"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."
President Ronald Reagan
Now, here is the unbelievable "rest of the story".
Austin Wood, a senior left hander, had the greatest pitching performance since Harvey Haddix in 1959:
"The Longhorns left-hander entered the game with one out and a runner on second base in the seventh inning and proceeded to pitch 12.1 innings before yielding a hit.
For the game, Wood pitched 13.0 scoreless innings, scattering two hits and four walks while striking out a career-high 14.
He logged 169 pitches on the evening."
I hope that they sent Austin Wood's jersey to the NCAA Hall of Fame and Cooperstown.
Can you believe 169 pitches and 12 innings without giving up a hit?
Congratulations to Austin Wood and the Longhorns!
P.S. In 1959, Harvey Haddix pitched 12 perfect innings against Milwaukee. He lost the game in the 13th inning!
This is going to be a tough post for all of you who voted for change.
You got Obama. You are not getting a lot of change on the national security front. (BO is indeed proposing radical changes at home and that's for another post!)
The US left is going crazy with Pres BO. Why? Because BO is starting to look a lot like Bush III!
"It's one more in a long series of instances in which the Obama administration has backtracked on its campaign promises--fortunately!--by keeping Bush administration anti-terror policies in place.
No doubt the administration was motivated in part by the fact that the Treasury Department has designated the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, the plaintiff in the anti-wiretapping case, "an organization that supports terrorism."
Isn't it about time for Barack Obama to issue an apology to former President Bush?"
On one hand, we are happy that the Obama administration is retaining Pres Bush's anti-terror policies.
Why not? We have not been attacked since 9-11. Would you replace a closer who has not blown a save?
On the other hand, didn't candidate BO run for office saying that the Bush administration was a lawless enterprise? Didn't he promise to reverse all of these policies?
Anybody want to make a bet?
How many national security promises will Pres BO break before Labor Day?
How about all of them?
My liberal friends keep telling me that former VP Cheney is cranky and crazy. So what do they say about Pres BO keeping all of his policies intact?
TROUT IN O'S MILK By JONAH GOLDBERG makes the point that Cheney is talking and BO is taking notes.
Professor VD Hanson calls it: Bush Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (Obama continues to trash Bush in words — but his actions speak louder)
I guess that it's easier to blame Bush 24/7.
It's easier to blame Bush than to admit that BO just took his supporters for a bunch of suckers!
Who is going to stand up and tell "the yes we can" screamers that their guy took them on a magic carpet ride of promises he never meant to keep?
"Born in Honduras, Estrada came to the United States at 17, not knowing a word of English.
He learned the language almost instantly, and within a few years was graduating with honors from Columbia University and heading off to Harvard Law School.
He clerked for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, was a prosecutor in New York, and worked at the Justice Department in Washington before entering private practice."
Did you ever hear anything about this man's incredible upbringing?
What did "the party of diversity" do to Mr. Estrada?
They attacked him, in much the same way that they tried to lynch Clarence Thomas.
Justice Thomas had an amazing story, too. It was a great story until he decided to escape the liberal plantation and refused to kiss Jesse Jackson's ring:
"Thomas who lost his father, and was raised by his mother in a rural Georgia town, in a shack without running water, until he was sent to his grandfather.
The same Justice Thomas who had to work every day after school, though he was not allowed to study at the Savannah Public Library because he was black.
The same Justice Thomas who became the first in his family to go to college and receive a law degree from Yale."(The Sotomayor Rules )
Let's hope that the Spanish-speaking media remembers how Mr. Estrada was treated. Let's hope that the rest of the media remembers how Clarence Thomas was treated, too!
We have a double standard.
The Dems have a message for Hispanics and blacks who escape the liberal plantation.
We will hunt you down and threw our dogs at you.
Worst of all, the media will play along with the Dems! The media doesn't like blacks or Hispanics who want to sit on the other side! They don't fit the template!
Just ask Mr. Estrada and Mr. Thomas! They can tell you a thing or two about "the party of diversity"!
Let's see how Dems in Virginia, Arkansas and Montana react to her position that the states do not have to obey the second amendment.
Second, let's hear her views on business and capitalism in general. IBD has a great editorial about one of her decisions:
"In a 2007 2nd Circuit decision, Sotomayor ruled the Clean Water Act required power companies that operate water-cooled power plants to use the "best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact" to prevent fish and other aquatic life from being sucked into vents and killed.
Third, let her explain the Ricci v. DeStefano decision.
John C. Eastman is the dean at Chapman University School of Law in Orange, Calif., and holds the Donald P. Kennedy chair in law. He is also the founding director of The Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.
"This case involved a serious constitutional challenge to a decision by the New Haven fire department to decertify a promotion exam after its results, which had been properly validated and carefully vetted by civil rights groups, did not yield an adequate racial mix of candidates.
The Supreme Court took the rare step of granting review despite the fact that the Second Circuit's decision was unpublished.
Under the Second Circuit's rules, unpublished summary orders are supposed to be issued only "in those cases in which decision is unanimous and each judge of the panel believes that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by an opinion (i.e. a ruling having precedential effect)."
The brief, two-paragraph order Sotomayor joined (and perhaps wrote) makes no mention whatsoever of the constitutional challenge.
The firefighters – and anyone who's been discriminated against on the basis of race – deserved better."
The Ricci decision is a potential embarrassment. It may be reversed by the The Supreme Court a few days before the hearings.
Can you remember a Supreme Court nominee having a major opinion reversed during the confirmation hearings? I can't think of one!
For now, be nice to Sotomayor and give her the microphone.
This is a win-win situation for our side.
First, her confirmation does not change the ideological balance.
Second, Republicans have a wonderful opportunity to win a debate about judicial activism.
In politics, things don't always turn out as planned.
Remember how The Obama White House couldn't wait to get into a debate with former VP Cheney?
Who is reversing campaign promises about military tribunals and detaining terrorists indefinitely?
It's not Cheney!
Let Sotomayor talk! Why don't we start the hearings next week? The sooner the better! Put this lady behind a microphone!
I have a funny feeling that Dems, not Republicans, will have a bad case of indigestion when Sotomayor has to explain some of these decisions and quotes. (It looks like The White House is concerned: White House Damage Control on Sotomayor)
P.S. Cheers to Townhall for this funny but provocative video:
Some of us are old enough to remember the 1991 Clarence Thomas confirmation.
We don't recall much interest in Mr. Thomas' childhood.
No one spoke about his grandfather, a great man who taught him about life.
For 24 hours, the media has been on high gear about Sotomayor's background and story.
When can we finally have a discussion about the judge's opinions or record?
I am looking forward to that!
As I posted before, let Sonia Sotomayor have her day and explain her positions.
P.S. I am concerned about this:
""Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's pick to become the newest Supreme Court justice, is on the record with some controversial remarks about 'diversity,' 'judicial activism' and female judges vs. male judges.
For example, the New York Times reported that in 2001, at the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture, Sotomayor had this to say:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said later, regarding non-white, female judges, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”" (Newsmax)
"Dear President Obama, Like most Canadians I rooted for you madly and cried when you were elected President-of-The-World.
So far, I think you've been a great leader, reaching out to the whole planet.
But you've forgotten one nation - Canada."
I spoke with Josh Freed today. He is a nice man. We had a nice chat. We even discussed the possibility of trading PM Harper for Pres BO!
Ideology aside, I did ask a couple of questions:
What did Josh see in BO's resume or life to conclude that he could change the world or heal the planet?
I don't get it. What did BO accomplish in his career to inspire all of this devotion from someone in Montreal?
A little too much wishful thinking?
What legislative achievements did Josh find in BO's career as a State Senator or first term US Senator?
Frankly, all we know about his Illinois days is that he voted present 100 times! Wonder what "the thoughtful people of Canada" think about the "thoughtful BO" sitting in Rev Wright's church for 20 years?
All we know about his US Senate days is the spent half of his term promoting a book and running for president.
Beyond "sugar coated" speeches, telling people what they wanted to hear about Iraq and Guantanamo, and writing two books about himself, what else did Josh, and so many Canadians, find in BO?
What previous presidential candidate ever wrote two books about himself before he had an executive job?
Josh is disappointed that BO is reaching out to other countries except Canada.
Is that so?
What countries has BO been reaching out too?
Mexico is mad about a provision that violates NAFTA. We are in the middle of a trade war with our southern neighbor.
Colombia is still waiting for the Dems to approve a free trade deal.
Israel is not exactly saying "yes we can"!
Canada is mad about "Buy America". There is talk of a trade war with Canada too. By the way, most countries are balking at the "Buy America" clause, too!
However, BO is not having much impact on any one's policies.
Just check out his trip to Europe where he got lots of praise but came home with nothing tangible.
Josh: What happens when you fall for someone just because he is not Bush?
You get surprises....don't you?
You get an incompetent Homeland Security Director who has already lost control of her department. By the way, Canadians are not the only ones who are furious with this lady!
You get "buy American" provisions in budgets or stimulus bills. Worse than that, they are "hidden" in the same earmarks that BO ran against!
You learn that the Euros won't send troops to Afghanistan: No Bush and still no troops!
It will be the US, UK and Canada in the battlefield. Everybody else is doing a lot of talking but no fighting.
You may get The Byrd Amendment again, specially now that "protectionists" have their guy in The Oval Office.
We remind everyone that The Byrd Amendment was signed into law by Pres Clinton in 2000 and repealed by Pres Bush in 2006!
You get someone who kept much of the Bush anti-terror policies intact. (Obama's Deeds Vindicate Bush - Charles Krauthammer)
You get someone who has implemented the Bush-McCain policy in Iraq.
Bush may have lost Canadians by invading Iraq or opposing same sex marriage. However, he did support "free trade" and understood just how important exports are to Canada. (Also, what exactly were we supposed to do with Saddam Hussein, a man who had used WMDs twice and violated every UN resolution!)
After 9-11, Bush decided that protecting the US was more important than being popular overseas.
We are very happy that he did.
After all, what's the point of being popular if nobody is sending troops to Afghanistan? What's the benefit of having a "loved president" if the UN can't issue a North Korean resolution with teeth?
We hope that Josh in Montreal reconsiders his devotion!
Or we fear that Josh's disillusionment will only get worse!
He is the Denton County Republican Party Vice Chairman for Outreach, President of the Legacy Republican Club, and the GOP Precinct Chair for Denton County Precinct #117.
He was appointed By Governor Rick Perry in 2007 to serve on the Texas Medical Board District #2 Review Committee and is currently the Recruitment & Selection Manager at Texas Woman's University.
Bahukutumbi Raman is a retired officer of the Indian intelligence service and director of the Institute For Topical Studies, in Chennai, India. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies.
"After Obama assumed office in January, whatever hesitation that existed in North Korea's policy-making circles regarding the likely response of U.S. administration has disappeared, and its leadership now feels it can defy the U.S. and the international community with impunity.
A series of actions taken by the Obama administration have created an impression in Iran, the "Af-Pak" region, China and North Korea that Obama does not have the political will to retaliate decisively to acts that are detrimental to U.S. interests, and to international peace and security."
In other words, he is talking weakness.
What happens when your president goes around apologizing to everybody?
Or, what about when he sits for 50 minutes and allows Daniel Ortega to take cheap shots at the US?
Or, what happens when the Israeli president goes home wondering if the US is ready to accept a nuclear Iran?
It adds up. It doesn't take long for the world to conclude that BO won't fight for anything, except a woman's right to have an abortion.
I hope that Mr. Raman is wrong about this:
"There will be more surprises for the U.S. and the international community to follow if Obama and his aides do not embark on corrective actions before it is too late."
I fear that Mr. Raman is right.
"Hope and change" is going to look a lot like "weakness" and "appeasement".
The Yankees are in for a 3 game series. (Game 1 is all New York so far. It's 11-0 after 7 innings!)
Nevertheless, it's a great chance to watch Derek Jeter, one of the all time great Yankees.
I remember watching a NY-Texas game back in 1996. I watched Jeter make a great play. I had a feeling that we would be watching Jeter for a long time.
Jeter is a .315 career hitter. He should finish this season with 2700 hits, i.e. he needs another 114! He should be close to cracking the 3,000 mark sometime in 2011 or 2012.
Will Jeter win his 5th World Series ring? The Yankees have a good team but I'm not sure that their pitching is deep enough to go that far.
No matter what, Jeter will be in the Hall of Fame.
For now, it's a lot of fun to watch one of the best Yankees ever!
"It is hard to ignore how passive he sounds — ever the victim of circumstances. That darn Bush left a mess on national security.
And what’s a guy to do with such a deficit left on his doorstep?
But the facts tell a different story, as this chart illustrates. To a greater degree than any predecessor, Obama has run up the deficit — with little to show for it."
How can BO get away with blaming his deficits on Bush? Not long!
"Hope and change" said a lot about "outsourcing". Remember the speeches about giving US companies "tax breaks" for taking their plants overseas? Now, we read this about "Hope and Change": "The U.S. government is pouring billions into General Motors in hopes of reviving the domestic economy, but when the automaker completes its restructuring plan, many of the company's new jobs will be filled by workers overseas. " (WashPost) The UAW is not pleased: "The complaints about GM's operations portend a potentially larger argument, a political dispute led in part by the United Auto Workers. "The bottom line is GM would rather pay $2 an hour -- and it's a slippery slope downward," said Alan Reuther, the UAW's legislative director. "If GM is going to be getting government assistance, they ought to be maintaining their manufacturing footprint in the U.S. rather than going off to China, Mexico and South Korea." No kidding. The UAW should be furious. First, candidate BO tells them that he is going to renegotiate NAFTA. Second, candidate BO beats up everybody for jobs going overseas. Now, we read that GM will move manufacturing operations overseas How long can this fairy tale go on? Not much longer!
"Human rights advocates say that relying on foreign governments to hold and question terrorist suspects could carry significant risks.
It could increase the potential for abuse at the hands of foreign interrogators and could also yield bad intelligence, they say. "
No kidding.
Where would you rather be? GITMO or Egypt?
There is more:
"How the United States is dealing with terrorism suspects beyond those already in the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, was a question Mr. Obama did not address in the speech he gave Thursday about his antiterrorism policies."
Wonder why he didn't?
Pres BO does not want to confirm that he will keep the Clinton-Bush jails overseas.
It may be too much for the "yes we can" screamers to learn that their guy is a first class hypocrite.
Wonder how much "terrorist recruiting" comes from Pres BO's rendition prisons? We never hear about that....do we?
Don't get me wrong.
I like rendition prisons. I supported Pres. Clinton's rendition prisons.
Why? Because I want to kill terrorists. I want to make their lives miserable. I want to get information from them.
Bottom line: I understand the threat. I understand that we must stop people who want to blow up a US city.
This is not a game. We are not in an argument with with poets and songwriters.
Therefore, I'm OK with Pres BO relying on rendition prisons.
I just don't like hypocrisy!
We are seeing a lot of hypocrisy and selective indignation from this White House.
P.S. On national security and prisons, someone at The White House should listen to Newt Gingrich discuss the threats that we face:
"Anyone who reads this New York Times article on North Korea's second nuclear test by Choe Sang-Hun will be left with the distinct impression that,
1) North Korea is spitting in Obama's and America's face, and
2) the more he spits the more we grovel."
The second call was about Iran:
"Iran has sent six warships to international waters, including the Gulf of Aden, to show its ability to confront any foreign threats, its naval commander said on Monday." (Reuters)
What's going on?
Why are all of the bad guys doing bad things since we elected the president who was going to "heal the planet" and "make everybody loves us"?
We do hope that Pres BO will stop apologizing and reverse that stupid campaign promise about a nuclear defense shield.
Words have consequences. Pres BO is not a community organizer any more!
""For more than two centuries, Americans have been called to defend the founding ideals of our democracy.
On Memorial Day, a grateful Nation remembers the proud patriots who made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of liberty's blessings.
From the opening battles of the American Revolution through the turmoil of the Civil War, to World War I, World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, to the Persian Gulf and today's operations in the war on terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, and around the world, the members of our military have built a tradition of honorable and faithful service.
As we observe Memorial Day, we remember the more than one million Americans who have died to preserve our freedom, the more than 140,000 citizens who were prisoners of war, and all those who were declared missing in action."
We also wish Dylan a happy birthday. (For more on Dylan, check out our 2008 birthday post: Happy birthday, Bob Dylan)
Dylan was a prolific songwriter and performer.
Frankly, I like him more as a songwriter but some of his performances were memorable.
This is Dylan singing "If not for you":
"If not for you, Babe, I couldn't find the door, Couldn't even see the floor, I'd be sad and blue, If not for you.
If not for you, Babe, I'd lay awake all night, Wait for the mornin' light To shine in through, But it would not be new, If not for you.
If not for you My sky would fall, Rain would gather too. Without your love I'd be nowhere at all, I'd be lost if not for you, And you know it's true.
If not for you My sky would fall, Rain would gather too. Without your love I'd be nowhere at all, Oh! what would I do If not for you.
If not for you, Winter would have no spring, Couldn't hear the robin sing, I just wouldn't have a clue, Anyway it wouldn't ring true, If not for you."
Dylan was also known for songs like The Byrds' "Mr Tambourine Man":
Jackson Browne and Joan Osborne had a great version of "My back pages":
Last, but not least, Cher and Glen Campbell sing "All I really want to do":
"I ain't lookin' to compete with you, Beat or cheat or mistreat you, Simplify you, classify you, Deny, defy or crucify you. All I really want to do Is, baby, be friends with you.
No, and I ain't lookin' to fight with you, Frighten you or uptighten you, Drag you down or drain you down, Chain you down or bring you down. All I really want to do Is, baby, be friends with you.
I ain't lookin' to block you up Shock or knock or lock you up, Analyze you, categorize you, Finalize you or advertise you. All I really want to do Is, baby, be friends with you.
I don't want to straight-face you, Race or chase you, track or trace you, Or disgrace you or displace you, Or define you or confine you. All I really want to do Is, baby, be friends with you.
I don't want to meet your kin, Make you spin or do you in, Or select you or dissect you, Or inspect you or reject you. All I really want to do Is, baby, be friends with you.
I don't want to fake you out, Take or shake or forsake you out, I ain't lookin' for you to feel like me, See like me or be like me. All I really want to do Is, baby, be friends with you..."
P.S. This is a young and very pretty Olivia Newton-John. She recorded Dylan's "If not for you" and had a big international hit:
I have seen every new president from Nixon to Obama.
Nixon did not attack LBJ.....Ford got over Nixon as soon as he could....Carter thanked Ford for healing the country after Watergate....Reagan was Reagan and didn't waste his time bashing Carter.....Clinton did not say much about Bush.....and Bush-43 did not go around blaming 9-11 on Clinton's impotence over terrorism.
"I've never thought much of Barack Obama's policies, and I'm starting not to think much of him as a human being.
Today he continued his gratuitous and graceless attacks on his predecessor in the inappropriate context of Memorial Day..."
Obama tells soldiers that he won't send to war without proper support:
"And yet, all too often in recent years and decades, we, as a nation, have failed to live up to that responsibility.
We have failed to give them the support they need or pay them the respect they deserve.
That is a betrayal of the sacred trust that America has with all who wear - and all who have worn - the proud uniform of our country."
Sorry. Didn't BO hang around with people like Bill Ayers? What respect did Ayers ever show for the US soldier? Didn't he try to kill soldiers and policemen?
Why is BO doing this?
I think that he is getting pressure from the base.
They don't like the fact that he has broken campaign promises, from Iraq to GITMO and to anti-terror policies.
BO needs to start governing and stop bashing Bush.
"The U.S. should keep the place open - not because a SuperMax facility wouldn't safely hold Al Qaeda types, but because they don't belong on American soil with whatever rights attach to that."
Keep it open. There is nothing shameful or "anti-American values" about locking up people who want to kill us.
He is also finding out that people are actually listening to what he is saying rather than simply jumping up and down in irrational affirmation: Obama's Detention Plans Face Scrutiny!
Bill Kristol is now asking: But Enough About Me . . ! Have you noticed how often BO speaks about himself?
Fred Barnes has a policy question: An Overleveraged Presidency? Have you noticed how much Pres BO is trying to do? ("Tax hikes, increased energy costs, and new regulations work against the economic recovery that soaring spending and peacetime deficits at historic highs are supposed (by Obama at least) to spur. A more likely result: stagflation, a simultaneous surge in inflation and interest rates.")
"Astute analysts ignore the Washington conventional wisdom and focus on the political winds blowing from the fifty states.
And the public opinion currents in America today are becoming eerily similar to those circulating in 1993."
Of course, we know what happened in 1994, i.e. the Republican takeover of Congress and the US Senate.
My guess is that Gingrich is right.
Pres BO is playing with fire on GITMO.
He is betting that unsustainable deficits will do the trick.
And he is assuming that the public wants more federal control of private industries.
Keep an eye on Gingrich's prediction.
He was there in 1977, as a young congressman from Georgia who became part of the Reagan revolution.
He was there in 1993, as one of the authors of The Contract with America that paved the way for the electoral success in 1994.
He is around again.
Could Gingrich lead this revolt all the way to the White House? I don't think so but his ideas could help someone like Gov Romney or our own Gov Perry of Texas.
First, Mr. Krauthammer has this quote from The NY Times:
""We were able to hold it off with George Bush.
The idea that we might find ourselves fighting with the Obama administration over these powers is really stunning."
The NY Times mad at BO?
Second, Mr Krauthammer nails the BO hypocrisy:
"If hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue, then the flip-flops on previously denounced anti-terror measures are the homage that Barack Obama pays to George Bush.
Within 125 days, Obama has adopted with only minor modifications huge swaths of the entire, allegedly lawless Bush program."
We ask again: Was BO that naive to run against the Bush-Cheney policies that kept us safe?
Or was he a cynical politician telling people what they wanted to hear?
No matter what, it's more and more obvious that VP Cheney has delivered a punch to the Obama myth.
P.S. We can always count on IBD to give to us straight.
"In fact, after 9/11, the Bush administration carefully crafted a new national security policy for the U.S. based on a rational calculation of the threat before us — a policy, by the way, that kept the homeland safe from terrorist attack for 7 1/2 years.
Bush's White House didn't "trim" facts; it laid them out, as best it could, at a time of great confusion and chaos.
And it did so with overwhelming bipartisan agreement — which fell apart only after the polls shifted against the war in Iraq. Yet, Obama ignores the blatant politicization of our national security to portray the Bush administration as unhinged and ideological.
This, of course, is false. And, as Vice President Cheney reminds us, 9/11 did not come out of the blue.
It was the culmination of a series of Clinton-era attacks stretching back to the 1993 car-bombing of the World Trade Center, the 1995 bombing of a U.S. training facility in Saudi Arabia, the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, the 1998 attacks on our embassies in East Africa, and the 2000 attack in Yemen on the USS Cole."
That's right.
On September 11, Pres Bush was confronted with a terrorist attack and forced to make very quick decisions about our national security.
Where was BO on 9-11?
He was an unknown Illinois state senator who had voted present over 100 times.
Like "everything Obama", it sounds good until you get into the details.
Yesterday, Pres BO announced some new mileage rules:
"The new rules would bring new cars and trucks sold in the United States to an average of 35.5 miles per gallon, about 10 mpg more than today's standards.
Passenger cars will be required to get 39 mpg, light trucks 30 mpg.
That means cars and trucks on American roads will have to become smaller, lighter and more efficient." (AP)
Are you ready to give up your van? SUV or whatever car you enjoy driving?
After all, isn't it your money? Shouldn't you'd be free to use your money to buy whatever car you want and pay whatever gasoline price that you can afford.
Again, "everything Obama" comes with a cost:
"The new program will add about $1,300 to the price of producing a vehicle!" (Reuters)
Don't forget that smaller cars are more dangerous:
"Safety could suffer if we boost mileage by making cars smaller...." (USAToday)
Here is a simple question:
Is there anybody in this White House who has ever made a car or worked in the car business?
P.S. Can you think of some good examples of a government running a business? I can't think of any!
JOHN STEELE GORDON is the author of "An Empire of Wealth: The Epic History of American Economic Power" (HarperCollins, 2004).
"The Obama administration is bent on becoming a major player in -- if not taking over entirely -- America's health-care, automobile and banking industries. Before that happens, it might be a good idea to look at the government's track record in running economic enterprises.
I should add that Sen Reid is up for a tough reelection fight. Don't expect him to offer Nevada as a likely destination for anyone in GITMO.
There are 33 Senators up for re-election, too! So we can safely erase 33 states from the first list of "likely destinations".
VP Cheney pounded Pres BO very hard.
Finally, and I mean finally, some has forced Pres BO to explain details rather than engage in "hope and change" rhetoric.
It is refreshing to hear an honest debate about how successful the Bush-Cheney administration was about protecting the homeland after 9-11.
We have said it before and say it again: Everybody was scared after 9-11 and fully expected the homeland to be hit again.
Furthermore, no one, including the most irrational anti-Bushie counting votes in Florida on 9-11, would have believed that we would go 7 years without another attack.
Why weren't we hit again?
Did the terrorists go back to teaching poetry or serenading their future wives?
The answer is no. We beat them back.
The Bush-Cheney administration reacted seriously to the threat. They treated it as a serious threat. They treated the terrorists as people committed and motivated to blowing up a US city.
Thankfully, Bush-Cheney were not very interested in international sensibilities, specially at the expense of American lives.
Regrettably, the Bush-Cheney administration did not fight back sufficiently against irresponsible demagogues who hate waterboarding but did not have the guts to say something when they were in the meeting.
Ditto Iraq. The Dems ran against Iraq but did not have the guts to cut the funding once they had their hands on the national checkbook.
"“It’s easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantánamo,” he said.
“But it’s tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interests of justice and America’s national security.”
Bill Kristol had another good post on the dueling speeches:
"I've read both speeches.
Obama's is the speech of a young senator who was once a part-time law professor--platitudinous and preachy, vague and pseudo-thoughtful in an abstract kind of way.
This sentence was revealing:
"On the other hand, I recently opposed the release of certain photographs that were taken of detainees by U.S. personnel between 2002 and 2004."
"Opposed the release"?
Doesn't he mean "decided not to permit the release"?
He's president.
He's not just a guy participating in a debate.
But he's more comfortable as a debater, not as someone who takes responsibility for decisions.
Cheney's is the speech of a grownup, of a chief executive, of a statesman.
He's sober, realistic and concrete, stands up for his country and its public officials, and has an acute awareness of the consequences of the choices one makes as a public official and a willingness to take responsibility for those choices."
No matter what, we will hold GITMO terrorists indefinitely:
"President Obama acknowledged publicly for the first time yesterday that some detainees at Guantanamo Bay may have to be held without trial indefinitely, siding with conservative national security advocates on one of the most contentious issues raised by the closing of the military prison in Cuba." (WashPost)
Let me get this straight. First, did BO just break another campaign promise? Second, what's the difference between holding someone indefinitely at GITMO or a maximum prison in Colorado?
Are we going to build another GITMO to keep the really bad guys?
Question: Why not just keep GITMO open and save the money? Also, why not forget about the 250 in GITMO and start thinking about the thousands in the battlefield?
This morning, we woke up to a reality check regarding the war on terror and releasing GITMO terrorists in the US: Synagogue Terror Plot in NYC...
Wait a minute. I thought that terrorists would go back to coaching youth soccer now that BO apologized to the world for our past mistakes!
Today, we also learned this:
"A long-awaited Defense Department report, publication of which is apparently being held up by politics, reportedly finds that one in seven detainees released from Guantanamo Bay has again engaged in terrorist acts." (Dispatches From the Front)
The war on terror is alive and well, even if the Obama administration has changed its name.
In a previous post about Pres Obama's flip-flops, I asked this question:
"When it comes to the war on terror, or what his administration has re-branded the "Overseas Contingency Operation," President Obama has matured quickly and has come to grips with some unpleasant realities.
Too bad the same can't be said about some of his disillusioned supporters, especially pundits and others in the media.
They expected the president to repudiate George W. Bush's policies, not adopt them as his own."
Were the Dems ever really serious about closing GITMO?
Or was this another "vote for us and we will end the Iraq War" show?
In 2006, the Dems said: Vote for us and we will end the Iraq War.
What happened? They didn't have the guts to cut the funding. Eventually, anti-war BO implemented the Bush-Cheney policy in Iraq.
In 2007-08, every Dem running for president said: We must close GITMO.
What happened? See these headlines:
"In a major rebuke to President Barack Obama, the Senate voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to block the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States and denied the administration the millions it sought to close the prison.
The 90-6 Senate vote—paired with similar House action last week—was a clear sign to Obama that he faces a tough fight getting the Democratic-controlled Congress to agree with his plans to shut down the detention center and move the 240 detainees." (Breibart)
It gets better. See this:
"FBI chief Robert Mueller Wednesday undermined President Barack Obama's plan to close the Guantanamo Bay prison by warning that detainees could fuel terrorism if transferred to US soil.
"The concerns we have about individuals who may support terrorism being in the United States run from concerns about providing financing to terrorists, radicalizing others," Mueller told a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee." (Breibart)
It gets even better. The Senate Dems are now blaming The White House:
Like North Korea, Iran has decided to greet "hope and change" with a missile test:
"President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran test-fired a new advanced missile Wednesday with a range of about 1,200 miles, far enough to strike Israel and southeastern Europe.
The announcement will not reassure the U.S. government, coming just two days after President Barack Obama declared a readiness to seek deeper international sanctions against Iran if it shunned U.S. attempts to open negotiations on its nuclear program.
Obama said he expected a positive response to his outreach for opening a dialogue with Iran by the end of the year." (F0x)
So much for all of that outreach! So much for BO's personality or diplomacy.
How would you like to be Israel?
Actually, Israel is not the only country concerned with an Iranian missile.
Closing GITMO was a great campaign issue for the party out of power. It is not a fun issue for the same party now responsible for keeping us safe. Check this out: "President Barack Obama's allies in the Senate will not provide funds to close the Guantanamo Bay prison next January, a top Democratic official said Tuesday. With debate looming on Obama's spending request to cover military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the official says Democrats will deny the Pentagon and Justice Department $80 million to relocate Guantanamo's 241 detainees." So what's going on? First, no one has figured what to do with the terrorists currently living in GITMO. Second, no congressman wants one of these guys in their district. Third, no senator wants them in their state, specially if you are running for reelection in 2010. Once again, reality is winning.Abe Greenwald has a good point: "The problem is our new brilliant, empathic, accountable, transparent, and noble administration hasn’t the first clue as to what to do with the detainees."
My guess? Don't be surprised if GITMO stays open specially after Dems tell Pres BO that nobody wants these people. For example, Sen Reid: Keep Gitmo Detainees Out of the U.S. Better question: Why did Pres BO promise to close GITMO anyway? Again, don't discount the possibility of "closing GITMO" joining the growing list of campaign promises that don't happen!
The 'let's close GITMO to be popular around the world" story is a mess.
Thomas Joscelyn adds another angle to this crazy campaign promise:
"There are about 100 citizens of Yemen at Gitmo - the most of any nationality.
Most of the Yemenis are alleged to have significant terrorist ties.
Their home country is a mess and infested with al Qaeda terrorists.
The situation in Yemen is so tenuous that the Obama administration, which originally wanted to send the Yemeni detainees home, is attempting to find somewhere else to transfer them.
Saudi Arabia, the supposedly next best option, does not really want the Yemenis and it is not clear that the Saudi rehabilitation program could even house them.
Other than that, closing Gitmo should be easy."
What happened to all of that great Pres BO diplomacy? It was successful as BO's request to get Euros to send troops to Afghanistan:
"The administration’s Gitmo diplomacy has gone nowhere. European nations are not keen on taking the detainees."
So here is our choice:
They stay in GITMO or they come to a maximum security prison in some one's congressional district.
Nobody wants them so just keep them in GITMO! In the meantime, it's fun to watch BO trying to deal with another silly promise made to the "yes we can screamers"!
"Since the $787 billion spending measure was approved, 1.2 million Americans have lost their jobs and unemployment has ratcheted up to 8.9 percent – the highest it’s been since 1983.
Unemployment is beyond even what President Barack Obama’s own economic advisors predicted it would be with no recovery plan – and definitely not what Americans were told to expect."
"President Barack Obama committed during the 2008 presidential campaign to moving to end the Clinton administration-era policy.........The Pentagon says it has no plans to repeal the don't ask-don't tell policy for gay troops."
In 1992, candidate Clinton promised to let gay troops openly. He eventually compromised after sitting down with the generals who were going to carry out the order. They persuaded him to sign the "don't ask don't tell" order.
In 2008, Obama made the same promise. He is apparently not too quick to enforce it or change anything.
Question: Perez Hilton threw a temper tantrum over Miss California's comments.
Why isn't Perez Hilton mad at Pres Obama over same sex marriage and refusing to repeal "don't ask don't tell"?
On Sunday, Pres BO spoke about middle ground on abortion. Today, the Obama administration announced this:
"President Barack Obama's new federal budget calls for taxpayer funded abortions in the nation's capital. Although Obama has promised Americans he wants to reduce the number of abortions, one pro-life group says he is violating that promise by calling for taxpayer-financed abortions in the District of Columbia.
The budget Obama submitted to Congress urges the House and Senate to repeal a law sometimes called the Dornan amendment that has prevented tax-funded abortion in the District of Columbia for many years. (LifeNews.com)
Is this how we find common ground on abortion? We pay for abortions in DC?
His foresight in filming and retaining post-broadcast ownership of shows had a huge impact on the future of television syndication (reruns)." (Wikipedia)
So we remember Desi Arnaz. He was funny and a very smart entrepreneur.
Before Desi married Lucy in 1940, he recorded a few songs. This is "Vereda Tropical":
The NY Times was working on a story last fall connecting the Obama campaign to ACORN, an organization under scrutiny for violating election laws.
Would such a story have changed the election results? No one knows for sure.
Question: Would The NY Times have killed a story connecting the McCain campaign to a group under investigation by 10 states?
I think John Hinderaker, one of the 3 attorneys who run Power Line, nailed it:
"For the New York Times, Republicans are simply the enemy. By October 2008, it was time to circle the wagons." (Killing A Story: How It's Done)
Again, we don't care if The NY Times wants to be a part of the Obama campaign. It's a free country!We do think that they should give up their "press passes" and sit in the partisan section of the plane.
In other words, join the "hope and change" team, jump up and down saying "yes we can" and stop pretending that you are journalists!
Last, but not least, we don't think that Carlos Slim, Mexican businessman, is going to come up with more money to keep The NY Times alive.
Here is the bad news: The NY Times is corrupt and dishonest!
Here is the good news: It is dying and will probably disappear sometime in the next few years!
Even Mr. Slim understands that The NY Times is not worth another "peso"!
Who is going to win this war?
Let's look at the players.
O'Reilly has the largest cable news audience. The NY Times is a shrinking newspaper.
We celebrate Jose Marti's death. It's an important date for most Cubans.
How do we remember Jose Marti or live up to his ideals?
You can do two things.
First, you can support Yoani Sanchez, a Cuban blogger who is persecuted by the Castro dictatorship for posting her thoughts online. (Clipping Castro one blog at a time)
Second, you don't legitimize the Castro brothers by putting their dictatorship in the OAS.
Like always, MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY is right on target.
"The Cuban regime is at odds with these ideals and in January 1962 the OAS expelled it, resolving:
"That adherence by any member of the Organization of American states to Marxism-Leninism is incompatible with the inter-American system and the alignment of such a government with the communist bloc breaks the unity and solidarity of the hemisphere."
In other words, because the Castro government had murdered and imprisoned dissidents, done away with free elections and economic and civil liberties, and allied itself with communism, Cuba was deemed unfit for OAS membership."
It's sad.
On one hand, we hear Latin leaders complain that no one takes them seriously. On the other hand, they pander to their leftist populations by embracing the Castro brothers.
Wouldn't it be nice if Latin leaders demanded the release of Cuban political prisoners, a free press and elections?
Furthermore, did Congressman Bobby Rush say anything about this lady blogger? Just curious.
Despite being the anti-war candidate, Pres BO implemented the Bush-McCain plan in Iraq.
So much for all of those speeches and campaign promises!
A week ago, it was the photos.
On Friday, it was the tribunals.
What is BO reversing this week?
Can you say renegotiating NAFTA? It looks like Pres BO will back down from another campaign promise.
BO won't renegotiate NAFTA.
This is good news for me.
It's bad news for the "yes we can" screamers!
Let's recall how we got here.
A year ago, candidate BO went into Ohio and Pennsylvania and made a few promises, too.
BO literally blamed NAFTA for Ohio's woes!
The "promises" worked because BO was able to squeeze a win in Ohio, a state that Bush carried in 2000 and 2004!
Ohio was decided by a few thousand votes!
McCain did not play games with the truth. He did not back down on NAFTA and free trade in general.
Of course, Ohio's problems have little to do with NAFTA. They started 30 years ago when most of those manufacturing jobs began to move south.
We mean "south" like Texas and Alabama. Down here, "right to work" laws check union excesses.
Today, we see profitable auto plants in Kentucky, Alabama and the Carolinas. They operate successfully with US workers and "free" of the unions who have killed Michigan, PA, NY and Ohio!
The campaign is over and Pres BO is caught between reality and the "yes we can" screamers who bought all of the anti-free trade nonsense!
Canada and Mexico, our NAFTA partners, are also our two largest trading partners.
It makes no sense to stab our two largest commercial partners in the back!
Also, where are we going to find a more reliable source of energy than Canada? (Let's not forget that Canada is fighting in Afghanistan, one of only 2 NATO allies doing so. The French are sending translators but the Canadians have sent soldiers! And Canadian soldiers are doing a marvelous job!)
We are now hearing that some Dems are up in arms about BO's reversal on NAFTA.
Some Dems are naturally asking: What happened to the campaign promises?
"When Obama was trying unsuccessfully to close the gap on Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Ohio Democratic primary, he pushed hard against the trade agreement Clinton’s husband had championed.
Obama not only verbally promised voters there a NAFTA re-do, he did it in writing. “Bad Trade Deals Hit Ohio Harder Than Most States and Only Barack Obama Consistently Opposed NAFTA,” declared an Obama campaign leaflet picturing a shuttered factory.
“He made those statements in the Youngstown area,” Kaptur recalled.
“And when these words are heard, they mean something.
Now people are waiting for the results of that.”
Moral of the story: Beware of voting for the guy who tells you what you want to hear.
He will probably reverse himself, as BO did on Iraq, tribunals, the photos and now NAFTA.
P.S. In the meantime, we are waiting for Speaker Pelosi to give Pres BO permission to discuss the Mexican trucks issue with Mexico. As we recall, the "truck killer provision" was included by the Dems in the so called stimulus plan!
Unfortunately for Mexico and those of us who believe that free trade agreements should be respected, Speaker Pelosi has been a little busy lately in a cat-fight with the CIA!
As a candidate for president, he promised to sign FOCA on day # 1. (FOCA is the Freedom of Choice Act, an executive order that would "abort" any state or county regulations, such as parental notification!)
"President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending “unsustainable,” warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries.
“We can’t keep on just borrowing from China,” Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque.
“We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”
OK. So why in the world did we just add $787 billion in something called a "stimulus"?
"Democrats just can't seem to get on the same page on national security — and it could cost them dearly on an issue Republicans have dominated for decades."
Unity? There is no unity except when they blame Bush for everything!
"A leader of the antiwar group Code Pink said she now wonders at what point her organization should begin to refer to Mr. Obama as a "war criminal."
The explanation mode goes like this: Our guy has "evolved".....or he has "different information" now that he is in The White House!
Funny. They never gave Bush the benefit of the doubt on the terribly difficult decisions that he had to make!
I don't recall any of the "yes we can screamers" ever saying that Bush had a difficult job or horrible choices!
It is true that Pres BO has access to info that candidate BO did not.
I'm OK with that.
I'm not suggesting that presidents should keep every promise that they make. Things do change!
Nevertheless, shouldn't Pres BO apologize to Pres Bush after these reversals?
For example, BO could say:
"I have new information and regret all of those politically motivated attacks on Pres Bush!"
Or he can say:
"I am sorry when I attacked Pres Bush on GITMO and tribunals.....I understand now how difficult the presidency is!"
Or he could say:
"I couldn't get the Europeans to send troops to Afghanistan either....maybe this is more complicated than just saying that we need to restore our place in the world."
"Less than six months into an administration that promised to be the sunny morning to the darkest night of the Bush administration, Obama has been accused of something unthinkable on that cold January day when he placed his hand on the Bible and became commander in chief.
"The other influence that is causing Obama to flip-flop on policy is simply increasing exposure to the realities of government.
His latest about-turn on Friday, reinstating a limited number of military trials at Guantanamo, is a reflection of that surrender to reality.
Already, the liberal fantasy that dominated American politics last November is being dispelled.
Welcome to the real world, Mr President."
What's going on? New reality? OK.
Political cynicism? Yes and yes!
I think so.
The 2008 BO campaign was one of the most obvious example of telling people what they wanted to hear.
BO was either extremely naive or had to know that he was telling the "yes we can" screamers what they wanted to hear.
Didn't BO know that he was going to have to reverse himself once he got into The Oval Office?
Again, was he that naive or that cynical?
My money is on cynical!
How did he do it?
He is a good speaker and the news media did not challenge him at any point. BO was allowed to get away with generalities and generalities during the long campaign.
Hillary Clinton and John McCain were the victims of a media totally in the tank for BO.
Let's do it again and give Pres Clinton credit for calling BO a "fairy tale".
We don't usually agree with Pres Clinton but we feel his pain when he said this:
Then he threw an Angel at the plate. It was one of the top ESPN plays last night!
The first place Rangers are fun to watch:
"The Rangers have also won 15 of their last 20 games to move seven games over .500 for the first time since June 19, 2005.
The 21-14 mark is also tied for the third best record after 35 games in club history. " (MLB)
Here is the fun part.
Ian Kinsler looks like the best 2b in the AL. He is on a pace to hit 40 Hrs. He won't do that but he should be around 25. (Don't forget that Kinsler was in the batting race until he got hurt in August!)
Chris Davis is hitting those right center HRs again. He won a game against Seattle last week. He will be 23 this year!
Harrison, Milwood and Padilla are pitching great. McCarthy and Feldman are doing their part. The bullpen is not overworked anymore!
Andruw Jones looks like a great pickup. Jones and Byrd compliment Hamilton in CF and Cruz in RF.
Michael Young is looking for another 200-hit season.
The Rangers won't play .600 ball but they could win 90 games. They look like a real contender in the AL West.
"One of the many signs of the degeneration of our times is how many serious, even life-and-death, issues are approached as talking points in a game of verbal fencing.
Nothing illustrates this more than the fatuous, and even childish, controversy about "torturing" captured terrorists."
Another sign of our moral devaluation is abortion. Unfortunately, we have just elected the most pro-abortion president in US history.
P.S.This is an amazing video about Pres Obama and abortion:
Canada is getting a taste of "hope and change" with Stim Trade:
"Ordered by Congress to "buy American" when spending money from the $787 billion stimulus package, the town of Peru, Ind., stunned its Canadian supplier by rejecting sewage pumps made outside of Toronto.
After a Navy official spotted Canadian pipe fittings in a construction project at Camp Pendleton, Calif., they were hauled out of the ground and replaced with American versions.
In recent weeks, other Canadian manufacturers doing business with U.S. state and local governments say they have been besieged with requests to sign affidavits pledging that they will only supply materials made in the USA."
Like Mexico did, Canada is fighting back:
"A number of Ontario towns, with a collective population of nearly 500,000, retaliated with measures effectively barring U.S. companies from their municipal contracts — the first shot in a larger campaign that could shut U.S. companies out of billions of dollars worth of Canadian projects."
Hope and change with a "protectionist" flavor! We warned Canada and Mexico that "hope and change" had deep ties to protectionist unions. Don't blame me: I voted for McCain, a strong supporter of free trade!
P.S. Why is Pres BO picking fights with countries fighting in Afghanistan? Also, isn't Canada our first energy supplier?
"'We're not going to bring al Qaeda to Big Sky Country.
No way, not on my watch," declared Montana Sen. Max Baucus.
"I wouldn't want them and I wouldn't take them," insisted Nebraska's Ben Nelson.
Not Quantico, piped up Virginia's Mark Warner.
After all, it "is in a very populated area in the greater capital region."
Look, "Alcatraz is a national park and a tourist attraction, not a functioning prison" for terrorists, said the office of California's Dianne Feinstein.
All Democrats in favor of standing with your president to shout out the evils of Guantanamo, shout aye! "Aye!"
All Democrats in favor of doing what would be necessary to close Guantanamo, shout aye! . . . What, nobody?"
I guess that it was easier to "close GITMO" than to really close GITMO.
What are you going to do with AAA terrorists that no country wants? Where are all of those allies who couldn't wait to work with the US once Pres Bush went home to Texas?
"European countries such as Germany led the criticism of the detention of terrorists captured abroad at Guantanamo Bay and have demanded their release for years.
When it comes to volunteering to have them running free in their own countries, however, these allies suddenly get a case of laryngitis when the US asks for volunteers."
Today, VP Gore went after VP Cheney. He raised the tired "Bush lied about Iraq" argument. He also said that he stayed out of politics and did not attack the next administration! (Check out what VP Gore said in 2002!)
I'm not surprised.
Cheney is actually having an impact, which is why the Dems are freaking out.
On Iraq, Gitmo and now "the photos", Pres Obama is a lot closer to VP Cheney than his campaign promises.
Nevertheless, let's remind everyone what Pres Clinton and VP Gore used to say about Iraq.
Question: Were they lying about Iraq? This is Al Gore blasting the first Pres Bush for leaving Saddam in power:
The next video is Pres Clinton announcing The Iraq Liberation Act:
The third video is Pres Clinton speaking to Congress:
A few years ago, Pres Bush made some very rational recommendations to save Social Security. He argued that younger workers should be allowed to invest in private accounts. He also said that current recipients (any one over 50) would not be impacted.
Of course, Pres Bush's reforms, like any other attempt to reform Social Security, was met with the usual "let's scare your grandmother campaign".
The Dems won't be able to play that card again:
First, they run the federal government now.
Second, they are running up unprecedented deficits.
Third, time is not on their side.
P.S. This is the video from the 2006 State of the Union Address. Check out the immature reaction from Dems! Check out VP Cheney's face. He looks like a high school principal looking down at a bunch of silly high school girls:
"The reason Pelosi raised no objection to waterboarding at the time, the reason the American people (who by 2004 knew what was going on) strongly re-elected the man who ordered these interrogations, is not because she and the rest of the American people suffered a years-long moral psychosis from which they have just now awoken.
It is because at that time they were aware of the existing conditions -- our blindness to al-Qaeda's plans, the urgency of the threat, the magnitude of the suffering that might be caused by a second 9/11, the likelihood that the interrogation would extract intelligence that President Obama's own director of national intelligence now tells us was indeed "high-value information" -- and concluded that on balance it was a reasonable response to a terrible threat.
And they were right."
So Pelosi has been exposed! It couldn't happen to a nicer lady!
Again, be careful about calling for a "truth commission".
How can the highest ranking member of the House of Representatives accuse the CIA of lying or misleading elected officials?
Where is the evidence? Isn't Pelosi required to prove such an amazing accusation?
What's next in this Pelosi "telenovela"? We don't know! However, don't be surprised if CIA bureaucrats "leak" memos to destroy Pelosi.
Here is the fun part for me.
All of this was initiated to embarrass Bush. It was started to please the angry left that can't let go of Bush.
Pelosi's "anti-Bush plan" has blown up in her face.
P.S. Just curious. Pelosi said that Bush misled the country about Iraq. Does that apply to Hillary Clinton, too? Didn't Hillary Clinton go on the Senate floor and voted for the war because Saddam Hussein had contacts to Al Qaeda?
"Congressional Democrats are voicing growing unease over the Obama administration’s national security policies, including the seemingly open-ended commitment in Afghanistan and the nettlesome question of what to do with prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba."
And then along comes Cheney!
We've said it before.
Let's say it again: Today's Dems are a collection of political cowards who read polls before going to the microphone.
We saw that in March 2003 when they were clashing with each other to support the Iraq War.
Why does Cheney drive them crazy?
First, most Dems are scared to death that Cheney may be right. After all, what happens if we get hit again? More than that, Cheney is well respected on national security matters.
Second, most Dems are jealous that Cheney takes a position and sticks to it no matters what the polls say.
Let's say it again: Cheney understands that leaders have to tell people what they don't want to hear.
You will read a lot about Cheney hurting the Reps. You will read about how unpopular he is.
What you won't hear is a debate about Cheney's case.
Why not? Because the Dems are scared to death that Cheney is telling the truth!
Martin Feldstein was the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Reagan. Today, he is a professor at Harvard and a member of The Wall Street Journal's board of contributors.
Mr Feldstein just posted this:
"The barrage of tax increases proposed in President Barack Obama's budget could, if enacted by Congress, kill any chance of an early and sustained recovery." (Tax Increases Could Kill the Recovery )
He goes on to review the US in the 1930's and recent Japan:
"Historians and economists who've studied the 1930s conclude that the tax increases passed during that decade derailed the recovery and slowed the decline in unemployment.
That was true of the 1935 tax on corporate earnings and of the 1937 introduction of the payroll tax.
Japan did the same destructive thing by raising its value-added tax rate in 1997."
Why do we want Obama's policies to fail? Because they are bad for the US and specially your pocketbook.
Ed has a good summary of the future:
"Obamanomics is a disaster, and it couldn’t come at a worse time.
Four years ago, the country may have been resilient enough to shake off the worst effects of Obama’s policies, but with our economy already reeling, his taxes will kill any chance at recovery.
We will spend years running up massive deficits — which will prompt Obama to impose higher and broader taxes.
Get ready for one of the most vicious of all vicious cycles." (EM)
Do we want Obama to fail?
Yes. Obama's success is a failure for the rest of us!
First, you go out and get to the left of Hillary Clinton in the Dem primaries.
Second, you make a bunch of idiotic campaign promises before the "yes we can" screamers.
Then you win the election and you have to govern....hello reality....this is where the story goes from "community organizer" to "commander in chief" responsible for the security of the nation!
From GITMO to Iraq to unconditional meetings with leaders of rogue states, Pres BO is having a few problems fulfilling those campaign promises from the "yes we can" days.
Let's talk GITMO.
It's great to close it but what are you going to do with the people there?
Now, it's the photos, the Abu Gharib photos.
Everybody knows what happened at Abu Gharib. Unfortunately, the prison staff lost its professionalism and engaged in awful behavior.
It was wrong and people have been prosecuted.
At the end of the day, it is a minuscule number compared to the unbelievable professionalism of the US armed forces. We have maintained 150,000 in Iraq for almost 6 years. They are the most disciplined military force ever.
Back to the photos.
It looks like sanity has prevailed at the White House:
Pres BO is already at war with the CIA....why get into a war with the Pentagon?
Also, how do you release photos that make US soldiers look bad and then ask these same soldiers to fight a bloody war in Afghanistan or Pakistan?
Thank God that Pres BO changed his mind. Now, let's hope that he does something similar about GITMO.
P.S. Pres BO may be changing his mind on GITMO, too. The WSJ is reporting today that a change may be coming: Indefinite Detention Weighed
I'm OK with the changes. I understand that you have to hold some of these people indefinitely for national security reasons. After all, we are not talking about poets and songwriters in this group!
At the same time, I am not a "yes we can" screamer who spent the last 18 months jumping up and down every time that candidate BO made a stupid campaign promise!
We are watching a lot of profiles in courage and cowardice this month.
On the war on terror, we have already posted something about VP Cheney and "bad memory" Pelosi.
On same sex marriage, we see another contrast:
Miss California takes a position, keeps it under pressure and we know the rest of that story.
BO takes a position about same sex marriage in 1996, changes it in 2007 and the homosexual community looks the other way. Where is the feminist or homosexual outrage out BO's cynical position change?
In 1996, candidate BO was running for the Illinois Senate in a very liberal Illinois district. He said this abut same sex marriage:
"In a 1996 questionnaire filled out for a Chicago gay and lesbian newspaper, then called Outlines, Obama came out clearly in favor of same-sex marriage, which he has opposed on the public record throughout his short career in national politics.
“I favor legalizing same-sex marriages,and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages,” Obama wrote in the typed, signed, statement." (POLITICO)
In 2007-08, he said that marriage was between a man and a woman.
Good people can respectfully disagree about same sex marriage.
What we don't like our politicians who tell people what they want to hear, whether they are seeking a state senate seat in a very liberal district or running for president.
Miss California spoke her mind. Barrack Obama read polls! This is why Miss CA is a profile in courage and BO is just another politician telling people what they want to hear!
"For four straight years, more Americans have moved out of California than have moved in.
California's business costs are more than 20% higher than the average state's.
In the last decade, net out-migration of Americans has been 1.4 million."
We in Texas, and in the South, have benefited from California's plight.
Why do companies move to Texas and leave California?
People are smart. They don't want to live in the modern California.
It will continue until CA's politicians get it. It will continue until California's Dem majority visits Texas and checks out what's working here, i.e very low taxes and a legislature that loves businesses!
P.S. California is not the whole problem. Michigan and Ohio are in a similar mess:
"Recent census information tells us that Americans [12] are moving a bit less than they were when the economy was better.
That is scant consolation to states like Ohio, whose political establishments — like those in California and Michigan, to name just two others — simply don’t get it.
Do you go back to the very early days or the more recent work? I like them all!
Today, we wish a very happy # 59 to a wonderful performer and songwriter. From "Fingertips" to "My Cherie Amour" and so many others, Stevie Wonder has been a prolific artist.
It's hard to pick a song.
It's not hard to pick an album.
"Songs in the key of life" was released in 1976 and belongs in every popular music collection. It sounds good 30-plus years later.
My favorite tune from the album was: "Ngiculela-Es Una Historia-I Am Singing"!
It's a wonderful ballad in 3 languages, although I must confess that I don't understand the first one. The second and third verses are in Spanish and English, respectively.
"The blue lines are Obama’s projected unemployment numbers with and without his $775 billion stimulus.
The red triangles are actual employment numbers.
The actual numbers aren’t just worse than the rosy picture Obama painted for a world after his magical stimulus took effect.
They’re worse even than the doomsday scenario he outlined if Congress didn’t pass his stimulus plan."
Whatever happened to that stimulus plan anyway?
Check this:
"Nearly three months after President Obama approved a $787 billion economic stimulus package, intended to create or save jobs, the federal government has paid out less than 6 percent of the money, largely in the form of social service payments to states." (NYT)
Wait a minute.
How can this be?
Don't you remember the rush to pass a bill about 90 days ago?
It turns out that the stimulus plan money is still sitting in the Treasury accounts.
