rather than before a military tribunal. Pressing Holder on this decision at yesterday’s Senate Judiciary Committee Oversight hearing of the U.S. Department of Justice, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asked: “Can you give me a case in United States history where a (sic) enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?”

Holder responded: “I don’t know. I’d have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I’ve made…” At which point Graham interjected: “We’re making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I’ll answer it for you. The answer is no.” Holder’s decision does make history. And not in a good way. Edwin Meese III, the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy and Chairman of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation as well as the United States Attorney General between 1985 and 1988 released the following statement yesterday on Holder’s unprecedented decision:

It is clear that foreign terrorists and terrorist groups have committed acts of war against the United States, and that our national security requires that we respond accordingly. This means that President Bush’s prudent actions and the military response which he led should continue as our answer to these attacks.

Congress overwhelmingly reaffirmed their commitment to military commissions in 2006, which have historically been the way that we respond to acts of war. To abandon our two centuries of tradition and to substitute some new civilian procedure as a response to such attacks endangers the security of our country and our national interest.

It was a tragic mistake to decide to abandon the prison facility at Guantanamo Bay, which was designed physically and legally to handle these types of cases. It is a further tragic mistake to now bring the detained war combatants into the United States and to employ civilian criminal procedures which were never intended for this type of situation.

The U.S. Constitution protects American citizens and visitors from the moment they are suspected of criminal wrongdoing through a potential trial. These same protections are not, have never, and should not be granted to enemy combatants in war, since it is clear that regardless of the outcome of the trial, these detainees will likely remain in the custody of the United States.