Bart Starr is still my favorite Super Bowl MVP

Our family landed in "Packer crazy" Wisconsin in the fall of 1964.

My brother and I had never seen a football game. We were raised playing and thinking baseball 24/7.

However, it didn't take us long to fall in love with the Packers and the game of football.

My first football hero was Bart Starr, the legendary Packers' QB:

"5x NFL champion (1961, 1962, 1965, 1966, 1967)

2x Super Bowl champion (I, II)

2x Super Bowl MVP (I, II)

1966 NFL MVP

1966 UPI NFL MVP

FL 1960s All-Decade Team

Packers Hall of Fame

Green Bay Packers #15 retired"

In fact, I loved Starr so much that I always wore # 15 on every sports jersey. It's still my favorite number today!

Greatest game? Probably the so called "Ice Bowl".

Starr led the Packers down the field in amazing fashion.

It was "drive 101", a textbook drive that stands out 40 years later.

A few years ago, I rented a VHS and watched this game again.

I love the drive even more now.

Starr retired 35 years ago. I see him once in a while on TV commercials or ESPN classic shows.

Bart Starr, my all time favorite NFL player and Super Bowl MVP!

Is Starr the greatest "money" QB ever? I think so!

With all due respect to Unitas, Namath, Staubach, Bradshaw, Montana, Aikman, Young, Brady and even Favre, I will always pick Starr to start my big game.

Of course, there is the drive against Dallas in the 1967-68 title game. The Packers beat the Cowboys in the last few seconds and moved on to play in Super Bowl 2:

Super Bowl weekend: Let's put the late Bob Hayes in the Hall of Fame

Jean-Jacques Taylor is right.

The late Bob Hayes belongs in The NFL Hall of Fame:

"Hayes was among the greatest threats of his era, a man so feared he forced defensive coordinators to create schemes to compensate for his ability.

In an era when the running game ruled, Hayes caught 371 passes for 7,414 yards – a 20.0 yards-per-catch average – and 71 touchdowns.

He scored a TD every 5.2 times he caught the ball.

Let that marinate.

Jerry Rice didn't do that.

Neither has Randy Moss.

Among receivers with more than 250 catches, only Paul Warfield topped that number."

I vote yes. I understand about his legal problems after football. However, Orlando Cepeda had similar problems and he was inducted in Baseball's Hall of Fame.

Hayes was with the Cowboys from 1965-74. I remember watching some of those catches on TV. He was spectacular!

He played in the 1971-72 team that won Super Bowl 6.

He also played in the famous Ice Bowl and the back to back NFL title games against Green Bay.

Can you believe Hayes and today's ESPN highlights?

Hayes would be leading the league in amazing highlights.

Let's hope that the NFL does the right thing and puts Hayes in the HOF. The Cowboys put him in the team's "Ring of honor" before his death in 2002.

It's time to forgive the man's post NFL mistakes and remember the great player!

4,000 women running in today's election in Iraq!

Who would have believed this 6 years ago?

See Democracy’s March Continues As Iraqis Go to the Polls By Kathleen Troia “K.T. “McFarland:

"The thought of free and open elections, organized and administered by the Iraqi people, in which all ethnic groups would participate both as candidates and voters, in the country that was once brutally controlled by Saddam Hussein was as unthinkable a decade ago in Iraq as the thought of electing a black man as president of the United States was 50 years ago."

Ann Althouse has the best line of the day:

What if the Iraqis held elections and nobody died -- or even got hurt?

Iraq had peaceful multi-party elections.

Let me repeat: Iraq had peaceful multi-party elections today!

For the first time in Middle East history, one-third of the candidates were women!

Yes, women running for office in the new Iraq!

Today, millions of Iraqis showed up to vote:

"Overall, more than 14,000 Iraqi candidates, including almost 4,000 women, are running for approximately 440 provincial council seats in 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces.

According to Iraq's Independent High Electoral Commission, which is in charge of conducting the election, 15 million Iraqis are registered to vote."

Captain Ed has an update:

"Iraqis go to the polling booth today in their first provincial elections in the post-Saddam era.

The BBC reports that while the Iraqis have put tight security measures in place and mortars have hit occasionally, a festive mood has broken out in Iraq.

Turnout appears heavy, especially among the Sunni"

Like any new democracy, Iraq will have its ups and downs, disappointments, highs and lows.

Today, we salute the Iraqi people for showing up.

We cheer that women are voting and running in the Middle East.

Last, but not least, we salute the wonderful US, UK and other coalition soldiers who made all of this possible.

What a historic day.

Would any of this have happened if we had listened to Obama, Pelosi and the Democrats in 2006?

We know the answer. This is why the Dems will be in "mute mode" all weekend about the amazing events in Iraq!

It's a shame that the Dems have to be quiet about today's election in Iraq. It's even more remarkable that the party of "diversity" can not enjoy this amazing day for women in Iraq!

The US is in a recession not a depression!

Don't let the "doom and gloom" get you down. I'm not suggesting that things are perfect but the media "in the tank" for Obama is banging the negative drum over and over again.

First of all, let Randall Hoven explain the latest ecoomic figures:

"For those of us waiting for two consecutive quarters of shrinking real GDP before we declare a "real" recession, we can stop waiting.

The preliminary estimate for the 4th quarter of 2008 showed a decline of 3.8% at an annual pace, after also declining in the 3rd quarter .

The media spin is to aid Democrats, which means that right now the spin is to make our present situation look like an unprecedented crisis (both to make Bush look bad and to provide cover for transferring lots of borrowed money to Democratic interest groups).

So I will try to provide the service of putting current numbers in perspective, with as little spin as possible.

First off, the "annual rate" of 3.8% shrinkage is what we'd get if that same one-quarter pace continued for four quarters.

What actually happened was that GDP shrank 0.1% in the 3rd quarter and 1.0% in the 4th, for a combined loss of 1.1% over two quarters.

Through all of 2008, the real GDP shrank just 0.2%, because the economy actually grew in the first half of the year.

So far in this recession (and it is now OK to call it a recession ), real GDP has shrunk 1.1% from its peak, and non-farm payrolls has shrunk 1.9% from its peak."

As Randall said: It's finally OK to call it a recession!

Randall has another message for Pres Obama and the Democrats:

"By the way, none of the previous recessions was ended by the government spending a trillion dollars.

Our current deficit is projected to be 7% of GDP or more.

The deficit never exceeded 6% of GDP in any of the previous 10 recessions, or at any time since 1946."

So it's OK to call it a recession. It's not OK to drive our federal deficit to 7% of GDP!

At the same time, it's not OK to call it a depression, or the worst economic crisis since the Magna Carta, Joan of Arc, the Black Plague, Columbus or when Peter betrayed Jesus.

Before you jump off the roof....before you take the rat poison....before you surrender all of your freedoms so that Uncle Obama and Aunt Pelosi will take care of......please stand back and get your act together.

The US economy is going to do a lot better than most.

In fact, don't be surprised if the lines at US Embassies get longer and longer!

The IMF has a new report about the world's economies in 2009:

"The International Monetary Fund projects that the U.S. GDP will contract by 1.6% in 2009, canceling out a modest 1.1% growth in 2008.

That's not good, but it's better than the IMF predicts for any developed country other than Canada.

The IMF projects Germany's GDP to be down 2.5% this year, France's 1.9%, the U.K.'s 2.8% and Japan's 2.6%.

Similarly, the IMF expects the U.S. to lead the way out of the global recession, with stronger growth returning in 2010 than in other developed countries.

The IMF predicts 1.6% GDP growth in 2010 for the U.S., compared with 0.1% for Germany, 0.7% for France, 0.2% for the U.K, and 0.6% for Japan.

If the IMF is right, one effect of the current global downturn will be to increase the economic gap between the U.S. and rivals among the developed countries.

At the same time, the IMF projects less developed economies (like China's and India's) to continue to gain on the developed world.

All of which offers more evidence that the hysteria currently being whipped up in Washington over the alleged need to add another trillion dollars in federal debt is overstated, at best." (John Hinderaker)

Can we lower the "doom and gloom" volume?

If this report is true, and our GDP contracts by 1.6%, then that's actually a pretty mild recession.

In other words, we had 1.1% growth in 2008 and a projected 1.6% negative growth in 2009.

Let me get this straight: We go from "plus 1.1%" to "minus 1.6%" and these people are calling this a depression?

Or the worst recession since the Great Depression?

What planet are these "doom and gloomers" living in?

I was around in 1982 and this economy looks like a charm compared to that one!

Again, can we turn down the "doom and gloom" volume?

We've got problems. However, our biggest problem is a media looking at everything in a negative way.

P.S. A Depression? NY Times 4Q profit off 48 pct!

Now, that's a depression!

Great week for Republicans!

What a difference a little principle and a stupid bill can make.

Last Wednesday, the Republicans said no to the Obama-Pelosi bill. In fact, 11 Democrats joined them as well.

We are so proud of them!

Today, the good week just got better.

Michael Steele, one of my favorite Republicans, became party chairman.

I love his message: ""Get ready to work. Were back in the game."

I haven't feel this good in a couple of years!

A pork is always pork!

It wasn't supposed to be like this.

Unfortunately for the Dems, it is like this.

David Brooks just wrote one of the most thoughtful criticisms of the "pork bill" approved by the House Democrats:

"First, the stimulus should be timely. The money should go out “almost immediately.”

Second, it should be targeted. It should help low- and middle-income people.

Third, it should be temporary.

Stimulus measures should not raise the deficits “beyond a short horizon of a year or at most two.” (Cleaner and Faster )

As Mr. Brooks, points out there is nothing timely, targeted or temporary about this "pork bill". And the deficits will be very high relative to GDP for years to come!

Again, back to Mr. Brooks:

"In a fateful decision, Democratic leaders merged the temporary stimulus measure with their permanent domestic agenda — including big increases for Pell Grants, alternative energy subsidies and health and entitlement spending.

The resulting package is part temporary and part permanent, part timely and part untimely, part targeted and part untargeted.

It’s easy to see why Democrats decided to do this.

They could rush through permanent policies they believe in.

Plus, they could pay for them with borrowed money.

By putting a little of everything in the stimulus package, they avoid the pay-as-you-go rules that might otherwise apply to recurring costs."

Arrogant. Stupid. Tone deaf.

I don't know.

However, I do know that it won't fly.

Larry Kudlow is the host of CNBC’s The Kudlow Report and author of the daily web blog, Kudlow’s Money Politic$.

Mr. Kudlow does not like it either:

"GOP economist Martin Feldstein revoked his prior support of a stimulus plan in Wednesday’s Washington Post.

“In its current form,” Feldstein wrote, “[the plan] does too little to raise national spending and employment.

It would be better for the Senate to delay legislation for a month, or even two, if that’s what it takes to produce a much better bill.

We cannot afford an $800 billion mistake.” (Shelve the Stimulus)

We can not afford this because there are huge "items pending", from the auto industry bailout, to states running out cash and banks that may need to recapitalized.

I don't know what this package will look like in a few days. However, I do know that the public is catching up with its contents.

And the public doesn't like what is in this bill!

Most painful Super Bowl loss: Pittsburgh beats Dallas in SB 13!

This week, the NFL channel brought back Super Bowl 13, Dallas vs Pittsburgh.

Roger Staubach vs. Terry Bradshaw

Coach Landry vs Coach Knoll.

It was the last post-season game played in the 1970s.

It was also a game between the two best teams of the 1970's.

Coach Landry's Cowboys played in the 1971, 1972, 1975, 1978 and 1979 SB's. They won two of them.

Pittsburgh blossomed in the 1970's with great draft picks. They played in the 1975, 1976, 1979 and a year later in 1980. They won all 4 SB's.

Super Bowl 13 went down to the last minute. It was really worth watching the NFL channel rerun!

Pittsburgh was up 35-17 but Dallas scored twice and made it 35-31 with seconds left:

"Although the game seemed decided, the Cowboys refused to give up.

On their next drive, Dallas drove 89 yards in 8 plays to score on Staubach's 7-yard touchdown pass to Dupree.

Then after Dallas' Dennis Thurman recovered an onside kick at 2:19, Drew Pearson caught 2 passes for gains of 22 and 25 yards as the Cowboys drove 52 yards in 9 plays to score on Staubach's 4-yard touchdown pass to Butch Johnson.

With the ensuing extra point, the score was cut to 35–31 with just 0:22 left in the game.

But the Cowboys' second onside kick attempt was unsuccessful.

Bleier recovered the ball and the Steelers were able to run out the clock to win the game."

SB 13 will always be remembered for Jackie Smith dropping a "certain" Cowboys' TD in the end zone:

It was a great game. I still feel bad for Jackie Smith:

""It's 3rd down and 3, Dallas at the Pittsburgh 10...Roger back to throw, has a man open in the end zone...caught! Touchdown...DROPPED! Dropped in the end zone, Jackie Smith all by himself.

Aw, bless his heart, he's got to be the sickest man in America."

(Verne Lundquist, play-by-play broadcaster on the Dallas Cowboy radio broadcast, on a failed touchdown pass that went in-and-out of Jackie Smith's hands in the end zone)

The most important Super Bowl game: Namath and the Jets upset the Colts!

Wow! I have watched every Super Bowl.

From the Green Bay-Kansas City game in 1967 to the NY Giants beating New England, I've watched them all.

Frankly, most Super Bowl games have been boring and one sided.

What's the most important game? It has to be Super Bowl III, or the Jets upsetting the heavily favorite Colts.

My brother, dad and I watched that one on TV.

We expected the Colts to blow up the young Jets. So did everybody else:

"The Colts finished 1968 with a 13-1 record and a point-scoring differential of +258, a number reached by only a handful of teams to this day.

Eleven of their 13 wins could be described as "crushing."

Instead, Joe Namath and the Jets pulled off the greatest football upset ever. They beat Johnny Unitas and the Baltimore Colts, 16-7. They outplayed the Colts in every phase of the game. It was the upset of upsets in NFL history!

Namath and the Jets never returned to the big game.

Unitas and the Colts came back to beat Dallas in Super Bowl 5.

The Jets-Colts game in January 1969 changed everything. It forced the 1970 merger between the AFL and NFL. It also made a superstar out of Joe Namath.

Here is a gem. Curt Gowdy calling the last minute of the Jets' victory. I grew up with Curt Gowdy doing the NFL and major league baseball:

200 economists who don't support Pres. BO's stimulus!

Today, 200 economists published this ad across the nation. They were responding to this quote from Pres BO:

""There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy." President-Elect Barack Obama January 9, 2009

"With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.

Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance.

More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s.

More government spending did not solve Japan’s “lost decade” in the 1990s.

As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today."

Well done guys! To see a larger copy of the ad, click here!

Pres Bush and Mrs Bush got a great welcome at the Baylor game

Pres. & Mrs. Bush have kept a low profile since returning to Texas abut 10 days ago.

They have been spending a lot of time between their new home in Dallas and the ranch near Waco.

Last night, Pres & Mrs. Bush made a surprise appearance at The Baylor basketball game.

I was happy to see that they got such a wonderful reception! We are very grateful that Pres. Bush kept this country safe. Let's hope that Pres. BO keeps the streak going!

Another Dem president with a Dem Congress!

We are old enough to remember the last 2 Dem presidents who came in with their own versions of "hope and change" and congressional majorities.

Can you say Carter '76 and Clinton '92?

We also remember how it all came apart:

"Genuine bipartisanship means compromises on policy, not photo-ops and hand shakes.

The last two Democratic Presidents, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, also came to power with big Democratic majorities in Congress, veered far to the left on policy, and quickly came undone." (WSJ)

For the record, Carter lost big in the 1978 mid-terms and Reagan swept the country in 1980.

Clinton lost the House and Senate in the 1994 midterms! In fact, Clinton became a more successful president when he had a Republican majority to protect him for the Dems' leftist impulses.

Speaker Pelosi and the House Dems did not do any favors to Pres. Obama.

They had a chance to draft a genuine bipartisan bill that could have gotten 350 votes.

Instead, they wrote a bill full of money for Dem interest groups. The House proposal had little if any stimulus.

Pres BO and the House Dems now own this package!

As we told our Dem friends, be careful what you wish for....you may get it!

Just let Nancy Pelosi continue to do the talking! The House Dems' proposal is losing support!

Last, but not least, wonder how many Dems would vote "yes" today?

Wonder how many would join the 11 who broke with the Speaker and voted "no"?

P.S. The best quote so far:

"This is about spending money we don't have for things we don't need," added Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla."

Bill Clinton is the new $6 million man!

The AP has the story:

"Former President Bill Clinton earned nearly $6 million in speaking fees last year, almost all of it from foreign companies, according to financial documents filed by his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The documents obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press show that $4.6 million of the former president's reported $5.7 million in 2008 honoraria came from foreign sources, including Kuwait's national bank, other firms and groups in Canada, Germany, India, Malaysia, Mexico and Portugal and a Hong Kong-based company that spent $100,000 on federal lobbying last year."

Wonder how many of these people invested in Bill Clinton because they projected that Hillary Clinton would be our next president?

First, you nominate a woman who does not have any diplomatic experience at all.

Can anyone seriously compare Hillary Clinton's credentials with post World War 2 with Secretaries of State? (Where is Hillary Clinton's diplomatic experience? )

Second, you nominate a woman married to a former president who can't stop taking money from other countries.

It does not smell good!

Of course, we are talking about the Clintons. Has anything ever smelled good about that couple!

Thursday's show: A chat with Kyle Godfrey

Kyle Godfrey of Yellow Limes joined us to discuss the stimulus package.

Kyle caught our attention with this post:

Breaking: Searchable Text Version of Stimulus Bill Released; Details...Cost of 460K+ for Each New Coast Guard Job; Updates

Click here for the show!

O'Reilly on the European media

For years, we've argued that much of the European press was very unfair to Pres. Bush. Worse than that, they were very unfair to the US, specially the way that the Abu Garib and GITMO stories were peddled.

It was nice to see Bill O'Reilly sit down with the UK's Sky News.

""I don't think it's fair. I don't think it's right.

The European press really did a disservice to the United States by pedalling a lot of propaganda...

I think the hysteria over the rebirth is way, way overdone...

Americans are very uneasy about Obama dismantling the Bush antiterror strategies that have kept us safe for the last 8 years...

If we're hit here after Barack Obama dismantles all the terror measures that kept us safe- He's done." (Gateway Pundit)

How about letting the private sector pull us out?

Here is a radical idea.

How about doing no stimulus?

Let the US economy hit bottom on its own and rebound naturally.

That's right. Do nothing except some targeted tax cuts directed at employers, or the job creators! Let's not give "tax credits" to people (i.e. Dem voters) who don't pay taxes to begin with!

The case for doing nothing By Eamon Javers and Jim VandeHei is making more and more sense to me.

How about some private sector oriented reforms? Rush Limbaugh is right:

"I say, cut the U.S. corporate tax rate -- at 35%, among the highest of all industrialized nations -- in half.

Suspend the capital gains tax for a year to incentivize new investment, after which it would be reimposed at 10%.

Then get out of the way!

Once Wall Street starts ticking up 500 points a day, the rest of the private sector will follow.

There's no reason to tell the American people their future is bleak.

There's no reason, as the administration is doing, to depress their hopes.

There's no reason to insist that recovery can't happen quickly, because it can."

Of course, Obama and the Dems have put themselves in a corner.

They've spent the last year telling us that this is the worst economic recession since the Puritans crossed the big ocean.

They've rung the "doom and gloom" bells so loud that most Americans can't hear the voice of reason.

They have to do "something".

However, we will learn that the "something" that passed yesterday won't fix our structural problems.

The new boss is like the old boss?

Pres. BO's first week have taught something:

1) He loves telling people what they want to hear, specially the left wing base.

2) Please read the executive orders because there is usually something that wasn't disclosed in the public relations press conference.

Let's take the GITMO and "interrogation" executive orders:

"The Obama administration is making a great show of ending a series of Bush administration policies on the war on terror.

Guantanamo is to be closed.

Well, not right away, of course. (It seems those detainees are dangerous and there is no good place to put them right now.)

And enhanced interrogation techniques will be banned. Well, unless the President’s advisors report back that we really need them. (It seems that every once in awhile a very bad guy with a lot of very important information might come along and we might need to get that information in order to save American lives.)

Now comes word that yet another executive order isn’t exactly as advertised."

There is always a "clause"! Isn't there? (Another Exception to the Rule By Jennifer Rubin)

It gets better with lobbyists:

"It’s funny how much the new looks like the old.

As a candidate, Barack Obama vigorously campaigned against lobbyists’ influence in his Administration. His Administration, we were told, would be free of their taint.

No lobbyists would get a job in an Obama Administration working in areas they had lobbied on.

He would bring about a clean break with the past, “turn the page,” and put an end to acts that create cynicism among the public.

Except that he won’t." (Obama’s Lobbyists Posted By Peter Wehner)

Again, I can't believe how so many millions bought into all of this hype about "hope and change".

I guess that they will be disappointed when they actually read the fine print or come to terms with the reality that there won't be that much substantial change after all!

We are very proud of Republicans in the House! The Dems own this!

The House Republicans made us proud today. They voted against the "stimulus" bill.

The final tally was 244-188.

All 177 Republicans voted against it. 11 Dems crossed over!

Congratulations to House Leader John Boehner and everyone else.

You have achieved our objective: The Dems own this monster!

This "monster pork" bill was just a case of overreach by the Dems. They went crazy adding lots and lots of items that have nothing to do with creating jobs or stimulating the economy.

P.S. Check this out from Yellow Limes:

"Here are some numbers/items (remember, all in the name of "saving jobs, and saving America's economy"):

Page 41: The Coast Guard wants more than $572 million for "Acquisition, Construction, & Improvements"

They claim these funds will create 1,235 new jobs.

Crunch the numbers and this brings the cost of "creating" each job to a staggering $460,000+

Page 23: $200 million for Dep. of Defense to acquire alternative energy vehicles.

Page 32: $1.5 billion (with a "B") for a "carbon-capturing contest"

Page 64: $3.5 billion for higher education facilities.

This is ridiculous as I know in Georgia the Board of Regents has imposed a "temporary" (yea right!) $75 fee per student during this economic crisis.

The funds from this per-student fee stays at the school and is used to offset current budget shortfalls.

We at AASU are starting construction on our new student center, all paid for by student fees.

No tax money has been used during any process of this planning.

How about asking other higher education institutions to do the same, or hold off on any renovations, additions, etc.?

Page 90: $2.25 billion for "affordable and low-income housing".

Page 91: $1.5 billion for "homelessness prevention activities".

And finally, the big kicker, via Page 61:

$75 million for smoking cessation programs."

Here is more. We find something new everytime we read the bill:

"Democrats may have eliminated provisions on birth control and sod for the National Mall in the "job stimulus" -- but buried on page 147 of the bill is stimulation for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases!

The House Democrats' bill includes $335 million for sexually transmitted disease education and prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned."

The Dems' "Dear Santa" letter won't create jobs but will explode the deficit!

The Dems finally have a chance to govern and pass each and every one of their 40 year old dreams.

This is their Dear Santa moment! I guess that's what happens when you have a majority in both houses.

Unfortunately, Santa is out of toys!

They passed something today. However, they've put themselves in a sorry position where they can't do anything else.

What's my prediction?

We will have a sluggish economy and a trillion dollar deficit (8 or 9% of GDP) by the summer of 2010.

Here is the problem: We have huge pending items and two wars to fight!

What happens when the auto workers' union comes to The White House for the industry bailout?

What about the talk that some banks may need cash injections?

What about the talk of states going under? California gave Obama a huge popular vote victory. Unfortunately, Tax Refunds Now on Hold in California!

We will see Dems freaking out very soon! They have to govern but there is no money to govern!

They waited so long to pass their agenda. However, they will freak out because there is no money to do anything. No health care, no college loans, no nothing!

And they can't do any more stimulus, i.e. spend money that we don't have!

Memo to Republicans: Let the Dems freak out.

Memo # 2: Enjoy watching the Dems freaking out.

The WSJ editorial today is worth reading.

It is properly called A 40-Year Wish List :

"The 647-page, $825 billion House legislation is being sold as an economic "stimulus," but now that Democrats have finally released the details we understand Rahm's point much better.

This is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years."

The editorial gets better:

"As Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, "We won the election. We wrote the bill."

So they did.

Republicans should let them take all of the credit."

The Speaker is right. Let them own every dime of this bill.

The Dems have written a "Dear Santa" letter.

However, as Professor Walter Williams reminds us, There Is No Santa!

Yes, there is no Santa! However, there are lots of suckers in the Dem party!

Michael Young is the ultimate team player!

The big sports buzz around here is that Michael Young is moving to third base to make room for 20-year old shortstop Elvis Andrus.

The scouts are in love with Andrus. They think that the 20-year old is ready to play up here.

What about gold-glove shortstop Michael Young?

He has agreed to move to 3b! (Third basics: Texas Rangers' Michael Young has a lot to learn)

Third is different than SS, as any Little Leaguer can tell you.

First, the ball is usually hit right at you. Second, you don't need the same range as the SS. Third, throwing to first base is a little easier because you are not going in the hole to get the grounder.

Young will adjust just like Ripken did!

This is a good team move, specially if Andrus is as ready as everyone is saying.

At 32, Young should have 3-4 good seasons ahead of him.

Of course, this is the second time that Michael Young has made a position change to help the team.

In 2004, Young moved from 2b to SS after A-Rod was traded for Alfonso Soriano, who had played 2b for the Yankees.

Young is a team player. That's why we like him so much!

P.S. Michael Young is a career .300 hitter with 1488 hits since he became a regular in 2002!

Young is not your typical power hitting third-baseman but he drives in runs! He is one of the game's best clutch hitters!

Let Obama and Dems own this monster pork!

Stop it, stop it and stop it!

As James Pethokoukis wrote today:

"Some people are going to oppose President Obama's ginormous stimulus package just because they're on a different political team.

But when you look at the economic evidence, it sure seems like an economic recovery package that's heavy on government spending and light on tax cuts is just the opposite of what we should be doing right now."

This is just pork Dem style. We need a real stimulus!

It won't stimulate the US economy but it will put a lot of cash in the pockets of every Dem interest group, from ACORN to the leftist feminists!

Why are taxpayers funding ACORN anyway?

We are very proud of House Republican Leader John Boehner.

Check out John Boehner's website on the package.

Here is my favorite part of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid monster:

"A scant 2.7 percent, or $22.3 billion of the overall package, is dedicated to small business tax relief."

He is standing tough and forcing the Dems to make a choice:

1) Pass the package without a single Republican vote.

2) Make significant concessions and make it truly bi-partisan.

Remember: The Dems have the votes to pass this package. However, they don't want to own it because the 2010 deficits will freak out Dems.

The Heritage Foundation has an outstanding analysis called Stimulus 101: The Pelosi-Reid-Obama Debt Plan:

"BAD IDEAS – “THE DEVIL IN DISGUISE”

The hidden liberal policy agenda inside the ‘stimulus bill’…

Over $142 Billion in Federal education funds:

Nearly double the total outlays for the Dept. of Education in 2007 – making good on Reid-Pelosi-Obama education promises to the NEA.

$87 Billion Medicaid bailout:

Medicaid is funded by a formula that matches state spending levels with federal dollars.

If we keep bailing states out, they will have every incentive to continue irresponsible spending.

Fiscally responsible taxpayers in Indiana are now paying for fiscally irresponsible bureaucrats in Illinois.

Expanded Medicaid coverage and SCHIP:

Reid-Pelosi-Obama are enacting a nationalized health care policy with no debate.

The government will soon be responsible for more health care spending than the private sector, i.e. socialized medicine.

Green Jobs?:

The myth of ‘green jobs’ merely means replacing one job lost, with a new job that fits the left’s agenda.

It is a zero sum game.

More than doubling spending, the stimulus also has over $35 billion for the Dept. of Energy.

DOE’s current budget is $23.8 billion.

Family Planning and birth control for children, immigrants and the wealthy, which could also be used as a backdoor to allow federal funding of abortions. How is this stimulus?

**UPDATE: Nancy Pelosi agrees this is not stimulus and has removed it from the bill proving these measures are allergic to sunshine.**

Redistribution:

Refundable Tax Credits for people who don’t pay taxes.

Pork Spending:

Digital TV Coupons ($650 Million),

Gov’t Cars ($600 Million),

Nat’l Endowment for the Arts ($50 Million),

Repairs to National Mall ($200 Million, including $21m for sod).

BAD RESULTS

No Jobs:

While they have not been able to support these claims, Pelosi/Obama promise between 3 & 4 million jobs, yet House Tax Committee staff can’t estimate even ONE job will be created.

Ineffective:

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 52% of the spending in the ‘stimulus bill’ can even be spent by the end of FY’10.

Well short of the 75% benchmark set by President Obama."

P.S. Hugh Hewitt calls it a return to the late 1970's! Or, The Not-A-Stimulus Bill That Triggers a Disco Revival?:

"The decision by President Obama to allow his great opportunity to be hijacked by House Democrats is a strange one.

He must be confident that the business cycle will right itself, because this approach won't have much to offer it.

If as many suspect the massive bill as "inflationary non-growth" all over it, it should be called the Jimmy Carter Memorial Bill, as well all seek to relive the late '70s.

Can the return of disco be far behind?"

What would the late 1970s, i.e. the Carter years, be like without "The Disco Duck":

A very bad week for truth and life!

Truth and life had a very bad week. It's amazing how we can blame life for so many of the problems created by taxation and intrusive state governments.

Let's start with "truth".

Speaker Pelosi took the budget debate to a new level:

""Well, the family planning services reduce cost.

They reduce cost.

The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs.

One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."

Of course, this is nonsense.

First of all, some states are in trouble and others are not.

It has nothing to do with birth rates, birth control or anything like that.

Texas is doing fine. California isn't!

Believe it or not, we do not have a national recession.

The states in trouble have a couple of things in common: very high taxes and labor costs related to union influence!

Can you say Michigan?

The DC Examiner has a wonderful editorial about states and taxes.

It explains why no one in their right mind wants to live or open a business in Rhode Island, Ohio, California, New York, and New Jersey and now Maryland:

"The Tax Foundation points out that states with the best overall tax systems attract new businesses and generate jobs much faster than states with more confiscatory policies.

Decades of empirical research prove that economic growth in high-tax states consistently lags behind states with lower tax burdens.

The 10 states with the lowest taxes also attracted almost 10 percent more new residents during the last decade than their high-tax counterparts.

Just last year, 144,000 people fled from California’s punishing taxes, the highest state-to-state migration in the U.S.

The ramifications of losing revenue-producing businesses and highly-skilled workers to lower-tax states should by now be apparent even to big-spending governors like Maryland’s Martin O’Malley and California’s Arnold Schwarzenegger - long-term economic decline." (When state taxes rise, businesses and residents flee)

The answer is lower taxes not birth control.

Cut taxes and the job creators will come!

The other issue is the so called "Mexico City policy". (It's named after a conference that took place in Mexico City)

Why did Pres Obama rescind the ban? It was a payoff to the feminists who think that abortion is the Magna Carta of feminism!

Phyllis Schlafly has a good post on the relationship between leftist feminists and Pres. Obama. To say the least, leftist feminists have a lot invested in the Obama presidency, from abortion to same sex marriage.

Overall, it was a very bad week for truth and babies in the womb!

The US taxpayer will now pay for abortions overseas. I guess that's hope and change for everybody except unborn babies.

P.S. Here is a contrast. Reagan, Bush and Bush banned funding abortions with taxpayer dollars. Clinton and Obama immediately rescinded the ban!

Question: Who is the life party? Who is the abortion party?

We have never been where BO wants to take us!

Please fasten your seat belts:

"In the first official estimate of the damage done to the nation's finances by a weakening economy and various financial-sector bailouts, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported that the gap between government spending and available revenue will exceed 8 percent of the overall economy by the end of September, a chasm not seen since the end of World War II." (WashPost)

What does that mean? We are walking into uncharted territory. We are probably looking at an even higher deficit in 2010.

What do the Republicans do?

Take Power Line's advice: Say No Today, Win In 2010

Stand up to these deficits and let Pres BO and the Dems own them in 2010 and beyond.

P.S. Let me add this. A lot of Dems will freak out when they see these deficit projections, too!

Why are the Dems hurting Colombia?

During the presidential campaign, we heard that we must restore our international reputation.

What about making friends with Colombia, a key country in South America.

IBD has a good one today about the US-Colombia relationship. It is called Fatal Naivete On Free Trade:

"At her Senate confirmation hearing last week, Hillary Clinton expressed confidence the U.S. alliance with Colombia will always be good, free-trade treaty or not.

But growing signs show she's got it wrong."

There is more:

"Although Colombia's President Alvaro Uribe sent a courteous message to welcome President Obama, Colombian officials have grown frustrated in the last two years, warning Democrats their friendship, which has cost them much blood and treasure, had limits."

Colombia is critical to our success in Latin America. It's important that we pass The Free Trade Agreement and let US companies do more business down there.

Why does Limbaugh drive Dems crazy?

Why does this man drive so many Dems crazy?

Can you say listeners? Can you say the # 1 radio host in the country?

Why don't Dems just listen to Air America? You don't hear any of us complaining about Air America hosts. In fact, I couldn't tell you the name of a host over there.

Pres BO decided to get into a fight with Limbaugh. He told Republicans to stop listening to Limbaugh.

Moral of the story: Presidents don't get into fights with radio hosts, specially one with 20 million listeners.

Why did Obama do it?

I like Limbaugh's response:

"To make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective.

Obama's plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR's New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts.

It would allow a majority of American voters to guarantee no taxes for themselves going forward.

It would burden the private sector and put the public sector in permanent and firm control of the economy.

Put simply, I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing "eternal" power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy.

If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of this TRILLION dollar debacle."

Pres BO knows that Limbaugh will pound him daily and turn public opinion against the so called stimulus program.

Pres BO, and the Dems, do not want this plan debated openly and honestly.

On this fight, my money is on Limbaugh.

Limbaugh is not the only with serious doubts about this Obama plan.

The WSJ has a great editorial today:

"The stimulus bill currently steaming through Congress looks like a legislative freight train, but given last week's analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, it is more accurate to think of it as a time machine.

That may be the only way to explain how spending on public works in 2011 and beyond will help the economy today.

According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, a mere $26 billion of the House stimulus bill's $355 billion in new spending would actually be spent in the current fiscal year, and just $110 billion would be spent by the end of 2010.

This is highly embarrassing given that Congress's justification for passing this bill so urgently is to help the economy right now, if not sooner.

And the red Congressional faces must be very red indeed, because CBO's analysis has since vanished into thin air after having been posted early last week on the Appropriations Committee Web site.

Officially, the committee says this is because the estimates have been superseded as the legislation has moved through committee.

No doubt."

Sen McCain is not going to support it either! McCain correctly stated that there is too much "spending"!

Limbaugh is right. Pres BO wants a distraction from this monster which will create trillion deficits for years!

Again, my money is on Limbaugh!

P.S. Rick Moran nailed this one:

"Obama broke the first rule of political gunslinging: never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel -- or in the case of Rush Limbaugh, someone with 23 million daily listeners and 3 hours every day with which to make you look like an idiot." (Obama's first week: The good, the bad, and the ugly)

Hooray for the Dallas Acadamy girls!

Let me say this:

1) I love sports because it's competitive. Somebody wins and somebody loses. It's great to watch. It was a lot of fun to play when I was young enough to go from first to third on a single.

2) As a former Little League coach, I understand that winning isn't everything either.

A couple of days ago, a local girls' basketball game became a national story:

"The story unfolded on Jan. 13, when The Covenant School's team overwhelmed Dallas Academy, 100-0, keeping the pressure on until it reached 100 points.

The game was played in an old North Dallas gym with few fans other than parents as witnesses.

No media were present.

But the score appeared in The Dallas Morning News the following day.

It wasn't until a story about the game appeared in The News that the world took notice.

It was on Thursday, the day the story appeared, that Covenant, a North Dallas Christian School, issued an apology on its Web site, saying its team had achieved "victory without honor" and said it would forfeit the game." (Dallas Academy Bulldogs, 100-0 losers, gain national attention )

I'm glad to see that Covenant issued an apology.

Frankly, they should fire the coach as well.

At what point in a 100-0 game do you realize that it's time to let up scoring?

Hasn't this coach heard about killing time and just passing the ball from one player to another?

This is shameful.

How do you allow your team to beat someone 100-0?

Furthermore, how do you do this to a team from a special school for girls:

"Dallas Academy restores the promise of full academic enrichment to students with learning differences.

Our staff establishes a meaningful connection with each student to overcome barriers to success.

Dallas Academy offers a structured multisensory program for students with diagnosed learning differences in grades 3-12.

We believe that structure and a caring, experienced staff are the main factors for success at the Academy.

The classes provide a quiet, nurturing environment to students who in the past have had trouble with concentration and short attention spans.

Many of these boys and girls are very frustrated and have not been successful in previous school settings.

The multisensory approach is especially beneficial to those students who have been diagnosed with dyslexia, dysgraphia, and other learning differences.

Total enrollment ranges between 140 and 145 students with the class size ranging from 8 to 13 students.

Dallas Academy is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools and follows the current curriculum guidelines set by the Texas Education Agency.

By incorporating a strong curriculum, team sports, and a wide variety of extra curricular student activities, Dallas Academy strives to prepare our students for further study (80% to 90% of DA’s graduates attend 2- or 4-yr colleges) and, more importantly, a successful and satisfying life."

Again, fire the coach and punish Covenant in some meaningful way. Perhaps, they should not be allowed to play in the post season tournaments this year.

The story has a happy ending.

Dallas Mavericks' owner Mark Cuban has invited the girls to watch a game at the AAC. (Metro blog: Cuban invites Dallas Academy players to Mavs game)

Well done Mark Cuban!

The Dems and Afghanistan

VP Biden warned us yesterday about Afghanistan:

"Biden said Sunday that additional U.S. forces will be engaging the enemy more.

Asked if that means the U.S. public should expect more American casualties, the vice president said:

"I hate to say it, but yes, I think there will be. There will be an uptick." (Biden warns of higher US death toll Afghanistan)

VP Biden is right. We will see more US casualties in Afghanistan.

By the way, why is Biden the one always talking about Pres BO being tested by foreign issues?

Coincidentally, Fearing Another Quagmire in Afghanistan By HELENE COOPER goes into the history of Afghanistan:

"Afghanistan has, after all, stymied would-be conquerors since Alexander the Great.

It’s always the same story; the invaders — British, Soviets — control the cities, but not the countryside.

And eventually, the invaders don’t even control the cities, and are sent packing.

Think Iraq was hard? Afghanistan, former Secretary of State Colin Powell argues, will be “much, much harder.”

“Iraq had a middle class,” Mr. Powell pointed out on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” a couple of hours before Mr. Obama was sworn in last Tuesday.

“It was a fairly advanced country before Saddam Hussein drove it in the ground.” Afghanistan, on the other hand, “is still basically a tribal society, a lot of corruption; drugs are going to destroy that country if something isn’t done about it.”"

Sec Powell is right about Afghanistan and Iraq.

Of course, the Dems have put themselves in a corner with respect to Afghanistan.

During the Bush years, the Dems played the "we took our eye off the ball" game with respect to Afghanistan.

Or, the "Iraq was the bad war and Afghanistan was the good war" game.

It was a great game because they were out of power.

It was a great game to beat up Bush over Iraq. The Dems gave speeches but Bush had to govern.

Of course, the game is over now. The Dems are in charge now.

Let me predict this:

Afghanistan is going to prove a lot more difficult and complicated than the Dems realize.

Afghanistan will be a very long and bloody war.

Pres BO will lose Dem support, specially after Afghanistan becomes the only war in town!

P.S. Pres BO should read Obama's Vietnam? By Juan Cole!

A great article about Obama

Before you go to sleep tonight, make sure that you read The Phenomenon as President by Peter Wehner:

"Barack Obama is President of the United States, not a crown prince on a white horse.

Fairy tales are fine; but fairy tales are childish things."

It's a good article. It warns us about expecting miracles from human beings.

What happens when you release terrorists from GITMO?

A few days ago, Pres. BO announced that he'd be closing GITMO in one year.

Unfortunately for Pres BO, we continue to read about the GITMO alumni and their post-GITMO work.

Today, we learned:

"Two men released from the US "war on terror" prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have appeared in a video posted on a jihadist website, the SITE monitoring service reported.

One of the two former inmates, a Saudi man identified as Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shahri, or prisoner number 372, has been elevated to the senior ranks of Al-Qaeda in Yemen, a US counter-terrorism official told AFP.

Three other men appear in the video, including Abu al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi, identified as an Al-Qaeda field commander.

SITE later said he was prisoner No. 333." (Two ex-Guantanamo inmates appear in Al-Qaeda video)

What do you do with these people?

You keep them at GITMO.

At least, they can't kill us down there!

Check out IBD:

"The real lesson is: Don't release these killers into anyone's care.

Keep them locked up in Cuba or they'll just resurface with al-Qaida or the Taliban and attack us again.

Some argue that there's a new commander in chief now, and new rules in the war on terror.

So deal with it.

While it is his prerogative to change the rules, the enemy is operating under old rules — 1,400-year-old rules, to be exact — and it's not changing its tactics.

And it would like nothing better than to have 245 more of its battle-hardened dogs return to the front line.

If the new commander in chief is not careful, Gitmo's ghosts may come back to haunt us all."

Did you hear this?

A few minutes ago, I came across this story:

"And on the fifth day, subpoenas were served to Obama senior staff."

It's amazing how this story got zero coverage. Am I missing something?

According to the post:

"On Saturday morning, the list of subpoenas served by the U.S. Attorney's office in the Governor Rod Blagojevich case was made public.

The list included one major surprise for the new administration."

That's right!

David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel are two of the names on the list.

We don't know yet just what it means. We don't know who said what or when did he or she say it.

Stay tuned. Blago is not going down by himself.

When will BO say that Bush was right?

Professor VD Hanson makes a good point today:

"The alterations in positions during Mr. Obama's pre-presidency were praised as "flexible" and "bipartisan."

Perhaps.

But Mr. Obama did not adjust on just an issue or two. Instead, he went whole hog.

It would be difficult to find a single major policy position that he hasn't backtracked somewhat on, especially on matters of foreign policy and the war against terror.

Yet throughout the campaign, Mr. Obama and the media argued that the manner in which Mr. Bush waged the war against terror was harmful to the republic.

So, were Mr. Bush's polices wrong then, but suddenly right now?

Have you ever seen anything like it? I haven't!

All of this comes on the heels of Admit It: The Surge Worked By Peter Beinart.

When will Pres. BO say: I was wrong about the surge!

How long can BO get away with this double talk?

In his first 3 days, Pres BO has done everything to satisfy the left wing of the Dem party, i.e. GITMO, more money for abortion, etc.

However, whats going to happen when the "yes we can" screamers actually read the executive orders.

My guess is that they won't be as happy as they are now.

What exactly did Pres BO do this week.

According to THE NATIONAL REVIEW editors, he didn't change much substantially:

"So to summarize:

We’d love to close Guantanamo, but we can’t right now;

we’d love to transfer detainees out of Guantanamo, but other countries don’t want them;

we’d love to give every detainee a civilian trial, but we don’t have enough evidence;

we’d love to release the detainees we can’t charge with crimes, but our intelligence tells us they’re dangerous, so doing so would be irresponsible; and

we’d love to stick to the highly civilized, detainee-friendly interrogation practices approved by the Army Field Manual, but every now and then there may be an emergency when something more severe is warranted.

Underneath all the lofty rhetoric, we’re gratified to see that this is change George W. Bush could believe in."

Translation: Pres. BO will close GITMO and then start his own GITMO.

Why do I get the feeling that Obama and the Dem left are headed toward a massive divorce?

36 years of abortion in the US

According to the estimates, we have aborted almost 40 million babies since 1973.

This week, Pres Obama took another step to appease the left that still smarting about keeping Sec Gates in Defense.

He is going to sign FOCA, The Freedom of Choice Act.

It should be called The Freedom to have an abortion act!

Kyle-Anne Shiver has written extensively about abortion.

Today, she posted TOP PRIORITY: DEFEAT FOCA:

"In one fell swoop, FOCA will immediately irradicate more than 300 state statutes that place small restrictions on the “right” to abortion, things like parental consent, ultrasound availability, full disclosure on the medical complications, demands for information on adoption being offered pregnant women…etc.

These statutes are the result of the work of millions of citizens over the span of 36 years, since the Roe and Doe decisions made abortion a legalized murder for convenience.

FOCA will also codify Roe and Doe and state outright that this so-called “right to abort” is a Constitutional right and owed to every single woman, regardless of ability to pay.

States will be mandated to pay for abortion.

Insurance companies will be mandated to cover abortions.

If all this were not bad enough, the bill also strikes down conscience clauses in every state in the Union.

No hospital will be able to deny abortion services; Catholic hospitals may close as a result.

No doctor or nurse will be allowed to contientiously object from participation; many will likely resign as a result.

Individual, religious or moral objections will be wiped away with the passage of this bill.

There is a concerted campaign to defeat FOCA.

This is top priority; many lives are on the line.

By becoming involved in this battle, you may even be saving one of your future children or grandchildren from “extermination.”

Please go to these websites and register.

This obscenity cannot happen on our watch!"

It's time to stand up for those who can't defend themselves.

Frederica Mathewes-Green writes regularly for NPR's Morning Edition, Beliefnet.com, Christianity Today, and other publications. She is the author of Gender: Men, Women, Sex and Feminism, among other books.

She wrote a thoughtful post entitled Roe v. Wade at 36--How will future generations judge us on abortion?!

Last, but not least, what happens when a woman chooses abortion over life? We deny someone the chance to live and make an important contribution to our society:

4 great songs for a weekend without football

No football this weekend. It's the weekend between the conference title games and the Super Bowl.

We will watch the NHL All Star game from Montreal. It should be a fun game. It's great to see that Mike Modano will be on the roster. Again, I don't know why the NHL puts this game on the Versus channel. Isn't this game supposed to be about getting viewers?

On Saturday, we can watch the Aggies play basketball.

No football! So we have a little time to listen to some great songs.

Don McClean's biggest hit was "American Pie", one of the most saturated songs of the 1970's. It did not help that the song was over 8 minutes long!

My favorite McClean song was "Vincent". It is about the life and paintings of Vincent Van Gogh:

"In my life" is from "Rubber Soul", my favorite Beatles album. I guess that this song's wonderful lyrics have a special meaning as we get older and remember our friends:

The Beach Boys' harmonies are second to none. They were 3 brothers (Carl, Brian and Dennis Wilson), Al Jardine and Mike Love.

My favorite album is "Pet sounds", a very important record in rock history. It's hard to pick one. Nevertheless, I love "Wouldn't it be nice", another great song written and arranged by Brian Wilson:

"Country Lanes" is from The Bee Gees' MAIN COURSE album. It was also released as the US B-side of "Fanny, be tender with my love", one of three huge hits from this important album.

"Country Lanes" is one of my favorite compositions by the Gibb brothers. It is also a great lead vocal by Robin Gibb:

The Rangers need to go "red" all the way!

We can not bring Rusty Greer back.

He was one of the most popular players ever to play here. Greer is now doing TV commercials and PR work for the team.

In 1994, a very young Rusty Greer and the Rangers opened the new stadium with a "red look". A few months later, he made a diving catch to save Kenny Rogers' perfect game.

Greer was like a Rangers' version of Pete Rose. He slid hard as you can see in the photo. He crashed into walls. He made one diving catch a game. He had a winning hit just about every night. Best of all, he retired with a .305 lifetime batting average!

The 1994 look was white at home, grey on the road and red caps.

They won 3 divisional titles with the red caps.

We can not bring back Rusty Greer but we can bring back the Rangers' 1994-2000 uniforms!

In 2001, they went back to blue when ARod was signed. They've had one winning season since dropping red!

Yesterday, the Rangers introduced the new look for 2009.

They were introduced by Josh Hamilton (red top), Chris Davis, Ian Kinsler, Taylor Tingarden, manager Ron Washington and David Murphy.

The biggest change is TEXAS rather than Rangers at home.

Also, they will wear a red top on Saturday games.

Drop the blue and go red again.

Drop the red jersey and go white with red!

Of course, I have always been an old school guy with baseball uniforms.

The Yankees have worn the same uniform since Babe Ruth was hitting home runs.

The Dodgers, Red Sox, Tigers and Cardinals have not changed much over decades either.

They've stuck to the traditional white at home and grey on the road!

Here is my suggestion: White with red cap at home. Grey with red cap on the road.

Last, but not least, let's win games! Let's get back Josh Hamilton back to the homerun derby:

Stop the "stimulus" program!

John Hinderaker has just posted The Dems' Pork-Fest: What's In It?:

"In the meantime, Congressman Jack Kingston of Georgia provides a summary of what is actually in the bill that House Democrats have cobbled together......"

This plan must be stopped.

At the very least, it should be discussed openly so that the public knows what Pres. BO and the Dems intend to do with US$ 825 billion!

Click here to enlarge the picture above!

Furthermore, Jeff Emanuel, Columnist, journalist and contributor to RedState.com adds this:

"The short answer is: "It shouldn't."

This so-called "stimulus" package, all $850 Billion, 334 pages, and counting of it, contains very little by way of actual economic stimulation, and very much by way of massive pork barrel giveaways to be paraded as an "I got mine!" monetary victory in Senators' states and Representatives' districts -- all at taxpayers' expense."

James Carafano is associatd with Heritage Foundation. He adds this:

"Here is a better question, why is government spending on make-work projects being considered as the best tool for stimulating the economy at all?

The same folks who complained spending on the war in Iraq was bankrupting the country--not true--somehow think a lot more federal spending on other stuff is going to be good for the economy--huh?

And it is not like there aren't better alternatives out there, some good options have been laid out by our economists at the Heritage Foundation.

What really bothers me is that we are going to throw a lot of money at what is not the government's business and then likely strangle funding on things that are government's business like providing for the common defense."

Is the new boss same as the old boss?

In a previous post, I wrote that Pres BO's executive orders on GITMO and interrogation techniques have all kinds of loopholes.

In the end, Pres BO will keep some kind of GITMO and they will interrogate valuable terrorists.

Today, we learned that Pres BO will continue two important Bush policies.

First, Obama Sides With Bush in Spy Case:

"The Obama administration fell in line with the Bush administration Thursday when it urged a federal judge to set aside a ruling in a closely watched spy case weighing whether a U.S. president may bypass Congress and establish a program of eavesdropping on Americans without warrants."

Second, Obama to CIA: Bombs Away! No Let Up in US Drone Attacks:

"The CIA's bombing campaign against al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan continued with two more attacks today, an indication, senior officials say, that President Barack Obama has approved the U.S. strategy that has killed at least eight of al Qaeda's top 20 leaders since July 2008."

Don't get me wrong. I am happy that Pres Obama is going to keep his predecessor's aggressive policy against Al Qaeda and other terrorists.

My only question: Why didn't he say any of this a year ago?

Why didn't he tell the "yes we can" screamers that he was going to follow Pres. Bush's policies?

The answer is that the left, the people who got him nominated over Senator Hillary Clinton, would have walked away and gone with someone else.

Obama is turning out to be a cynical opportunist!

More pork than jobs!

A couple of nights ago, The History Channel had an FDR special. It was very interesting because FDR was a very consequential president. It remind us once again that World War II, not The New Deal, actually ended The Great Depression.

I'm not suggesting that Pres. Obama should start a war, although he may not have a choice if Israel and Iran go at each other.

What we are suggesting is that Pres. Obama should give us a "growth" package rather than just a lot of pork.

Obama's Jobless "Jolt" by Donald Lambro won't make Pres. BO very happy:

"But according to the nonpartisan CBO, which crunches budget numbers for Congress, only a small fraction of the proposed $274 billion in infrastructure spending to jump-start the economy will be spent by the end of this fiscal year and the rest won't be disbursed until 2010 or later."

There is more:

"Among CBO's findings:

-- Only about $26 billion, or 9 percent of the infrastructure stimulus, will be spent by Sept. 30, the end of fiscal 2009.

-- Less than half of the $30 billion in highway-construction money will be circulated over the next four years.

-- Incredibly, CBO says only about $4 billion in highway-construction funds will get into the economy by September 2010.

-- Obama talks about creating thousands of "green" jobs by pumping billions into biofuel, solar, wind and other technology.

But most of those jobs are not going to be seen for many years.

Only about one in seven dollars of the stimulus plan's $18.5 billion investment in renewable-energy resources and energy-efficiency programs will be spent by 2010, according to the CBO."

Like everything Obama, the stimulus bill is just "feel good hope and change".

Of course, we shouldn't look to government to create jobs anyway. We should let the private sector do that.

So let's scrap the stimulus package and go back to square one.

We can start by cutting the corporate tax rates.

Want to stimulate the US economy?

Cut taxes for the rich! They are the ones who invest and create jobs!

P.S. David Brooks has some bad news for Pres Obama, too:

"The bill marked up Wednesday in the Appropriations Committee is a muddled mixture of short-term stimulus haste and long-term spending commitments.

It is an unholy marriage that manages to combine the worst of each approach — rushed short-term planning with expensive long-term fiscal impact."

A big week for abortion, a bad week for life!

Pres BO continues to sign executive orders reversing Pres. Bush's policies.

As we posted before, the GITMO and interrogation techniques executive orders have loopholes giving the executive branch to alter their positions based on national security conditions.

Unfortunately, we can not say that about the latest abortion EO.

Today, Pres. Obama committed our taxes to paying for abortions:

"President Barack Obama on Friday struck down the Bush administration's ban on giving federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide abortion information — an inflammatory policy that has bounced in and out of law for the past quarter-century. Obama's executive order, the latest in an aggressive first week reversing contentious Bush policies, was warmly welcomed by liberal groups and denounced by abortion rights foes.

The ban has been a political football between Democratic and Republican administrations since GOP President Ronald Reagan first adopted it 1984.

Democrat Bill Clinton ended the ban in 1993, but Republican George W. Bush re-instituted it in 2001 as one of his first acts in office."

Elections have consequences. In this case, it means that many will be aborted!

Beyond morality, what in the world are we doing paying for abortions in other countries?

What exactly did BO's executive orders say?

Obama had big public meetings to announce that he is closing GITMO and changing interrogation techniques.

A bit later, we learn that there is a "but" in the details.

John Hinderaker, one of the 3 attorney who run The Power Line, has a nice post about the Obama double talk:

"Today Barack Obama issued an entirely symbolic executive order, directing that the terrorist detainee facility at Guantanamo Bay be closed within one year.

Gitmo, of course, was created in answer to the question, What are we going to do with captured terrorists?

Now, with that facility slated for closure, the question arises once more." (Symbolism Only Goes So Far)

JOSH GERSTEIN adds his thoughts:

"There may be less than meets the eye to the executive orders President Obama issued yesterday to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay and prohibit the torture of prisoners in American custody.

Those pronouncements may sound dramatic and unequivocal, but experts predict that American policy towards detainees could remain for months or even years pretty close to what it was as President Bush left office."

Closing GITMO is the easy part, as the Obama White House will learn.

What are we going to do with these people?

Now, that's the question!

As of today, I have not heard anything from the GITMO critics regarding a resolution about the dangerous people down there.

On interrogation techniques, Pres BO made another symbolic decision yesterday.

He told the world that we are not going to torture anymore.

First of all, such an executive order is an insult to the integrity and patriotism of the men and women who are fighting this war.

It's an insult to the soldier who volunteers to put his life on the line.

It's also an insult to everyone serving in GITMO.

It's a cheap shot against the Bush administration, which by the way kept us free of an attack for 2700 days!

Let's see if Pres Obama can keep that streak going!

BO's executive orders were naturally met with praise from European capitals and other "enlightened" places.

Unfortunately, the executive orders were not met with commitments of sending troops to the NATO mission in Afghanistan or a willingness to take any of the 250 terrorists in GITMO.

I guess that the Euros want "multilateralism" to fight the war on terror, as long as they don't have to send troops or take some of the terrorists captured in the battlefield.

Don't you love that?

Of course, we know why they can't take one of these guys.

Can you imagine France taking any of them?

Can you envision thousands of cars burning in Paris the next day?

Just ask them: Can you guys burn cars? "Yes we can"!

However, there is a "but" in the interrogation executive order, too.

The WSJ editorial goes to the heart of the matter: Obama's executive order wants it both ways on interrogation!

What's going on?

Pres BO is caught between the angry left and the reality that he owns the next attack.

Let me say it again: Pres BO will own the next attack.

He will get "the why didn't we connect the dots" questions.

It won't be pretty but he will own the next attack!

My position is that the US should not routinely torture anyone.

However, the president should have the authority to order various interrogation techniques in the event of a national security emergency.

What else do we elect a president for but to protect the homeland?

Let me paraphrase a Supreme Court Justice from yesteryear: The US Constitution is not a suicide pact!

P.S. By the way, did you see this in The New York Times, of all places:

"The emergence of a former Guantánamo Bay detainee as the deputy leader of Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch has underscored the potential complications in carrying out the executive order President Obama signed Thursday that the detention center be shut down within a year."

They want to kill us....don't they?

Gateway Pundit has a few more stories about GITMO alumni:

"At least 61 Gitmo detainees have returned to terrorism after their release;

Former Gitmo detainee Abdallah Salih al-Ajmi recently exploded in Iraq

Monhammed Nayim Farouq from Afghanistan, is named on a "most wanted" poster issued by the Defense Intelligence Agency.

He was released in July 2003 but quickly renewed his association with Taliban and al-Qaida members and has since become re-involved in anti-Coalition militant activity.

And, of course, there are the other terrorists who after leaving Club Gitmo went out and attacked the Russian pipeline, the Russian city of Nalchik, Pakistani forces, Morocco, etc."

It looks like The Twilight Zone to me

(Another great cartoon from American Thinker)

The Twilight Zone is one of those black and white shows that doesn't get old.

I'm starting to think that we are characters in an episode.

Remember “A Stop at Willoughby”, one of my all time favorites:

"Gart Williams is an advertising executive who has grown exasperated with the stress of the business life and whilst being unable to sleep properly at home, constantly drifts off for short naps on the train during his daily commuting and dreams of a peaceful place called "Willoughby."

Set in the year 1888, Willoughby exudes a peaceful, stress-free lifestyle long gone.

After he finally snaps at his workplace, and after being rebuffed in a plea for help to his selfish, uncaring and cold hearted wife, he exits the train while in his dream so he can live in Willoughby.

In reality, he jumped off the train to his death.

His body is eventually loaded into a hearse owned by Willoughby & Son Funeral Home."

Did Mr. Williams fall for hope and change?

Isn't Obama preaching a kind of Willoubhby, i.e. a place where we cut taxes for 95% of taxpayers and everybody loves us after we close Gitmo!

Let's look at some of the weird things in the news.

Rod Sterling couldn't do any better than our headline news.

The NY Times is on the verge of insolvency. Wonder why business is so bad at the corrupt The NY Times?

A few days ago, it was temporarily saved by Mexican businessman Carlos Slim.

According to news reports, Mr. Slim just gave The NY Times a US$ 250 million loan at 14% interest.

14% interest? I guess that Mr. Slim must think that The NY Times is quite a credit risk.

Let's talk about Democrats and Senate seats.

First, the Chicago mess.

And now, the Caroline Kennedy mess.

Again, Rod Sterling could not make this up!

Let's talk about the so called stimulus package, the $ 825 billion plan that will drive our federal budget deficit to $ 1 trillion, i.e. 7% of GDP!

That's really scary, specially since those kind of deficits could be around for a few years!

Weren't these Dems just saying that Bush was running big deficits? Bush's deficits were 2-3% of GDP. The Dems are on the way to double that!

Worse than deficits, Mary K. Ham tells us that new Congressional Budget Office report suggests Obama's proposed, gianormous stimulus plan is really just a proposed, gianormous spending plan!

We now have a Secretary of State who is married to a former president who loves begging for money, specially from the world's characters.

The Europeans love Obama but refuse to send troops to Afghanistan.

DANIEL DREZNER's Have you met the French, Mr. Obama? is funny.

Weren't we told that the Euros didn't want to work with Bush? I guess that it extends to Obama, too:

“Less than five percent of those polled believed that European countries should send troops to Afghanistan as a gesture of solidarity with Obama.

It will be interesting to see whether Obama will be able to change those minds in the coming year.”

Don't you remember? Afghanistan is supposed to be the good war. However, we can't get the Euros to fight in that one either!

Last, but not least, John Stewart has a little fun with the media in the tank for Obama. See this video. This is really good:

GITMO, GITMO, GITMO

As a practical matter, I have never understood all of this left wing obsession with GITMO.

After all, didn't the Clinton administration keep secret rendition prisons in other countries:

"The Rendition Program was initiated because President Clinton and Messrs. Lake, Berger and Clarke requested that the CIA begin to attack and dismantle al-Qaeda.

These men made it clear from the first that they did not want to bring those captured to the United States or to hold them in U.S. custody."

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad that Pres. Clinton created these prisons. I want these people off the streets where they can't kill my family or fly an airplane into a building.

By the way, where would rather be? GITMO or some rendition prison in Egypt?

We are fighting a very different war. We are not fighting soldiers who wear uniforms and adhere to some military discipline. We are not in conventional combat with people who are part of a nation's armed forces.

No way.

We are fighting people who hide in residential areas, murder at will and do whatever it takes to kill.

Again, what's the beef?

First of all, these are enemy combatants, some of the worst people in the world.

Second, they get 3 meals a day and even have a Red Cross office nearby.

Third, and most important, what in the world are you going to do with them?

Today's WSJ editorial is right on target:

"Campaign promises are so much easier to adhere to when they're strictly hypothetical, as Barack Obama is discovering.......

The first practical question is where to transfer Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the 245 or so other remaining Gitmo prisoners.

Dangerous enemy combatants can't simply be released into the streets.

The Obama camp says that after reviewing the classified files, it will try to repatriate as many as safely possible.

But 60 already cleared for release remain because they may be persecuted by their home countries.

And even Mr. Obama's vaunted diplomacy is unlikely to convince rights-protecting countries to resettle people he believes are too dangerous to release in the U.S. -- and the more willing Mr. Obama is to release prisoners, the more difficult this problem will become." (Obama and Guantanamo: Fighting terrorism is simpler when you're a candidate)

You can't release them. Nobody, specially Dems, want them in their districts. What congressman wants one of these types in their country jail?

What in the world do you do with people who want to blow up a Western city or kill your family if they had the chance to do it?

Also, wouldn't some of these people face "real torture" in another country?

Welcome to the real world:

"On wiretaps, interrogations and now Gitmo, the new Administration is discovering that the left-wing attack lines against Bush policies are mostly simplistic illusions.

Now those critics are Mr. Obama's problem."

What's the best solution? Keep them in GITMO where they can't kill you or me!

P.S. Hooray for our friend Ed:

"In the end, Gitmo really is two problems: location and process.

If the process gets changed, then there’s no reason to change location.

If the location was all that was at issue, then the process doesn’t matter.

These terrorists have to remain detained to keep Americans from getting killed, especially KSM and the 9/11 plotters.

Their guilt is not in doubt, nor is the danger they represent."

Pres. Bush and Mrs. Bush got a great welcome last night!

Has anyone been more gracious than Pres. Bush?

He made sure that the transition was smooth. He did everything possible to help the new president. Bush did not take any cheap shots at his opponents.

Why is Pres. Bush so positive and comfortable in his skin? The answer is faith.

Bush is comfortable with himself, his decisions and how history will judge him.

I was pleased to see that so many people showed up to greet the Pres and Mrs. Bush back!

It was a much bigger crowd that anyone anticipated.

Again, I was very pleased to see that.

No one will appreciate Pres Bush more than Pres BO, specially now that he has to make "real world" decisions rather than just do "hope and change"!

Enjoy your retirement.

Perhaps we will see you at a Rangers' game!

Dear Pres BO: It's your turn to keep us safe!

Yesterday, PEBO became Pres. Obama.

What happens to the 58 million of us who voted for McCain?

We lineup as the loyal opposition.

For the record, it was the most expensive inauguration ever! (What Recession? The $170 Million Inauguration)

What a country!

We are told that this is the worst economic crisis since The Great Depression.

Does it look like that to you?

I saw lots of people using their cell phones, "text-ing" their friends and dressed well.

Great Depression? Can someone define that for me?

Weren't these guys complaining that Pres. Bush's inaugurations were too expensive?

Fact: Bush's inauguration expenses weren't anywhere near what these guys just spent.

Don't get me wrong. I want the winners to celebrate. Let them dance! Let them have the parties! I'm OK with that!

I just don't like all of the hypocrisy that always comes from the Dems!

ABC also reports:

President-elect Barack Obama billed his inauguration an event "for all Americans."

But in the nation's capital this long weekend, wealthy visitors are finding themselves a bit more equal -- and warmer -- than others!

So much for hope and change!

So much for all of the populist rhetoric!

I'm tired of all of this "we are the party of little people" stuff!

Today, the party stops and Pres BO will get his first intelligence briefing.

He may look at the world very differently after today.

I think that he will!

Today, we wake up after the parties and speeches.

Today, governing begins. Today, it's up to Pres. Obama and the Dems to keep us safe!

It reminds me of Wesley Pruden's story about the the man who died and went to heaven:

"Barack Obama might take a caution from the story about the man who died and showed up at the Pearly Gates.

The maitre d' told him that his death was particularly timely because he qualified for the weekly special.

He could sample that other place down below, then paradise, and decide for himself where to spend eternity.

He took the down elevator and the doors opened onto a lush fairway, where everybody was breaking par.

The restaurant at the 19th hole was the best in town, the roast beef just rare enough, the ham tasty and the broiled sheep's eyes tender and flavorful.

The wines were the best that Kendall-Jackson or Lafitte Rothschild could supply, served by 73 of the most beautiful women the man had ever seen.

"Yes," the guide said, "not all are virgins, but we're very multicultural now."

The party seemed to go on for days.

Finally, he was escorted to the elevator for a long ride upstairs.

Paradise turned out to be lush and green as well, and he was reunited with many of his old friends.

The food was the best, the wines similar to those served below, but he eventually tired of shooting only holes-in-one.

He reluctantly said thanks, but he wanted the livelier life downstairs.

He was directed politely to the down elevator for the long descent to oblivion.

The door opened at last on a scene of anguish, misery and utter desolation, similar to scenes of Sherman's Christmas bombing of Savannah, the leveling of Berlin and the great firebomb raid on Tokyo.

The man was struck dumb by the difference in what he had seen only a few days before.

"I don't understand it," he told an assistant devil.

"I was here the other day, and it was nothing at all like this."

"Ah, yes," the assistant devil said.

"Last week, we were campaigning.

Now, we're governing."" (That was then, not now)

That's right. Yesterday Obama was campaigning. Today he is governing!

What do we do? What do the 58 million of us do?

We have been before, say 1976 and 1992. (I don't remember 1964)

Once again, we are sitting out and watching the Dems control the presidency and Congress.

Let me say this.

We will support Pres BO when he defends the US.

We will not say that he is an "imperialist" or "unilateralist" because he defends the country without the UN or universal support.

Trust me!

Pres BO will soon learn what Pres GW Bush and Pres Clinton learned the hard way.

He will learn that the Euros do a lot of talking but they don't have troops or a disposition to deal with serious problems.

Again, just ask Bill Clinton about Bosnia and the Europeans!

Look at Afghanistan.

We can count on the UK and Canada but the rest of NATO is sitting it out!

NATO either works together or NATO will stop.

What does it mean for the Euros if NATO ceases to exist? It means that they will have to defend themselves, i.e. no more free protection from the US Mediterranean Fleet!

We will support Pres. BO on national security matters, as we supported Pres. Clinton in Bosnia and when he bombed Iraq in 1998!

We will support him in Afghanistan, although I'm not sure that most Dems understand how serious that war will get.

Frankly, I hope that BO can keep support from his own party on Afghanistan.

Question for Pres BO: Where are you going to find the 20,000 troops for Afghanistan?

What about Iraq?

Incredibly Iraq is not a big deal anymore.

Incredibly, the anti-Iraq War candidate will finish the mission. He is going to look a lot like Bush on this one!

We will give him the benefit of the doubt on terrorist interrogations or rendition prisons.

In other words, we want BO to protect the country!

We are happy that he voted for the FISA bill last summer.

We will be angry with those overseas who march with "Obama is Hitler" or "Death to Obama" placards.

We want our president respected!

On the domestic side, we have serious concerns about the so called stimulus plan.

We just don't think that spending a trillion dollars will stimulate the US economy.

We would rather see a different approach.

We are ready to move on, pick our battles and support the new president whenever we can!

Looking back at Bush's presidency!

It seems like only yesterday that GW Bush became The Texas Rangers' managing partner or was elected and reelected governor of Texas.

Where did the last 20 years go? Specially, where did the last 8 years go?

It's hard to believe that this is my last post about Pres. Bush, the acting president.

Like most presidents, Bush will get an early review, a revision in about 10 years and then his legacy will be firmly established.

After all, Truman retired with 22% approval in 1953. Today, he ranks pretty good!

After all, Lincoln was so unpopular in 1864 that no one thought he'd be reelected!

On the domestic side, Pres. Bush came in after the dot.com stock market crash of April 2000. The US economy was actually going down rapidly as the new president came in.

9-11, the defining moment in Bush's presidency, pushed the US economy even further down.

Bush responded with tax cuts. We got 20-plus consecutive quarters of economic growth. In fact, we had a "growth" period for much of the Bush presidency, until the very end.

Budget deficits? 2-4% of GDP! A deficit but not a problem.

What will we remember about the Bush presidency?

His signature accomplishment was that the US did not get hit again after 9-11.

How important is that?

Go back to the morning after 9-11. How did you feel?

Would you have believed that the US would go 8 years without another attack?

I did not.

Like most others, I was certain that another attack would happen. I was also concerned about the weapons and size of the attack.

Time will pass and Obama will replace Bush on the stage.

During the next four years, Democrats will have to make the tough calls. They will have to fight terrorists, persuade allies to fight in Afghanistan, do business with North Korea, fight Iran's nuclear ambitions, keep an eye on Russia and protect the homeland.

On the domestic side, Democrats will have to deal with awfully difficult problems like Social Security and Medicare.

And let's not forget deficits. Eventually, these will be Obama's deficits!

Bush will start looking good, specially when Obama's supporters come to terms with the reality that Obama did not make any substantial changes.

It won't be long before Obama's supporters complain that they voted for change and got Bush's 3rd term!

Hugh Hewitt has written one of dozen Bush legacy articles. This is my favorite line:

"Bush quickly rallied the country’s confidence at Yankee Stadium, spoke to its sorrows at the National Cathedral and announced its firm resolve to the world in his address to the Congress.

He then directed the takedown of the Taliban and, with it, the support structure and command-and-control capabilities of Al Qaeda, which began the complete overhaul of the national security apparatus of the United States.

Count me among the 30 percent, which will soon be 40 percent — and then more than 50 percent much sooner than most of the chattering class can conceive."

Like other consequential presidents, Bush had to make tough decisions.

He got the big ones right, i.e. protecting the homeland and two wonderful Supreme Court additions that will shape the court for a generation.

P.S. These are a couple of my favorite moments from the Bush presidency.

First, he goes to NY and meets with the workers at "ground zero":

Second, Pres. Bush goes to Yankee Stadium and throws "a perfect strike" before game 3 of the 2001 World Series:

A nice day for Monica Ramos and Patty Compean

Monica Ramos, Patty Compean and all of those kids have been in our prayers for quite some time.

Many of us have written letters, made phone calls and contacted our congressmen.

Monica and Patty are devoted wives and mothers.

Ramos and Compean, their husbands, made mistakes.

However, they were good agents protecting our border from drug cartels.

The trial is under appeal. Nevertheless, the original sentences were outrageous and we are happy that Pres. Bush acted today to reduce it.

We are very pleased that their ordeal is finally over!

Let these families get back to normal lives.

In the meantime, let's support the men who protect our borders from drug dealers.

Let's support all of their wives and children. They are often the target of the cartels, too!

It's a very tough world in the border. These men risk their lives everyday. They deserve our support.

Sorry Mr. Geithner! You have to step aside!

We spoke highly of Timothy Geithner’s selection as Sec of Treasury.

In other words, the guy is very talented. He also provides important continuity with outgoing Sec. Paulson.

Great choice but.....

We have reached the point where Mr. Geithner’s tax problem is more than just "one of those mistakes that all of us make".

Byron York has a great post today and it does not make Timothy Geithner look very good:

"What senators learned at the gathering was not only that Geithner had failed to pay self-employment taxes during his time at the International Monetary Fund.

They learned that the IMF had repeatedly informed Geithner, as it had all its employees, of his obligation to pay that tax.

They learned that Geithner signed documents saying he would pay the tax.

And they learned that Geithner accepted IMF reimbursement for Social Security and Medicare taxes that he had not, in fact, paid.

Geithner paid part of his obligation after a 2006 Internal Revenue Service audit, and the rest of it after he was nominated to become treasury secretary.

In all, he paid $42,702 in back taxes and interest.

In addition to his payment of the unpaid self-employment taxes, Geithner also had to pay $5,566 to cover other shortfalls in his tax payments, for a total of $48,268 in back taxes and interest.

Since their meeting with Geithner was the first time that most senators had heard of the problem, their questions were not terribly detailed; several of the queries were along the lines of “What were you thinking?” And Geithner’s answers were not terribly satisfying.

“He can’t offer a specific reason,” says another source familiar with what went on at the meeting.

“He doesn’t really have an answer.

He just didn’t know.”

I think that we are watching a nomination in serious trouble.

It's time for Obama to tell Mr. Geithner that he won't be in his Cabinet! Otherwise, the American public will do it for him.

Again, Mr. Geithner is a very talented guy. I am not cheering to bring him down. However, no one is so talented in the US that they can have such a lackadaisical attitude about his or her IRS obligations.

Sorry Mr. Geithner.

A reality check about Obamamania from Bill Katz!

We love Bill Katz' The Urgent Agenda.

It's a great website and blog.

Bill posted OBAMA - FROM BRITAIN, WITH SKEPTICISM today:

"We've said here before that British journalists often provide the most interesting perspective on American politics.

Janet Daley is one of the best of the Brit writers, and she's concerned about Barack Obama.

Her worry? That, while he speaks beautifully, he may not do much."

Like Bill, I am really concerned about Obamamania.

Frankly, I am concerned that Obamamania may be the biggest bubble to burst since the dot.com bubble.

I love Bill's analysis on this:

"We want the new president to succeed.

But Daley hits on something that has bothered the most thoughtful political observers - the fact that Obama has never actually done anything significant.

Now he must make the toughest decisions, and translate them into action. Not everything can be explained away in an eloquent speech.

Sometimes you have to get it right and do it right.

And that is the worry about our soon-to-be 44th president."

For example, can you see Pres BO going against public opinion and polls and sticking to his guns like Pres Bush did on the surge?

Yes, I am very worried that BO starts his first managerial position as President of the US.

We have never elected someone so inexperienced before.

Every Dem or Republican elected since FDR was a governor or VP.

JFK was the exception because he was a Senator. However, he had been a Senator or Congressman for 14 years!

The Oval Office is not a good place to learn about management.

Let's hope that Obama proves me wrong. I will be delighted to admit my mistake in this blog!

Thank you Laura Bush!

Behind every President there is a First Lady!

Behind Pres. Bush there was the wonderful Laura Bush of Midland, TX. Didn't you love her West Texas accent and folksy demeanor?

She was a very traditional First Lady, a lot like the other Mrs. Bush. However, she made unique contributions to women's rights in places where women have no rights:

"Since the attacks of September 11, Mrs. Bush has been an outspoken supporter of the women of Afghanistan.

In November 2001, she became the first First Lady to give the President's weekly radio address, speaking out against the Taliban's oppression of women and children.

She has traveled to Afghanistan three times and serves as honorary chair of the U.S.-Afghan Women's Council."

She was very active in promoting breast cancer awareness here and everywhere else:

"Mrs. Bush has helped thousands of women take charge of their health by raising awareness of breast cancer and heart disease.

As Ambassador for the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Heart Truth campaign, Mrs. Bush traveled the country to educate women about the symptoms of heart disease, which is the number one killer of American women.

In addition, Mrs. Bush helped launch the U.S.-Middle East Partnership for Breast Cancer Awareness and Research and the Partnership for Breast Cancer Awareness and Research of the Americas, which unite the resources of researchers and advocates in the United States and around the world."

She was great.

We welcome the First Lady and Pres. Bush back to Dallas!

Great News: Pres Bush takes care of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean

A few minutes ago, Pres. Bush did the right thing:

"On his last full day in office, President Bush commuted the controversial sentences of two former Border Patrol agents convicted of shooting a Mexican drug runner in 2005.

The imprisonment of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean had sparked outcry from critics who said the men were just doing their jobs and were punished too harshly.

They had been sentenced to 11- and 12-year sentences, respectively.

Their sentences will now expire on March 20 of this year.

Ramos and Compean were sentenced in connection with the shooting of Osvaldo Aldrete Davila, who was shot in the buttocks while trying to flee along the Texas border.

He admitted smuggling several hundred pounds of marijuana on the day he was shot and pleaded guilty last year to drug charges related to two other smuggling attempts.

Nearly the entire congressional delegation from Texas and other lawmakers from both sides of the political aisle pleaded with Bush to grant them clemency.

Conservatives hailed Bush's decision Monday.

"The whole thing was ridiculous from beginning to end, and two years was way too long for them to serve," said radio talk show host Laura Ingraham.

"Conservatives are very happy across the country."

Yes, I am happy! I'm specially happy for their wives, who have been put through hell in the last year. Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean will be free to rejoin their wives and families. Good move Mr. President Bush!

Obama is Obama not Lincoln

Let a black woman say it.

Let Star Parker, one of the nation's best conservative columnists, speak about all of this Obama is Lincoln nonsense:

"Lincoln knew that some principles are so fundamental they cannot be compromised.

He knew that we couldn't ignore our key differences.

Unity could only come from facing them and making the hard choices.

He knew that even though there were competing religious claims on the issue of slavery -- some found biblical sanction in it -- we would still have to choose and decide who we are."

Here lies the major difference: Obama is about telling people what they want to hear! Frankly, Obama has a lot more in common with The Civil War Dem Copperheads!

Lincoln was extremely unpopular because he told people what they didn't want to hear!

Lincoln's campaign promises did not come with an asterisk (*).

Lincoln told you where he stood and let the pollsters go to heck!

Obama may be as good as Lincoln someday. We wish him well!

However, all of this "Lincolnization" of Obama is just another chapter in that wishful thinking "fairy tale" that former Pres. Clinton told us about!

What are these people going to do on Tuesday afternoon?

J R Dunn looks back at Bush bashing.

J R Dunn is right. It speaks volumes about the "bashers" and little about the "bashee":

"His detractors were willing to risk the country's safety, its economic health, and the very balance of the democratic system of government in order to get at him.

They were out to bring him down at all costs, or at the very least destroy his personal and presidential reputation.

At this they have been half successful, at a high price for the country and its government."

We wish the "bashers" well.

We trust that they will find something else to get worked up about.

I can't wait to see what happens when the "bashers" realize that Obama I is going to look a lot like Bush III!

Check out CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER and Professor VD Hanson's Bush III!

By the way, forward the Krauthammer and Hanson's articles to the most irrational anti-Bushie in your circle of friends.

Watch the smoke come out of their ears!

In the meantime, don't hold your breath for some prosecution of Bush or Cheney.

It won't happen and that will drive the anti-Bushies even crazier! (Bashers End Bush Era Deflated by Lack of Prosecutions)

It won't happen because Dems don't want to go under oath.

As we posted a week ago, Dem leaders were present when the Bush administration approved each and everyone of these interrogation techniques.

They were present and didn't have the guts to say anything, specially in the post 9-11 climate!

VP Cheney said last week that Dems were present at the meetings. Again, we are still waiting for one Dem to contradict what VP Cheney said last Sunday!

Question: What's a Dem congressional leader?

Answer: A Poll reader and a political coward!

I guess that the "Bush bashers" can buy a dog, name him George and kick the poor thing!

Or maybe they can get a cat, name him Cheney and starve it!

Or maybe they can guy a goldfish and put poison in the fishbowl!

Or, they can get mad when Obama keeps Bush's Iraq policy intact!

Or they can spend the rest of their lives wondering why Al Gore couldn't win Tennessee!

Or, they can grow up and govern! They can do what they didn't do the last two times that the Dems ran the federal government. Weren't the Carter years and the first two years of Clinton followed by huge Republican victories? Govern: This is my recommendation!

As for the rest of us, we will move on, fight new battles and thank Bush for keeping us safe!

Secretary "Conflict of Interest" is going to make life miserable for Pres BO!

Hillary Clinton didn't get a lot of questions about her husband's cash last week.

Apparently, she will this week.

We understand that Sen. Cornyn of Texas is not happy with the Clinton duo:

"Republican Sen. John Cornyn may hold up the nomination of Hillary Clinton to become secretary of state if his concerns about foreign donations to her husband's foundation are not resolved, a spokesman for the Texas senator said on Monday.

"Senator Cornyn is a strong proponent of complete transparency and has fought for as much throughout his time in office.

He is keeping all of his options on the table," said his spokesman Kevin McLaughlin in an email reply to Reuters, when asked if Cornyn could block Clinton's nomination."

Can somebody stand up and answer a simple question:

How can our Secretary of State be married to a man who is soliciting money from country after country?

Again, we are talking about our Secretary of State, our primary diplomat!

It does not add up!

You gotta love Christopher Hitchens's take on Hillary Clinton being our next Sec of State:

"But does a contribution to Bill Clinton's foundation get you any traction with Sen. Clinton, at least in her political and official capacity? Let's see.

A recent story in the New York Times managed to begin with some very crisp and clear and fact-based paragraphs:

An upstate New York developer donated $100,000 to former President Bill Clinton's foundation in November 2004, around the same time that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton helped secure millions of dollars in federal assistance for the businessman's mall project.

Mrs. Clinton helped enact legislation allowing the developer, Robert J. Congel, to use tax-exempt bonds to help finance the construction of the Destiny USA entertainment and shopping complex, an expansion of the Carousel Center in Syracuse.

Mrs. Clinton also helped secure a provision in a highway bill that set aside $5 million for Destiny USA roadway construction.

Why should anyone doubt, then, that in small matters as well as in large ones, the old slogan from the 1992 election still holds true?

As Bill so touchingly put it that year, if you voted for him, you got "two for one."

What the country—and the world—has since learned is a slight variation on that, which I would crudely phrase as "buy one, get one free.""

You gotta love these Clintons!

How in the world can our Secretary of State be married to a guy who is running around asking for money?

This is not about party or ideology.

This is about ethics and common sense! Of course, ethics and common sense have not always been high on the Clinton.

Who predicted Arizona in the Super Bowl?

On Sunday, I drove # 2 son to Texas A&M. (It's exactly 196 miles from door to door!)

We listened to the Arizona-Philadelphia game all the way there. Then I drove back and listened to the Baltimore-Pittsburgh game.

Frankly, I thought that McNabb and the Eagles would win after the second half comeback.

My son and I were cheering for McNabb! He has never won the Super Bowl despite a great career.

He reminds of Jim Kelly of the Buffalo Bills: 4 trips to the Super Bowl and no rings!

Was there a better quarterback than Jim Kelly? I can't think of one but the ring matters a lot!

Congratulations to the Cardinals. I heard that these guys have not played in a title game since 1948! Wasn't that they year that Israel became a state? Wasn't Pres Truman in the White House?

The Ravens-Steelers game was just unbelievable.

Baltimore and Pittsburgh should be playing in the Super Bowl.

I love the way that the Ravens and Steelers play the game. They play good old fashioned in your face defensive football.

They remind me of two tough hockey teams just beating the crap out of each other.

They play like a couple of heavyweights going 15 rounds.

With all due respect to the Cardinals and the NFL commissioner, it should be the Ravens and the Steelers in the Super Bowl!

It was a great game to listen to on the radio!

I guess that conventional wisdom is that the Steelers will win the Super Bowl.

I'll go with "CW" but the Cardinals are playing really good!

A very special sermon from Rev Martin Luther King!

MLK Day is a little special this year. BO, the first black man, will be inaugurated president the next day.

We have a lot to be proud of. We've come a long way from those days of segregation and institutional racism.

We are not perfect but we are a lot better than we were years ago.

Mike Huckabee has been talking about a MLK sermon delivered in 1968. Huckabee knows a thing or two about a good sermon. He was a minister before running for public office.

It was called The Drum Major Instinct:

"If any of you are around when I have to meet my day, I don't want a long funeral.

And if you get somebody to deliver the eulogy, tell them not to talk too long. (Yes)

And every now and then I wonder what I want them to say.

Tell them not to mention that I have a Nobel Peace Prize-that isn't important.

Tell them not to mention that I have three or four hundred other awards-that's not important.

Tell them not to mention where I went to school. (Yes)

I'd like somebody to mention that day that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to give his life serving others. (Yes)

I'd like for somebody to say that day that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to love somebody.

I want you to say that day that I tried to be right on the war question. (Amen)

I want you to be able to say that day that I did try to feed the hungry. (Yes)

And I want you to be able to say that day that I did try in my life to clothe those who were naked. (Yes)

I want you to say on that day that I did try in my life to visit those who were in prison. (Lord)

I want you to say that I tried to love and serve humanity. (Yes)

Yes, if you want to say that I was a drum major, say that I was a drum major for justice. (Amen)

Say that I was a drum major for peace. (Yes)

I was a drum major for righteousness.

And all of the other shallow things will not matter. (Yes)

I won't have any money to leave behind.

I won't have the fine and luxurious things of life to leave behind.

But I just want to leave a committed life behind. (Amen)

And that's all I want to say.

If I can help somebody as I pass along,

If I can cheer somebody with a word or song,

If I can show somebody he's traveling wrong,

Then my living will not be in vain.

If I can do my duty as a Christian ought,

If I can bring salvation to a world once wrought,

If I can spread the message as the master taught,

Then my living will not be in vain.

Yes, Jesus, I want to be on your right or your left side,

(Yes) not for any selfish reason.

I want to be on your right or your left side, not in terms of some political kingdom or ambition.

But I just want to be there in love and in justice and in truth and in commitment to others, so that we can make of this old world a new world."

That's a message for today and every other day!

Happy MLK Day!

Trust me! Most Dems don't know who BO really is!

BO and JB are on their way to the inauguration.

Don't get me wrong. BO won the election and he earned the train ride. It's his moment. Let BO and JB enjoy it!

This is what amazes me. Nobody knows who this guy is.

It seems that everyone of his campaign promises has an expiration date or an asterisk (*).

Let's take GITMO. Iraq. He is not the same guy that millions cheered for back in the spring.

Let's take interrogation techniques. (Shhh: Obama may create “classified loophole” for enhanced interrogations)

Everything was so absolute back in the spring.....everything seems to have a "but" now! What if BO had told his supporters that he was retaining Sec of Defense Gates? What would they have said?

Obama backpedaling on stem cells?

Who knows about his Chicago connections?

Rezko? Gov Blago? What else could pop up now that Fitzgerald is going deep in his Chicago investigation?

Fred Barnes has a good one:

"People don't know who Obama really is or where his ideological center of gravity rests, to the extent it rests anywhere.

He was a liberal in the Senate and the campaign, a centrist in the transition, and who knows what he'll be as president.

He's elusive."

Of course, it all depends on how things look in 6 months or how he handles a foreign policy crisis.

I voted against Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore and Kerry since 1976. I felt like I knew those guys! I also felt that they had the experience to be president.

Bill Clinton was right: this is a fairy tale!

What's the scary part? His voters don't know anything about him either!

Just talk to one of them! They are all caught up in the man but know very little who the man is!

A very simple inaugural speech that I will never forget!

It was August 1974.

Pres. Ford was not elected to VP or President.

However, he became the 38th president in a very unique way. He became VP when VP Agnew resigned in Oct '73. A year later, VP Ford became president when Pres. Nixon resigned!

I remember driving to school and hearing this one on the radio. I remember watching Pres. Nixon announce his resignation the night before.

Over time, Pres. Ford's stock has risen substantially.

Two years ago, 93-year old former Pres. Ford was buried by a grateful nation.

We were very fortunate that it was a man of Gerald Ford's integrity who took that oath almost 35 years ago!

As we think of inaugural speeches and ceremonies, I go back to that day when Gerald Ford became the president of the US!

It's still my favorite!

"I want to hold your hand" charted 45 years ago this month!

Let's file this one in two sections:

1) "time really flies", and

2) "very favorite songs" category.

Forty-five years ago, The Beatles were very popular in the UK and some of Europe.

They had recorded big UK hits like "She loves you" and "Please please me". The Beatles even had a best selling album.

However, The Beatles had struck out in the US. None of their songs had charted over here.

Everything changed with "I want to hold your hand", the first song released in the US on Capitol Records:

""I Want to Hold Your Hand" was the band's first number-one hit on the Billboard Hot 100 chart, starting the British Invasion of the United States music charts.

The song entered the chart on January 18 1964 at number 45 before it became the number one single for 7 weeks and went onto last a total of 15 weeks in the chart.

It also held the top spot in the United Kingdom charts. A million copies of the single had already been ordered on its release.

"I Want to Hold Your Hand" became The Beatles' best-selling single worldwide."

It was so popular that it was even recorded in German!

The single had advanced order of one million copies!

In early February, The Beatles appeared on The Ed Sullivan Show, the most popular Sunday night show. They toured the US before sold out crowds. They dominated the charts for months.

John and George are not around anymore. Paul still records. Ringo does appearances from time to time.

Lennon-McCartney turned into the most popular songwriting duo of our generation.

It all started with "I want to hold your hand", the first Lennon-McCartney song to hit the US charts!

It started 45 years ago this week!

Words and Music by John Lennon and Paul McCartney

"Oh yeah I tell you somethin'

I think you'll understand

When I say that somethin'

I want to hold your hand

I want to hold your hand

I want to hold your hand

Oh please say to me

You'll let me be your man

And please say to me

You'll let me hold your hand

Now, let me hold your hand

I want to hold your hand

And when I touch youI feel happy inside

It's such a feelin' that my love

I can't hide I can't hide

I can't hide

Yeah, you got that somethin'

I think you'll understand

When I say that somethin'

I want to hold your hand

I want to hold your hand

I want to hold your hand

And when I touch you

I feel happy inside

It's such a feelin' that my love

I can't hide I can't hide

I can't hide

Yeah, you got that somethin'

I think you'll understand

When I feel that somethin'

I want to hold your hand

I want to hold your hand

I want to hold your hand

I want to hold your hand"

P.S. A few weeks later, Capitol Records released "Meet the Beatles", the first US album. It is still one of the best pop albums ever.

It featured 12 songs, including "All my loving". This is one of my all time Beatles' songs and a great lead vocal by Paul McCartney:

"Close your eyes and I'll kiss you

Tomorrow I'll miss you

Remember I'll always be true

And then while I'm away

I'll write home every day

And I'll send all my loving to you

I'll pretend that I'm kissing

The lips I am missing

And hope that my dreams will come true

And then while I'm away I'll write home every day

And I'll send all my loving to you

All my loving I will send to you

All my loving, darling I'll be true

Close your eyes and I'll kiss you...."

Bush and removing Saddam Hussein!

As the Bush presidency winds down, we remember the Iraq War, by far his most controversial decision.

Let me rephrase it.

It became a controversial decision once the fighting got tough, as it always does in every war.

It was not a controversial decision in March 2003!

On the contrary, every major Dem went to the TV cameras to show his or her support for the decision to remove Saddam Hussein.

In 2006, they said "vote for us" and we will end the Iraq War!

They won but they didn't have the guts to cut the funding! They were afraid of implementing their campaign promise. Why? Because they didn't want to own the consequences. They just wanted the issue!

This is why we call them "poll readers" and "profiles in political cowardice"! This is in sharp contrast to Pres. Bush or Sen McCain who put their political fortunes on the line rather than take the easy way out. We call that a "profile in courage"!

After all, who will ever forget Hillary Clinton's "double talk" on Iraq!

Back to Iraq and the progress over there.

We posted recently about The amazing story of Iraq!

We have often linked to Michael Yon's website!

We enjoy reading what Omar and Mohammed Fadhil write from a new Iraq.

Most of all, we love the picture of a woman voting in Iraq for the first time!

Where are the world's feminists? Shouldn't they be jumping up and down that women finally got to vote in Iraq? (And Afghanistan!)

Looking back, it still amazes how the Dems were willing to cut and run from a noble cause, specially something that they supported with such passion.

It continues to amaze how quickly we forgot that Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons against innocent people, including his own countrymen. As we posted a couple of years ago, Did someone tell the Kurds that Saddam did not have WMDs?:

It wasn't long ago that Al Gore and Bill Clinton were the leading advocates of removing Hussein.

Who is this guy blasting the first Bush for leaving Saddam Hussein in power? The answer is candidate Al Gore in 1992:

Who is this guy? Does he look familiar? This is Pres. Clinton speaking to the Congress about Iraq and WMDs? Wonder where Pres. Bush learned that Saddam had WMDs?

P.S. The last word comes from the liberal Pete Beinart: Admit It: The Surge Worked! He praises Pres. Bush for hanging tough. He also advises Dems to say that the surge worked. Let's see if they do, specially now that Pres Obama and the Dems own Iraq again!

Obama can not spend a trillion dollars and blame it on Bush!

BO calls it The American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009.

We call it the "trillion deficit" program of 2009.

It is incumbent on Republicans, and some of those blue dog Dems in the South, to stop this nonsense.

Most importantly, this plan must be debated.

Obama, and the Dem Congressional leaders, want to rush this without a complete debate.

It can not happen.

P.S. We thank Instapundit for bringing this to our attention! You can put me down with the majority of the public:

"GALLUP: Americans Want Details Before Release of More TARP Funds.

“A majority of Americans (62%) say Congress should block President-elect Obama’s request to release the remaining $350 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds until more details are provided about how the funds will be spent.

The rest of Americans are split between saying the funds should be released immediately and saying they should not be released at all.”

The Bush economy without the "doom and gloom"

It's true that Pres. Bush leaves offices with 7% unemployment.

It's true that the second half of 2008 was not good. At the same time, the "credit crisis" is very complicated as Pres Obama will learn. In other words, we have a lot of structural problems and changing presidents will not magically fix anything. I trust that the fanatic "yes we can" screamers understand that or they will be very disappointed! Again, the "credit crisis" will not get fixed because "W" is out and "hope and change" is in!

Nevertheless, this is not 1932 when 25% of heads of households were out of work!

This is not even 1980, the last time that a president really inherited a terrible economy!

This is not 1982 when unemployment hit 10%!

In other words, cut out the politically convenient "doom and gloom".

Open the window and get some fresh air!

Most of the world would love to have our unemployment rate!

We may be sneezing but much of the world is in bed with a very high fever!

The Bush years gave us positive GDP growth, as the chart above indicates.

Good things happened, unless you are still counting votes in Florida.

See WSJ:

"Democrats like to claim the 1990s were a golden age while the Bush years have been disastrous.

But as the nearby chart shows, Mr. Bush inherited a recession.

The dot-com bubble had burst in 2000, and the economy was sinking even before the shock of 9/11, the corporate scandals and Sarbanes-Oxley.

Mr. Bush's original tax-cut proposal was designed in part as insurance against such a downturn."

The tax cuts worked rather well:

"As the tax cuts became law in late May 2003, the recovery began in earnest.

Growth averaged nearly 4% over the next three years, the jobless rate fell from 6.3% in June 2003 to 4.4% in October 2006, and real wages began to grow despite rising food and energy prices.

The 2003 tax cut was the high point of Bush economic policy."

What about the federal budget deficits:

"In fiscal 2007, the deficit hit $161 billion, or an economically trivial 1.2% of GDP. "

Trust me. We will look back to those golden days of yesteryear when budget deficits were less than 2% of GDP!

We will look back when BO's budget deficits creep up to 8% of GDP!

Back to Bush.

We are not saying that Bush had a perfect economy. No one does!

For example, I wished that Bush had vetoed more spending. At the same time, Bush was focused on the two wars and did not want to use his time fighting with Congress about spending.

Overall, the Bush economy had a slow start, a great middle section and a disappointing finish.

Again, in politics, as in baseball, everybody remembers your last at bat! Therefore, the economy of late 2008 obviously hurt Bush and McCain!

What can Obama learn from Bush?

Tax cuts work, specially when they go to people who actually create jobs!

Again, you must cut taxes for people who actually pay taxes.

On other hand, mailing checks to people, as we tried in the spring, is not important.

For more on the Bush economy, listen to our show with Randall Hoven!

All of this nonsense about torture!

Pres-elect Obama is not so absolute on "torture" after all:

"His advisers are considering adding a classified loophole to the rules that could allow the CIA to use some interrogation methods not specifically authorized by the Pentagon, the officials said. ...

For Obama, who repeatedly insisted during the 2008 presidential campaign and the transition period that "America doesn't torture," a classified loophole would allow him to follow through on his promise to end harsh interrogations while retaining a full range of presidential options in conducting the war against terrorism.

The proposed loophole, which could come in the form of a classified annex to the manual, is designed to satisfy intelligence experts who fear that an outright ban of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques would limit the government in obtaining threat information that could save American lives.

It would also preserve Obama's flexibility to authorize any interrogation tactics he might deem necessary for national security." ("Sources: Obama ready to ban harsh interrogations")

Sorry. Isn't that exactly what Pres. Bush's policy is?

I'm so fed up with all of this nonsense about torture and GITMO.

The US does not torure, although we do try get information from time to time.

Memo to the "yes we can" screamers: Aren't we at war with people who want to blow up a Western city?

I love this from Power Line:

"In short, Obama's posturing is meaningless and politically motivated.

His policy will not be any different from President Bush's; he is just trying to score cheap political points.

Obama is no dummy, and is acutely aware of the Bush administration's extraordinary record of keeping us safe from terrorist attacks over the last seven years.

He knows that his approval rating will sink like a stone if he exposes Americans to mass murder because of a foolish consideration for the comfort of terrorists.

If and when the time comes, he will act exactly as George Bush did."

I can't wait to have a chat with an Obama supporter about torture. I can't wait to hear about this is "change" that we can believe in!

Speaking of GITMO, Gabe Ledeen spent some time down there and he posted this:

"What I found at Guantanamo Bay was that the American servicemen and women there are committed to standards well above those of the average citizen. For twelve hours a day, four days a week, for at least a year, these soldiers with a median age of 22 demonstrate inspiring discipline and dedication to duty.

There are multiple assaults on guards every day, mostly verbal and sometimes physical. At least once a week, every week, at least one soldier is doused with a “body fluid cocktail” of feces and urine as they attempt to perform their daily routine." (A Firsthand Look at the Real Guantanamo)

P.S. Who is going to apologize to Pres. Bush and the fine people who work at the NSA?

Once again, a court supports Pres. Bush:

"Last August the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court once again affirmed President's Bush's constitutional authority to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance in the name of national security.

That ruling was made public yesterday but the court reached a similar conclusion in 2002, In re: Sealed Case."

Back in Dec '05, there was all types of hysteria when The NY Times "broke this story".

Remember all of the silly calls about Bush's "police state"?

Again, when will they apologize? Don't hold your breath!

I hope that the Dems are stupid enough to investigate Bush and Cheney!

We always hear about Pres. Bush's job approval numbers. The RCP average is 30%.

We never hear about the Dem Congress' approval numbers.

Well, Congressional approval is 22%!

Let me repeat: 22% And 30% is better than 22%!

So, I can't wait for Rep. Coneyers and his House pals to go after Bush and Cheney.

In fact, I am praying that they demand that the Obama administration go after his predecessor.

Of course, it won't happen. The Dems are talkers. They have used Bush hatred to feed an angry left that contributes millions of dollars and runs their blogs.

The Dems may want to read Peter Wehner:

"The primary responsibility of the president is to keep American citizens safe. By that standard alone, President Bush has achieved success.

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, when virtually everyone assumed we'd be hit again, Bush put the United States on a war footing.

He mobilized the entire federal government, including the military, Homeland Security, the Treasury, the FBI, our intelligence agencies and more.

We have not been attacked since."

Here is the good news: We have not been attacked.

Here is the bad news for the Dems: They will own the next attack, specially if the nation believes that they shattered the successful anti-terror structure left behind by Bush-Cheney.

In other words, no one was talking about "waterboarding" on the morning after 9-11!

Not even the most liberal Dems!

So go ahead and make my day.

Go ahead and start the inquiry.

In the meantime, Rep Conneyers and the Dems may want to check with Rep Harman and Sen Rockefeller and Speaker Pelosi.

We are still waiting for one Dem to contradict what VP Cheney said last Sunday:

"1. It wouldn’t be the first time a Democratic leader privately approved a secret Bush policy reviled by the left.

See, e.g., Madam Speaker giving thumbs up to CIA interrogation sites in 2002, back when the political calculus on counterterrorism measures was a wee bit different than it is now.

Apparently, she was willing to take a tough line on terror so long as she didn’t have to suffer any political consequences among her base.

Apply that same logic and you’ll see why Democrats might not have been eager to see Bush come to Congress seeking public authorization.

2. As Maguire notes, the New York Times reported three years ago on Democratic acquiescence in the wiretapping program — although the detail provided by Cheney about them discouraging him from seeking congressional approval appears to be new. (Democrats claimed predictably in 2005 that the briefings they’d gotten hadn’t revealed how extensive the program was.)

Three Democrats did object at various points, one of whom was Pelosi in the form of a letter sent in October 2001.

But unless I’m misreading it, the crux of her concern wasn’t that the NSA was wiretapping people without Congress’s or a court’s approval.

It was that Bush hadn’t yet specifically authorized the practice at the time.

3. It’s now more than 24 hours since the Cheney interview aired and nary a peep from any of the Dems accused.

If this is some egregious smear or lie, they’re being curiously shy about calling him on it."

Weren't they in the room when the Bush administration briefed them on the interrogation tactics?

Go ahead and unleash the angry left on Bush and Cheney!

We can't wait.

Here is my prediction: Obama I is going to look like Bush III

(Pres. Bush and PM Blair at The White House a few days ago. Blair and Bush, a couple of guys who governed rather than read polls!)

Memo to the world.

Memo to the anti-Bushies.

Memo to all of those who were silly enough to believe that "hope and change" was actually coming.

Let me recommend that you check out Prof. VD Hanson's latest post.

The professor calls it Bush III:

"What is new about this transition, or at least relatively new—unlike the Carter-Reagan, Reagan-Bush, Bush-Clinton, and Clinton-Bush change-overs—is that an entire sector of the country has been convinced by an intellectual establishment—in the media, universities, foundations, the fringes of the Democratic Party, the arts, Hollywood, etc.—that Obama arrives to end quasi-fascistic rule and radically change U.S. foreign policy to win back over the world's good will.

But when we look at actual specifics and ignore the boilerplate mainstream liberal rhetoric about "multilateralism" and "rebuilding our alliances," and also ignore the "inside" horror stories (cf. the recent Vanity Fair Bush hit-piece) by failures and opportunists like a Scott McClellan or Matthew Dowd, we really do not see very much."

So what will BO's first term look like?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER is back with another good one:

"Truman's rehabilitation took decades. Bush's will come sooner. Indeed, it has already begun. The chief revisionist? Barack Obama.

Vindication is being expressed not in words but in deeds — the tacit endorsement conveyed by the Obama continuity-we-can-believe-in transition.

It's not just the retention of such key figures as Secretary of Defense Bob Gates or Treasury Secretary nominee Timothy Geithner, who, as president of the New York Fed, has been instrumental in guiding the Bush financial rescue over the last year.

It's the continuity of policy.

It is the repeated pledge to conduct a withdrawal from Iraq that does not destabilize its new democracy and that, as Vice President-elect Joe Biden said just this week in Baghdad, adheres to the Bush-negotiated status of forces agreement that envisions a U.S. withdrawal over three years, not the 16-month timetable on which Obama campaigned.

It is the great care Obama is taking in not pre-emptively abandoning the anti-terror infrastructure that the Bush administration leaves behind"

And last but not least:

"The very continuation by Democrats of Bush's policies will be grudging, if silent, acknowledgment of how much he got right."

The good news is that Bush III is a few days away.

The bad news, for Dems, is that Obama will be Bush III.

We have not seen such euphoria since the "fairy tale" royal wedding!

Let me spoil the party. Let me rain on the parade. Let me throw some water on sleepy faces. Let me break a lot of Dem hearts!

Pam Meister has a few comments in Obamamania in Overdrive as Inauguration Looms:

".....I’m beginning to feel like the Brits must have felt back in 1981, when Lady Diana was getting ready to marry Prince Charles."