Thursday, July 31, 2008

Illegals are turning out to be very rational people!

Since 1986, when Pres. Reagan signed a one-time amnesty for those in the country illegally, we have seen a growth in illegal immigrants.

Why? The first reason is economics. The US economy has expanded significantly since then.

For example, despite 24/7 doom and gloom about our current economy, the US gross domestic product grew by 1.9% in the second quarter! (The Dems have now predicted 100 of the last zero recessions!)

The second reason is that no one cared. No one checked documents. No one protected the border.

What did people in Mexico, and elsewhere, do? They did what any of us would have done.

In other words, they came over and got a job at $6 an hour rather than the one in Mexico that paid $6 a day!

In 2006, Pres. Bush put the National Guard on the border. What happened? It was a lot tougher to get over!

Also, the Bush Administration has started to enforce employer sanctions. What happened? Employers are getting scared. They don't want raids on their premises.

What are illegal immigrants doing? They are doing the rational thing and going home. (Study finds 11% drop in illegal immigrants) Also, remittances are down because people are going back!

They can't walk over without running into a border agent. They can't get a job because the employer is scared of sanctions.

So they are going home! (Why more illegal aliens self-deport)

A couple of years ago, we had a huge debate about immigration. Some people wanted to round up illegals and send them home. Some wanted to give them a free pass and let them stay.

Some of us said enforce the law and do a "guest worker" program so that Mexicans can legally work here.

Perhaps, we will finally come to our senses. We don't need an open border or to drag people out of their apartment buildings.

We just need to enforce existing laws and come up with a modern version of the old "brasero" program and everyone will be just fine!

Hamilton and the MVP season

Michael Young is playing hurt but he still drives in runs. Once again, Young drove in the winning run against Seattle.

Josh Hamilton continues his MVP season:
.304 average, 25 hrs and 104 RBIs in 104 games!

Hamilton has the numbers but he is playing for a team unlikely to get into the post-season. At the same time, is there another AL player having a better season?

If Hamilton does not get it then you have to give it to Carlos Quentin of the Chicago White Sox. He may lead the league in HRs and put the ChiSox in the post-season!

P.S. Mark Texeira is now an Angel and Ivan Rodriguez is now a Yankee.
Ivan was the heart and soul of the Rangers' teams that won division titles back in the late 90s. Ivan was the AL MVP in '99 and one of the best defensive catchers in baseball history.

Texeira will help LA win the AL West and probably get in the World Series. It's hard to think a better AL team than the Angels!

Do women think that BO is tough enough to stand up to men?

BO has a woman problem. He is not clicking with women, according to Dick Morris and Carol Marin.

Morris believes that it's all about age. Women over 40 are not comfortable with him. Women under 40 love him!

Marin doesn't think that Obama is doing enough to reach some women!

Jenniffer Rubin has another thought:

The question remains: Will they sit home? Vote for McCain?

But it seems that the Ego Problem exacerbates the Women Problem.

These gals, after all, were the ones who rolled their eyes with Hillary Clinton and nodded their heads when she lambasted his goo-goo rhetoric as “just words.”

They don’t really like the King of the World shtick.

So the more the Ego meme takes hold, the worse the problem for him with luring the working class, middle-aged Hillary set."

How can a man like me pretend to understand women?

Why do I think that BO has a woman problem?

Let me try this politically incorrect conclusion: Many women don't think that BO is tough enough to stand up to some of the world's bad guys.

Perhaps, they think that he is too cute to be president.
After all, the US president is the only man in the planet who can unleash the world's deadliest nuclear weapons. Haven't you seen that military man carrying a brief case around Pres. Bush? He is carrying the nuclear codes!

Don't you know? Women love men who remember anniversaries but also pay the mortgage!

Women want a president who will protect their kids. They want somebody who will be tough enough to sit across from the Iranian delegation. This is my theory. Women don't think that BO is man enough!

It would help if BO got specific

BO said this yesterday:

""I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds."

OK. What in the world does that mean?

How to play games with the budget deficit numbers!

Is this the biggest budget deficit in history? Not really. In fact, it is less than 3% of GDP.

It makes no sense to look at numbers without putting them in some relative context.

Here is the deficit under Bush relative to GDP:

2004: 3.6%
2005: 2.6%
2006: 1.9%
2007: 1.2%

$400 billion is a big figure until you relate it to our $13 trillion GDP! Our problem is not the budget deficit. Our real problem is entitlements, i.e. promises that must be kept to baby boomers collecting checks over the next 25 years!

Again, do we really want to get into a war in Afghanistan?

A few posts ago, I referred to the mother of all soundbites: "We took our eye off the ball"!

We hear this soundbite all of the time about going ino Iraq rather than Afghanistan.

Let me ask again: Do the Dems understand what going to war in Afghanistan really means? Frankly, do they have the stomach to fight such a war?

Paul Mirengoff writes this in Power Line:

"....Ann Marlowe ....has been to Afghanistan ten times, three of them as an embed with U.S. forces.

She argues that the situation in Afghanistan differs markedly from that in Iraq, such that an Iraq style surge is not called for.

In Afghanistan, she argues, the military solution does not lie in importing thousands of additional U.S. troops, but rather in using special forces to deal with the "bad guys" who are infiltrating from Pakistan.

This means hunting them with stealth over trackless mountainsides for which our infantry, cavalry, and airborne soldiers are not trained to operate.

In short, says Marlowe, "defeating the enemy is best accomplished by highly trained fighters who travel light."

Aren't we doing that? Didn't we just use a missile to take out a AQ leader in Pakistan?

How do we fight in Afghanistan?

First, we use special forces to take out leaders. We have the aerial technology to hit these people.

We rally the world to send in volunteers and missionaries to help the people. Let's see how committed the UN, EU and the rest of the world is to helping the poor!

Warning to Dems: Don't go into Afghanistan because you want to show the voters that you are tough enough to fight terrorists!

It's not so simple in Afghanistan! Check what Thomas Friedman wrote:

"For many Democrats, Afghanistan was always the “good war,” as opposed to Iraq.

I think Barack Obama needs to ask himself honestly:

“Am I for sending more troops to Afghanistan because I really think we can win there, because I really think that that will bring an end to terrorism, or am I just doing it because to get elected in America, post-9/11, I have to be for winning some war?”

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Rangers win craziest game in years!

You make 5 errors. You blow a 9-3 lead.

Vazquez, the back-up third baseman makes a throwing error to blow a 9th inning lead.

In the bottom of the 9th, Vazquez hits a double to win the game. (In baseball, you play both ways so you can help your team on offense and defense!)

It was an exciting finish but hardly good baseball. Add "100 degrees" at game time and it must have been a very tough night to play ball.

At least, the Rangers won and stayed alive for the wild card.

BO stinks for Latin America!

Free trade, and economic reforms, are the keys to development south of the border.

The bad news is that reform comes slowly.

The good news is that there are some responsible leaders willing to push for reforms.

This is why BO stinks. BO doesn't understand what's happening south of the border. BO is as wrong on this as he was on the Iraq "surge".

IBD has an outline of BO's plans for Latin America. It stinks, unless you are one of those Latin lefties who loves "hope and change":

"What exactly would Obama say if he went to Latin America?

None of his top advisers pays much attention to the region, and Miami Herald columnist Andres Oppenheimer reports that Latin hands in his camp, including Richardson, don't have Obama's ear.

So it's little surprise the Obama offerings to the region are so unattractive.

• Mexico: Obama declared he would unilaterally scrap the North American Free Trade Agreement that Mexico signed in 1994, not only treating the pact with Mexico like toilet paper, but calling it "a bad trade treaty."

He's since backtracked, but still intends to muscle in new labor and environmental provisions.

Obama also promises "comprehensive immigration reform," a real thrill to Mexicans who get empty villages and broken up families from that.

• Guatemala: Obama can tell Guatemalans he voted "no" on their free-trade deal, attempting to shut the tiny democracy out of access to the world's biggest market, though it cost American workers nothing.

There's more: His endorsers in the AFL-CIO want Guatemala's treaty revoked permanently over a few labor violations instead of working with them to a solution.

• Brazil: Obama's got more walls — ethanol tariffs. As America reels from an energy crisis, Obama vows to keep the 52% tariffs on Brazil's sugar-based ethanol (McCain would scrap them).

He said it "does not serve our national and economic security to replace imported oil with Brazilian ethanol."

He'd rather buy oil from Venezuela's Hugo Chavez than replace some with Brazilian ethanol.

There's also no G-8 seat nor Security Council seat to reflect Brazil's growing achievements and global heft — as McCain vows to give.

• Panama: Another country whose free-trade reforms and years spent in treaty negotiations mean nothing to Obama.

His answer to this tiny nation that sits astride the strategically vital Panama Canal is to give U.S. handouts, rather than trade with them freely.

• Peru: Obama says he supported Peru's free-trade pact.

Maybe so, but, unlike other Democratic senators who actually OK'd the deal, Obama couldn't be bothered to show up for the vote.

• Colombia: A pact nearly identical to Peru's, with the same labor and environmental provisions that Obama said were lacking in the NAFTA agreement?


Colombia is America's closest ally in the hemisphere, yet Obama shuts them out of free trade as punishment for a handful of violent acts against labor leaders.

He even accused President Alvaro Uribe, a national hero who brought peace to his country after 44 years of war, of being involved.

"I think until we get that straightened out, it's inappropriate for us to move forward."

So the blue-jeans factory workers and flower pickers in Medellin can forget about jobs, despite Colombia's 600-plus extraditions to the U.S. of criminals, or Colombia's putting of its own troops in harm's way to rescue Americans held hostage by vicious FARC terrorists who are on record as seeing Obama's election as a good thing.

These friendly nations get stiffed, but no such problems for the anti-American nations of the region that can look forward to quality face time with Obama.

"It is time to pursue direct diplomacy, with friend and foe alike, without preconditions," Obama told the Cuban American National Foundation last May.

Small wonder Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez both hope for a President Obama."

BO is bad news for Latin America!

Happy 20 to Rush Limbaugh!

How many radio personalities have 20 million listeners? How many have successfully stayed at the top of the ratings? Who else makes you laugh with a parody like this: Obama Decisive by Paul Shanklin!

The answer is Rush Limbaugh!

Everybody seems to be joining in the celebration. The guys at RedState have an Open Thread for fans to leave their comments!

Sean Hannity has it right: Rush Limbaugh is the the Babe Ruth of Broadcasting! It's Ruth, Aaron and Mays!

Limbaugh is good because he is honest and consistent. I hope that Limbaugh is around another 20 years!

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Germans love BO as long as the US does all of the fighting in Afghanistan!

BO found a lot of love in Europe until he called on Germans to send troops to Afghanistan. Today, we learned this:

"On Sunday the Secretary General of the opposition German Free Democrats, Dieter Niebel, responded to Mr. Obama by telling the Bild am Sonntag that "Under no circumstances will the German taxpayer pay with more money and more troops for Afghanistan for tax cuts in the U.S."

Check out The WSJ:

"Welcome to President Bush's world, Senator Obama.

The myth is that Mr. Bush's "unilateralism" has so antagonized America's allies that they will rush to share more of the war burden once the Texan is back in Crawford.

But Europeans have long enjoyed the free ride of U.S. military protection while enjoying even more their freedom to criticize how that protection is provided.

Mr. Obama's attempt to link European security commitments to American tax cuts was the kind of "unilateral" political faux pas that won't make European defense burden-sharing any more likely."

Welcome to the real world, Mr. BO!

You will soon learn that it's a lot easier to blame Bush than to get the Europeans to deal with serious problems. Let's hope that Mr. BO reads this one from from Sec. Kissinger! ('Europeans Hide Behind the Unpopularity of President Bush')

Weren't there any good Chicago public schools for Obama's daughters?

The welfare state is a disaster, specially inner city schools.

What are the Dems doing about inner city schools? The answer is nothing and two-fold:

1) They send their kids to private schools. Check out the Obama girls, or Kerry's children, or the Clintons' daughter or Gore's kids. After all, why couldn't any of these Dems find a good public school?

2) They keep taking money from the teachers' unions, one of the party's most faithful supporters.

When will a Dem stand up to the teachers' union? Don't hold your breadth!

The WSJ calls it The Greatest Scandal! Yes it is! It is a scandal:

"The state of California just announced that one in three students in the Los Angeles public school system drops out before graduating.

Among black and Latino students in L.A. district schools, the numbers are 42% and 30%.

In the past five years, the number of dropouts has grown by more than 80%.

The number of high school graduates has gone up only 9%"

Again, where is Obama in all of this:

"A visitor to Mr. Obama's Web site finds plenty of information about his plans to fix public education in this country.

Everyone knows this is a long, hard slog, but Mr. Obama and his wife aren't waiting.

Their daughters attend the private University of Chicago Laboratory Schools, where annual tuition ranges from $15,528 for kindergarten to $20,445 for high school.

When the day arrives that these two candidates face off, we hope Senator McCain comes prepared to press his opponent hard on change, hope and choice in the schools."

Should we wait until the McCain-Obama debates?

Will the "media in the tank for Obama" challenge their preferred candidate on this?

Am I the only one who sees hypocrisy all over this? On one hand, the Dems love public schools and take huge amounts of money from the teachers' unions. On the other hand, they send their kids to private schools!

Just ask Obama a simple question: Weren't there any good public schools for your daughters in Chicago?

Secondly, shouldn't other black kids in Chicago have a "voucher" so that they can attend a nice school like BO's daughters.

It is a disgrace and a scandal.

Can anyone make sense of BO's Iraq statements?

Wonder what all of those anti-war primary voters are saying? BO is starting to sound a lot different about Iraq than he did in the spring.

Check out this from 2007:

"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there; in fact, I think it'll do the reverse. "

Obama is now saying that his Iraq policy will be based on conditions on the ground. He is also getting twisted on his explanations about the surge.

The good news is that BO is finally telling the truth about Iraq. The bad news is that he lied to the base in the spring when he ran to the left of everybody on Iraq.

Again, wonder how all of those anti-war people feel now?

Cowboys: 13-3 again and a real shot at The Super Bowl!

There is a lot of excitement around here about the upcoming Cowboys' season.

I guess that time has healed the wounds of that loss to the Giants almost 7 months ago! Or the field goal fumble the year before! Or not winning a post season game since 1996!

Let's start with the schedule. This is a soft schedule. It tells you a lot about the weak NFC! The AFC has the Colts, Patriots, Steelers, Jaguars and Chargers. The NFC has Dallas. Green Bay and that's about it!

The first two games are Cleveland and Philadelphia. Make it 2-0 Cowboys!

Game 3 is at Green Bay. Make it 3-0 although it could be 2-1 because the Packers are always tough up there. The good news is that it won't be freezing cold in Green Bay in September.

So let's be fair. Let's say 2-1 after 3 games!

The next four are against Washington, Cincinnati, Arizona and St. Louis! Make it 6-1 after 7 games!

Tampa Bay and New York come next. Let's split these two because they play the Giants in NY.

Make it 7-2 after 9 games!

Game # 10 is in Washington. Let's be fair again and make it 7-3 because the Redskins usually split the season series.

San Francisco and Seattle come next. Make it 9-3 after 12 games!

They should beat the Steelers at Pittsburgh and the Giants in Dallas. Make it 11-3 after 14 games!

The Cowboys will beat Baltimore and Philadelphia and finish at 13-3!

I could be wrong. It may be 11-5 or 12-4 but they will win the NFC East and take a first round bye.

Are there any things to worry about? They need to get over the late season "fade"! The Cowboys have not played well in December for two years in a row!

Put me down as one of those who is predicting a trip to the Super Bowl. Can they beat the stronger AFC? I don't think so but the Giants weren't supposed to beat the Patriots last year either!

Monday, July 28, 2008

Have you noticed how everybody is praising Pres. Truman these days?

It's a shame that Pres. Truman and Mrs. Truman did not live to see it. He died in 1972 and Mrs. Truman passed away a few years later. It's sad that Mrs. Truman did not see how much her husband is appreciated today. She had to endure everything that was said and written about the former president.

Nevertheless, Pres. Truman is wildly popular these days. Again, who would have believed this in 1952 when everybody, including Dems, ran against him?

A few weeks ago, Andrew Roberts wrote History will say that we misunderestimated George W Bush. He made a comparison between Bush and Truman!

Jeff Jacoby wrote today that Obama is no Harry Truman!

Last week, the Congress had a ceremony remembering the desegregation of our armed forces, another of Pres. Truman's unbelievably difficult decisions.

Michael Barone recently wrote about the Berlin Airlift, one of the many incredibly tough Truman decisions. Like Bush's surge, Truman went against public opinion to ensure that Berlin would survive!

Why all of the interest in Pres. Truman? Because historians are looking back and seeing someone who made tough decisions even if it meant taking a hit in approval ratings.

Last, but not least, check out Pres. Truman's library. It is a great place to read about what happened between 1945-53. It was a tumultuous time and Pres. Truman looks pretty good today!

Again, it's a shame that he or Mrs. Truman are not around to see it all! I'm sure that they would be delighted to read something like this: Who is Today's Harry Truman? by Fred Schwarz!

A couple of Europeans who aren't full of crap!

Obama-mania is today's Diana-mania.

I guess that's what happens when people stop going to church. They look for heroes to fill their empty lives. They look for people who make complex problems easy. They look for people who tell them what they want to hear!

Let's recall what Gov. Romney said of Europe during the primaries:

"Europe is facing a demographic disaster. That is the inevitable product of weakened faith in the Creator, failed families, disrespect for the sanctity of human life and eroded morality." (Mitt Romney's CPAC speech )

REX MURPHY is a Commentator with The National and host of CBC Radio's Cross-Country Checkup. This is what he saw:

"He has absolutely no record at all of involvement in foreign policy.

Correction: He did offer unqualified, insistent opposition to the Petraeus surge in Iraq, which turned the war around to the point that some of its most relentless critics now maintain "it cannot be lost."

In other words, on the one definitive issue, post-invasion, on his country's most important foreign involvement, the one decision the inarticulate and sublimely unhip Texan in the White House made alone, and got right, Mr. Obama was perfectly, publicly wrong."

Nile Gardiner is the director of the Margaret Thatcher Centre for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC. This is what he saw:

"Closely aligning himself with powerful labour unions, Obama has pronounced protectionist tendencies. He has opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement as well as a host of free trade treaties from Colombia to South Korea."

There you have it. Not everybody is wildly chanting "yes we can".

Sunday, July 27, 2008

Rick Moran's Top 10 is funny and thoughtful!

It is very funny and it also makes you think. Try this:

"It creeps me out that Obama’s rhetoric about America is so apocalyptic.

It is “the worst” this or “the most” that. He is a serial exaggerator – so much so it would be impossible for anyone to debunk all of his outrageous “doom and gloom” claims.

And what’s really, really creepy is that after addressing this litany of horrific evils perpetrated by Bush and the Republicans, he holds himself up as just the man to fix everything.

If the United States were as bad as he describes it, no sane person would want to live there. And yet, Obama will ride to the rescue and “restore” America.

Shining knights on white horses riding to save us is one thing – we’ve seen that before many times in American politics.

But Obama’s powers extend beyond Coolidge’s promise of a “chicken in every pot” to a promise to heal the souls of America and Americans.

I don’t know what’s creepier. The candidate saying it or his supporters believing it."

Good point Rick. It amazes how many people just want to believe this guy.

My question is this: Are these people really listening or digesting what he is saying?

Let's take his Iraq position. Are these supporters aware that BO's current plan is about the same as McCain?

Bad week for the media!

Dick Morris makes a great point:

"Never has the disjuncture between coverage and reality loomed quite so large as it does in this race.

You get one image from the media and a totally different one from the polling."

The media coverage suggests a Reagan-type 1984 landslide. The polls suggest something closer to what we saw in 2000 or 2004.

It's funny but no poll has BO cracking 50%. No Dem has cracked 50% since LBJ in '64!

My question is this: Does it matter? Does it matter that the media is in the tank for Obama?

My guess is that it does not. At the same time, it does matter to the media because credibility is all they have.

What is BO going to tell his anti-war base?

Wonder how all of those Dem primary voters feel today?

They turned out in huge numbers to nominate the one Dem who didn't vote for the Iraq War. What did they get for so much effort?

This is got they got. Check out Obama:

"U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said in an interview published on Saturday the size of a residual U.S. force left in Iraq after the withdrawal of combat troops would be "entirely conditions-based."

What is the difference between Obama and McCain?

There is no difference!

No time to see the wounded tropps? Are you kidding me?

Now, let me get this straight.

Candidate BO travelled to Germany and found the time to tell 200,000 what they wanted to hear. However, he didn't have time to stop by the US Army Hospital and say "thank you" to wounded troops.

I'm sure that BO cares about the troops. Nobody is questioning his commitment to wounded troops.

I just don't understand how he didn't find the time to see them.

According to the BO staff, the Pentagon did not want pictures. What's wrong with that? Hospital visits are not supposed to be campaign appearances.

What will voters remember about this trip? They will remember that BO did not find the time to visit wounded soldiers.

Very bad planning Mr. BO!

Saturday, July 26, 2008

Baseball is hot in Milwaukee!

Baseball is back in Milwaukee and I couldn't be happier. As I recall from my Milwaukee days, the crowds were always passionate.

Milwaukee is in the middle of the NL Central race. According to MLB, Brewers expecting big crowds at home!

The Brewers are now tied with the Cubs. I just caught the last two innings of the 6-4 victory over Houston. The crowd was really into it!

Guess what? Chicago is coming in next week. It should be a great series. I wish that I had a ticket!

Gerard Baker's "The Child"

Gerard Baker posted a great article in the UK press. It's nice to know that one European isn't full of crap.

Watch the video and follow He ventured forth to bring light to the world .

This is great:

"And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.

The Child was blessed in looks and intellect.

Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant.

And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.

When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders.

And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”

In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.

And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world.

He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media.

He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the
Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.

And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them.

And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.

From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it.

And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child's very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.

And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace.

At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.

From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass.

The crowds of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered “Hosanna” and waved great palm fronds and strewed them at his feet.

In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold.

And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace.

As word spread throughout the land about the Child's wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites.

And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child's journey.

Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over.

The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for.

And there were other wonderful signs. In the city of the Street at the Wall, spreads on interbank interest rates dropped like manna from Heaven and rates on credit default swaps fell to the ground as dead birds from the almond tree, and the people who had lived in foreclosure were able to borrow again.

Black gold gushed from the ground at prices well below $140 per barrel. In hospitals across the land the sick were cured even though they were uninsured. And all because the Child had pronounced it.

And this is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness to the truth so that you might believe.

And he knows it is the truth for he saw it all on CNN and the BBC and in the pages of The New York Times.

Then the Child ventured forth from Israel and Palestine and stepped onto the shores of the Old Continent. In the land of Queen Angela of Merkel, vast multitudes gathered to hear his voice, and he preached to them at length.

But when he had finished speaking his disciples told him the crowd was hungry, for they had had nothing to eat all the hours they had waited for him.

And so the Child told his disciples to fetch some food but all they had was five loaves and a couple of frankfurters.

So he took the bread and the frankfurters and blessed them and told his disciples to feed the multitudes.

And when all had eaten their fill, the scraps filled twelve baskets.

Thence he travelled west to Mount Sarkozy. Even the beauteous Princess Carla of the tribe of the Bruni was struck by awe and she was great in love with the Child, but he was tempted not.

On the Seventh Day he walked across the Channel of the Angles to the ancient land of the hooligans.

There he was welcomed with open arms by the once great prophet Blair and his successor, Gordon the Leper, and his successor, David the Golden One.

And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and singing: “Yes, We Can.”

Let me add this: On the 8th day, the Europeans and The NY Times started to measure time as BO (Before Obama) and AO (After Obama).

Naturally, everyone lived happily ever after and The NY Times no longer had a decline in circulation! (NY Times 2Q earnings fall 82 pct, revenue misses Wall Street target as ad revenue slips 11 pct)

Get ready for "the mother" of all ironies!

BO became the darling of the left by opposing the Iraq War. If elected, he will become the devil of the left by winning the war.

History is about irony.

If elected, Pres. BO will face a difficult dilemma:

1) Please the left and get out of Iraq; or

2) Win the war and move on to the next theatre.

Why will he choose option 2? Because Pres BO does not want to spend his entire first, and only, term consumed with Iraq.

As I have said before, we win now or go back to win later. In other words, we must win this Iraq War or we will be back to face Iran in Iraq!

I don't think that a Pres. BO wants to go on TV and announce that we are sending troops back in because the whole region is overrun by Iran.

Also, a mess in Iraq will mean that there won't be any time to pursue any domestic policies. It will mean greater oil instability. It will mean that terrorists are emboldened.

Victory in Iraq is now the best thing that could happen to a potential BO presidency.

Is that sweet irony or what?

Jonah Goldberg is a pretty smart and this is what he wrote:

"Already, Obama is changing his tune from his old, irresponsibly heated rhetoric about “immediate” withdrawal to talking about the need for policies that would adapt to the improving conditions in Iraq.

Given Obama’s ideological leanings and inexperience, there’s clearly plenty of potential for him to make costly mistakes.

But odds are he, too, would come to realize that America needs to win the war on terror and succeed in Iraq.

Hence the greatest irony. A successful Obama presidency would have the unintended consequence of making Bush’s memoir a success story."

Obama won't let Iraq fail because he doesn't want to go back. Bush will watch with glee as an anti-war Dem puts the exclamation point on Iraq!

Irony. The mother of all ironies.

P.S. It may be better for Dems to have BO lose the election. If he loses then he can always travel to Europe and get 200,000 to say that they love him and hate McCain!

The Europeans and "The Child"!

Obama-mania has them jumping "yes we can" in German, French and whatever else they speak over there. (They are also saying "no we can't" to his requests for more troops but that was my post from yesterday)

Gerard Baker from the UK has the line of the week:

"And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness."

I feel better. Someone in Europe can see this entire farce as well as some of us do.

I feel better. Someone understands that Europe has a lot bigger problems that Bush and way beyond the ability of "The Child" to fix.

I get it!

Unfortunately, millions over there don't get it.

They will get it when they realize a few things about "The Child":

1) He is owned by our unions (i.e. anti free trade)! Don't you remember Ohio and NAFTA?

2) He has a penchant for changing his views. He has gone back on just about promise made during the primaries.

3) He is not tough. He made a statement about refining his position on Iraq. The base chastised him and then he quickly ran out to reverse his position.

It won't be long before the Europeans learn that The Child is not the Messiah! He is just a BS-er telling them what they want to hear!

Friday, July 25, 2008

They cheered every line except sending troops to Afghanistan!

If elected, BO will learn what Bush and Clinton learned the hard way.

The Europeans are not serious about dealing with difficult problems.

Clinton couldn't get the UN to do anything about Iraq, even after Saddam had kicked out the UN inspectors in 1998, violated the 1991 cease fire, laughed at a dozen UN resolutions and even shot at US-UK planes enforcing them!

Clinton bombed Iraq in Dec '98 for 4 days and couldn't get anyone, except the very reliable PM Blair of the UK, to go along with him!

On Bosnia, Clinton learned that the Europeans couldn't even get their act together on a problem in their own backyard. Eventually, Clinton had to go around the UN and send a NATO force made up primarily of US troops!

The Dems love to "fantasize" about the pre-Bush days when Europe and the US used to work together. It didn't happen during the Clinton years. In fact, Clinton couldn't get anymore cooperation out of the UN or the Europeans either.

The Europeans want to talk about "progressive things" like global warming and same sex marriage.

They don't want to talk about terrorism! That's for American cowboys!

They think that they can protect themselves against terrorism by hating Bush!

I would recommend everyone in that crowd to read this:

Yesterday, they cheered every line except the one about sending troops to Afghanistan.

Why is that important? Because Pres BO is going to have to repeat that line over and over again. It won't be long before they start seeing Bush in Obama:

What about the trip? I love David Brooks:

"Obama has benefited from a week of good images. But substantively, optimism without reality isn’t eloquence. It’s just Disney."

STEVEN ERLANGER nails it in Obama, Vague on Issues, Pleases Crowd in Europe!

He went over and told them what they wanted to hear.

How will it play with US voters? How will Americans react to a continent that does not want to send troops to Afghanistan?

Not well, just you wait!

Last, but not least, how in the world didn't BO make the time to visit troops at a hospital?

That's not going to play well over here either!

P.S. The WSJ brings it all back to reality:

"Reagan's speech is a lesson in the difference between popularity and statesmanship.

Watching Mr. Obama yesterday in Berlin, and throughout his foreign tour, was a reminder of how far the presumptive Democratic nominee has to go to reassure people he is capable of the latter -- "people," that is, who will actually get to cast a ballot in November."

The serious people in the media should be worried about this new poll!

We've written about the Obama-media love-fest. My guess is that serious members of the media have to be appalled at this poll:

"Nearly 7 in 10 Americans (67 percent) say they believe most in the media want Obama to win the November election—while a scant 11 percent think the media are pulling for John McCain.

Moreover, only about 1 in 10 (11 percent) volunteers the belief that the media is neutral on the race to become the 44th President of the United States.

When asked to rate the objectivity of media coverage of the campaigns, Americans feel Obama gets more of a positive spin by a better than 7-to-1 margin (46 percent more positive toward Obama; 6 percent more positive toward McCain).

Just under 4 Americans in 10 (36 percent) says both campaigns are being covered objectively."

Frankly, I have never seen anything like it. This is not good for the media. My guess is that most serious members of the media are just as appalled as I am!

How can BO get away with something like this?

BO is caught between the reality of a new Iraq and an anti-war base that won't let him admit the obvious about the "surge".

So what's he up to? You can call it "word games" and big time deception:

What he said is that the surge wouldn't work:

Why not say that he was wrong, the surge worked and let's move on. Frankly, I would rather hear than that these word games!




Check Out Politics Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with Silvio Canto Jr on BlogTalkRadio

Follow by Email



Search This Blog