Obama takes out second mortgage on Bush's success

.
.



Is Bush's TARP a success? If not then why is Obama ready to steal from it?

Obama is jones-ing for a shopping spree and those darned Chinese seem to have put a hold on his credit card, so now he has a choice to find discipline, start paying back the money he has borrowed or start scrounging for loose change under the sofa cushions. He is going for the latter.

For a year now Obama and his fellow spend-aholics in congress have been pointing the finger at Bush for handing them a a "Huge Deficit". This was intended to deflect blame and basically say "You did it too". The challenge then is what did Bush spend money on and why? How did it work out? Who else was involved? Americans are not against government spending in and of itself, but who spent wisely? Obama's Stimulus package is gaining the reputation as a boondoggle, so who ran up the deficit needlessly?

Let's take a look at Bush's last two years in office under Democratic Rule.

I will not rehash the incredible economic challenges that Bush averted in his first year during the financial disasters that accompanied 911, but much has been made of Clinton handing Bush a Surplus and Bush leaving office with a deficit. Remember Clinton also handed Bush a Recession and through his neglect of foreign policy (especially terrorism) and his "Halfing" of our Military, the post 911 War and its costs were borne by Bush to clean up, much the way Reagan had to deal with foreign policy and economic disasters left by Carter.

Although it is true the Republican congress spent more than most conservatives felt comfortable with, after an initial increase in the deficit, beginning at the end of his first term the deficit began to drop rapidly, until in 2007 it was well with in range of dropping into double digits. Then the Democrats took control.

Although the left would have you believe Bush runs the economy out of his back pocket, the congress is in charge of spending and in this case it is Pelosi and Reid who did not offer Bush a 2009 budget:

Which party was in charge of Congress the last two years of the Bush administration? Why, yes, it was the Democrats. I have no problem blaming Republicans for runaway spending between 2001-6, but 2007-8 belongs to the Democrats, including Steny Hoyer, one of that party’s leaders. For that matter, it also includes then-Senator Barack Obama. Deficits in that period are on their hands.

That’s especially true for the final deficit number. Anticipating a Barack Obama victory in the presidential campaign, Hoyer, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid never presented George Bush with a budget for FY2009. Congress passed continuing resolutions that funded federal agencies at the FY2008 level until Obama took office in January, and then handed him an omnibus spending plan that boosted federal spending for the remainder of FY2009 — and expanded the deficit. That final deficit number belongs more to Obama than it normally would have in a transition year.

But regardless, when you look at the above graph, how much of that is TARP which was caused by Democrat fiddling with mortgage and financial institutions. Yes, Bush signed TARP, but who's baby was that? On Sept. 25, 2008, when the candidates helicoptered into the White House to discuss TARP, it was reported by all in attendance that Obama represented the majority party who was writing the bill. He did all the talking and McCain, Paulsen and Bush mostly listened to the Oratory of Barack Obama. TARP was being "audibliized" by the Senator from Illinois.

But Obama through his criticism of Bush's deficit spending is being critical of the crown jewel in Bush's "Deficit spending". He is blaming Bush for TARP. He is giving responsibility to Bush for TARP.

But wait....

Suddenly this week, with Obama in search of cash, he finds some free money rolling into the Treasury, but before the money is deposited, he wants to cash those checks. Obama's compliant media is suddenly pointing out how TARP is making money. Banks are paying back early. The Deficit is going to shrink now...right?...but whose Deficit is shrinking, Bush's or Obama's? This report says it is estimated by the end of next year, all but $42 Billion of TARP will have been paid off:

The Treasury Department expects to recover all but $42 billion of the $370 billion it loaned to ailing companies during the financial crisis last year, with the portion loaned to banks showing a slight profit, according to a Treasury report.

The latest assessment of the bailout program, provided by two Treasury officials yesterday ahead of a report to Congress today, is vastly improved from the Obama administration’s estimates last summer of $341 billion in potential losses from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. That estimate anticipated more bank crises.

If as Obama has conveyed that TARP was Bush's baby, then shouldn't the media be giving Bush credit for TARP?

TARP borrowed money from the Chinese, loaned it to American banks, the banks are now paying it back, we no longer owe the Chinese for it, the American Banks move on and grow, Businesses hire workers, problem solved, Thank you Mr. Bush....right?

Well, expect Obama to change his tune and take credit for TARP to contrast his miserable failure on the stimulus package, but just like a compulsive addict, expect him to raid the coffers of TARP to repeat his Stimulus mistake and then blame Bush for the returned money never getting paid back.

It is also worth noting that the $175 billion committed by the banks to pay back TARP when compared to the original $250 aloted by TARP1 leaves a single digit deficit, at least for this project alone. Bush was touted as the model of integrity for his willingness to cooperate with Obama's transition team. During the transition, Obama asked Bush to release the remaining $350 Bill for TARP, and the congress complied. So what that leaves is a very small footprint regarding the deficit from George Bush.

I think its time to reassess the Bush Deficit and consider that although his deficits were trending way down and the housing crash was thrust upon him, his handling of it may end up leaving a net impact of his final year in office a $100 billion or less deficit,....which was promptly Nuked by the New Socialist Regime.

You can expect the Propaganda machine to kick in to full force on the redefining of TARP. It will be painted as a success and an example of how big government solutions can work if given time. It will be proudly embraced as Obama's idea and Bush as a reluctant passenger. It will also be touted as grounds for a reward to be handed out for excellent performance in a lead role to Barack Obama who will take the left over hundreds of billions and formulate a dead-end jobs bill, that will push us over the brink in which case he will blame our soldiers in Afghanistan for ruining his Domestic wizardry.

This feels like an Orwellian Science Fiction story about Dystopian thugs sucking dry any form of life that pops its head up from the decaying wasteland.

Obama is playing out the Mortgage crisis on a macro scale, by cashing in the equity of Bush's TARP so he can plunge further into debt by indulging in his personal addiction that destroys himself and anyone around him. When the Chinese loan sharks come, they will ask why he took out a Second mortgage on his house when they had accepted it as collateral.

I wonder if the Obamas are still ashamed to be Americans, because I am feeling pretty humiliated right now.

Democrats: Lie to me and tell me you want more war

We often hear the left make morally relative arguments between what the left does and what the right does. I think Obama's war rhetoric exposes a key difference between GOP candidates and Democrat politicians. Democrats expect their candidates to lie. They want them to lie. In fact they are willing to build an entire false personage of a candidate, if they think it will help hoodwink those bitter clingers in flyover country.

Here is Byron York discussing the phenomenon regarding Democrats former support of the Afghan war and their new found opposition to the war:

“There isn’t any doubt that Afghanistan has been neglected,” said chief Obama rival — and now Secretary of State — Hillary Clinton at a debate in April 2008. “It has not gotten the resources that it needs.”

Other top Democrats adopted the get-tough approach, at least when it came time to campaign. In September 2006, as she was leading the effort that would result in Democrats taking over the House and her becoming speaker, Rep. Nancy Pelosi said George W. Bush “took his eye off the ball” in Afghanistan. “We had a presence over there the past few years, but not to the extent that we needed to get the job done,” Pelosi said. The phrase “took his eye off the ball” became a Democratic mantra about the supposed neglect of Afghanistan — a situation that would be remedied by electing ready-to-fight Democrats.

But now, with Democrats in charge of the entire U.S. government and George Bush nowhere to be found, Pelosi and others in her party are suddenly very, very worried about U.S. escalation in Afghanistan. “There is serious unrest in our caucus,” the speaker said recently. There is so much unrest that Democrats who show little concern about the tripling of already-large budget deficits say they’re worried about the rising cost of the war.

It is in that atmosphere that Obama makes his West Point speech. He had to make certain promises to get elected. Unlike some of his supporters, he has to remember those promises now that he is in office. So he is sending more troops. But he still can’t tell the truth about so many Democratic pledges to support the war in Afghanistan: They didn’t mean it.

This is not new for Democrats and their expectations of thier own leaders. When George W. Bush says "God Bless America", they claim he is conversing with Jehovah in the back room and is mixing church and state. When Obama quotes scripture endlessly in his speeches, they consider it poetic and grandiliquent, but after a lengthy analysis of his Church going habits, most Americans accepted the idea that he spent twenty years in a church that he either wasn't listening, didn't care, or was there to conduct business rather than get in touch with his creator....in essence he "didn't mean it".

If anyone doubts that, let's see what his spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright thinks of him; the man that should understand Obama's inner most moral virtues and vices:

WRIGHT: What I mean is what several of my white friends and several of my white, Jewish friends have written me and said to me. They've said, "You're a Christian. You understand forgiveness. We both know that, if Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected."

Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls, Huffington, whoever's doing the polls. Preachers say what they say because they're pastors. They have a different person to whom they're accountable.

As I said, whether he gets elected or not, I'm still going to have to be answerable to God November 5th and January 21st. That's what I mean. I do what pastors do. He does what politicians do.

I am not running for office. I am hoping to be vice president.

(LAUGHTER)

When Obama says he opposes gay marriage,...where is Hollywood?

Oh, yeah...? ..."He didn't mean it"

When he tells America I won't raise taxes,..

When he says he won't cut medicare,...

When he says he will get tough with Iran if negotiations don't work...

All Lies.


The lie runs deep to the center of the New Left. In the 1970s, when a leftist had a T shirt that said War is never the answer, you could debate them on the silliness of the statement and the leftists nearly always found refuge in the admission that if US soil were attacked as it was at Pearl Harbor, we would fight back and they would support such a war. Sometimes they would even exclaim that they would gladly join the military and shoot 'em up. This scenario seemed quite unlikely to them since they labored under the misconception that only a suicidal lunatic would attack a nuclear power like the US.

Well, 911 called their bluff. The psychological meltdown in the minds of many on the left pushed them into a fantasy world of denial and lies. Some brave souls admitted that they had been wrong. Most on the left proved what their 30 year old promises had been meant to cover up and that is that they are really narcissistic, self absorbed cowards. Did Democrats run to the recruiting centers? hardly. Polls show that since 911, about 12% of the military is made up of Democrats. The Ivy league and the Northeast are dramatically under represented. We were attacked and they did not support it. Some did for the moment, but the Nutroots opposed Afghanistan from the outset. And what good is a temporary support of our troops. That was part of the debate too, remember? Supporters of the war said, "If we are going to war, it can't be a momentary support, we must support our troops fully if we send them".

These questions need answers:

Were hippies motivated by cowardice in the 1960s and 1970s?

Do Democrats really lack the sincerity and backbone to protect this country?

Is Obama lying now when he says in 18 months he will base his decisions on "conditions on the ground"?

I think the answer to all three of those questions is "YES". If the answer is yes, Democrats have forfeited their ability to lead.

The difference between the Dems and the GOP is Reagan said trust the common sense of the common man in America and give Americans the right to make the choices in their lives that are best for them. The Democrats believe they are members of an elite that needs to deceive the dumber yokels that are not in on the big secret.

When Obama promises something in a speech, they look to each other knowingly and say, "Don't worry, he doesn't mean it."

What congressman Joe Wilson said regarding the statement Obama made about whether Illegal Aliens would be covered by his Health care plan, Wilson was almost bodily removed from the chamber for making a true statement, considering Illegals are still in the bill. What was Wilson's crime? When the Democrats all turned to each other and nodded, "He's lying ya know, and a damn good liar he is",...Joe Wilson committed the crime of saying out loud what every person in that room, especially the Democrats, was saying to themselves. Wilson's crime was airing Washington's dirty laundry, its trade secrets to the common folks.

They all like the lies, as long as you and I never know.

UK's Gordon Brown: Not much of a poodle

During the Bush/Blair years, we were told that "the world" no longer respected us,...that our relations with Europe had completely deteriorated to their "all time low",...that if Bush doesn't admit he was wrong and apologize to our former allies, they may never side with us again.

Well it appears the glory days of them siding with us might not have been such a solid love affair after all. Drudge is posting a story that links the Libyan "oil for blood" scandal to PM Gordon Brown. All the way to the top.


After a couple years of the American left pounding Bush and making this "Allies hate us" Meme, the European left, who quite often sheepishly follow the American left, started the taunt against Tony Blair that his choice to send troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, was a subservient and pathetic choice of a weak and brainless pet that sits in the lap of its master. The term they used was that Tony Blair was George Bush's poodle.

Let's remember, the UK sent troops to Afghanistan under the auspices of NATO (An organization created at the behest of the UK) which had invoked the article that compels support of members to defend one another if attacked. It should also be remembered that Iraq was the result of a simmering cold war in the region that started when Margret Thatcher told GHW Bush, "Don't get wobbly on me, George". So unless your view of history is blurred by attention deficit disorder, the question here is, Whom was the LapDog here?

Implied in the british poodle insult is that Bush was on an insane binge of bloodlust driven by his insatiable craving for oil and Blair was too feeble and weak to say no, because he needed something from the US. Now that we have won the war in Iraq, Bush doesn't look so insane and polls show that most in the US think the choice to go to Iraq was the right one. But this lust for oil is an interesting one.

The British (and other European allies) for years have expressed outrage when Americans accuse them of not being reliable allies when it comes to "siding" with us when we are either jointly or individually in danger. They buckle under pressure, or won't let us fly over their airspace, or won't extradite or if terrorists land and refuel, they fail to apprehend them, or if they do try them, they release them early or accept bribes. And lets not forget the largest "oil for European politician" bribery network ever, Oil for food at the UN.

270 lives were lost, most of them American, in a terrorist attack that took place in the UK. The US State Department received a tip that a plane would be bombed and our poodle allies were warned, but incompetence and in some cases mistrust caused them to disregard the warning. It departed from London Heathrow carrying a Bomb that ultimately was traced back to Qadafi and the Abu Nidal organization.



This relationship was the model of how rogue states operated in the region. An anti-western dictator threatened America and then used secret relations with terrorist leaders who survived by scooting from place to place being harbored by other rogue states. The success of the arrangement relied on the fact that western nations rarely attacked the rogue state in response to attacks or for harboring the terrorist leaders. This model lost that advantage on September 12, 2001.

After the Lockerbie attack, Abu Nidal would make his favorite safe Haven a government funded home in Saddam Hussein's capital, Baghdad. He moved there permanently in the late 90s. In the lead up to the Iraq War, Abu Nidal was one of several terrorists living under the Protection of Saddam that Tariq Aziz offered to hand over if Bush could be deterred. Bush would not be bought. Just before the US attacked Iraq, Abu Nidal was killed in Baghdad.

So in summary, the rogue dictators of the Islamic world developed a "rational" model that worked well against the european politicians that included using clandestine terror networks to attack the west, bribe the European leaders (usually with oil), and cause the Europeans to pressure the US to have a less vigorous security approach to the region. The "crazy" George Bush changed that. Obama and his supporters claimed they wanted the world to return to a simpler time when terrorists were an "annoyance" and Europe liked us. Obama wanted the old model.

The return of the Lockerbie bomber in a UK deal for oil, is a signal that the people that called Blair a poodle and Obama who called for change in European relations are getting their wish. We are going back to the way things were and soon the model that worked so well for leaders like Moamar Qadaffi will be back in place and we can go back to relaxing in front of our Televisions watching friendly news anchors telling us about the annoyances of American skyscrapers falling to the ground and Jetliners falling from the sky.

I guess the British can enjoy cheaper petrol and they won't have to worry about having their leaders act as "Poodles" to those crazy Americans. Now their leaders are poodles to the terrorists that kill their constituents.

The name of this blog, "Falling Beams adjustment" refers to the parable by Dashiel Hammet that describes the curious and almost subconscious way human beings adjust to traumatic shocks. Bush adjusted one way. Obama and Brown do not adjust in the same way.

Was Obama's statement an open admission of Racial Prejudice?

When I was younger the term Prejudice, Bias and Racist were nearly interchangeable. You don't hear the terms bias and prejudice as much these days. I was listening very carefully to Barack Obama's remarks regarding the arrest of his close friend, Skip Gates and if it does not jump out as racist, or the remarks of a person with a hair trigger racial prism by which he views the world, then at the very least it is most definitely a text booked case of racial prejudice and racial bias.

Let's look at the Wikipedia definition of prejudice:

A prejudice is an implicitly held belief, often about a group of people. Race, economic class, gender or sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age and religion are other common subjects of prejudice. It can be used to characterize beliefs about other things as well, including "any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence."

I was always told that bias and prejudice, or "pre-judging", was a matter of "not having all the facts" about a specific person or event and applying your generally held beliefs about the skin color or group identity of the individuals involved and drawing rash leaps of logic about the events or individuals based on their group identity. An example would be calling someone "stupid" or saying they "acted stupidly" based not on the facts, but on your own recollection of perceived stereotypical outcomes when members of these groups interact. If one was to make such a leap to use such an insult like "stupid" in a personal, casual, or non-public event it could be considered hostile or even "fighting words", but when such perjoratives are used in a formal public event, it is not only considered a faux pas to exhibit racial prejudice in a campaign speech, for instance, but to call someone stupid from the podium of a Presidential Press conference, even if he were referring to Kim Jung Il would be considered a major break with Presidential decorum.

Let's imagine one of Obama's predecessors making these remarks, and let's go over the transcript and see where the prejudice is. Here is the question:

LYNN SWEET: Thank you, Mr. President. Recently, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested at his home in Cambridge. What does that incident say to you? And what does it say about race relations in America?

I remember when GHW Bush commented on the Rodney King beating video it created a buzz that the top law enforcement officer in our government would imply guilt before a fair trial had been given. Many pundits have pointed out that two of Obama's opening remarks about not having the facts and he is a friend of mine are usually followed with, "So, no comment". Not for this President. When a Massive Health Care Presser is clearly going to the toilet, fall back on ol' faithful, race baiting.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I -- I should say at the outset that Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here.

Not only is Skip his friend, he is one of Obama's friends that makes his salary and his celebrity status commenting on how black people are oppressed and at one point during the campaign Obama wanted and needed the support of this group, many of which questioned his "blackness", which sounded troubling and disturbing to many Americans. So Skip and Barack have a bond that Obama values for political reasons amongst other things.

I don't know all the facts. What's been reported, though, is that the guy forgot his keys, jimmied his way to get into the house; there was a report called into the police station that there might be a burglary taking place.

People should be concerned about their Neighbor's homes, regardless of their race right? ...and remember the home had been broken into recently, so the neighbors and police were on the ball here.

So far, so good, right? I mean, if I was trying to jigger into -- well, I guess this is my house now, so -- (laughter) -- it probably wouldn't happen.

(Chuckling.) But let's say my old house in Chicago -- (laughter) -- here I'd get shot. (Laughter.) But so far, so good. They're -- they're -- they're reporting. The police are doing what they should. There's a call. They go investigate. What happens?

This hasn't been addressed much, but I am thoroughly offended and disturbed each time Obama and the First lady joke about or discuss the different ways that our president might be killed. I consider it an exercise in self importance and drama that has been traditionally an off limits topic for all Presidents and why this one gets away with repeating this again and again is beyond me. It makes his security detail's job more difficult and puts our governments stability in danger.

My understanding is, at that point, Professor Gates is already in his house. The police officer comes in. I'm sure there's some exchange of words. But my understanding is -- is that Professor Gates then shows his ID to show that this is his house, and at that point he gets arrested for disorderly conduct, charges which are later dropped.

We are soon going to hear the tape of this "exchange of words" the President is skipping over when the Cambridge Police release the tapes. He was not arrested immediately after providing Identification, he pursued the officer when the officer said he was leaving.

Now, I've -- I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. BUT I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry;

Every young white male is going to be questioned by a police officer at some point and most will, at least once, be accused falsely or at least treated with suspicion by a police officer, or told to cooperate or move along or whatever, at a time when you are minding your own business and not doing anything wrong. This has happned to me many times. Most young white males will witness a friend or other white male who talks back to the officer or is in some way uncooperative. This type of behavior nearly always has an unhappy ending for the youth, when the officer attempts to encourage compliance. Little kids know this stuff, this is not the type of material that needs to be in a university sylabus. Apparently Skip Gates has not experienced this reality in the mean streets of the Harvard Commons or at his home in Martha's Vineyard, but unlike the young white youth, he seems to think harrassing an officer who has rushed to his aid, is an opportunity to uncover some cosmic truth and that is that he is an oppressed victim struggling against a massive conspiracy to keep him trapped in his nightmare of being forced to live with million dollar salaries and luxurious homes and being forced to appear on regular television shows and awards dinners. I have never been angry at a police officer who approached my house for any reason and the few times I was frustrated or unhappy about receiving a ticket or being told what to do, I never openly expressed anger at the officer. I have no idea why the President is trying to have us "understand the rage".

...number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.

The President is either, as he admitted ignorant of the facts, in this case, what the actual charges are against Skip Gates, or he is intentionally trying to mislead the public to make his pal look good and the cops look bad. Let's remember, one of the few things Obama claims on his micro resume is that he is an Uber Attorney. Skip Gates was not charged with burglary. Obama knows that. When the officer was finally able to get Gates to interupt his lunatic ranting long enough to hand over his ID, which was a task the officer was required to do before leaving the scene, Crowley told Gates he was leaving. The burglary investigation was complete. The charge of disorderly conduct was based on Gates behavior before during and after the identification. Obama knows this. He is exhibiting bias by attempting to mislead and on Thursday when he refered to Gates age and his cane, he again was trying to mislead the public, by implying that disorderly conduct has an age limit or is limited to those that are capable of violently overwhelming an officer.

And number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcing disproportionately. That's just a fact.

If this so called fact, is "separate and apart" from this event which the President has admitted he is ill informed, then why bring it up. Why imply that this so called fact is relevent in this case, if you have no proof that it is. What if Bush said something like this. When Bush called Jose Padilla a "Bad Guy", the left accused him of profiling and worried that Hispanics would be targeted as terrorists. Latino Muslims complained of being targeted even though the number of Latino Muslims in America is believed to be only a few hundred.

What Obama is doing here is what he so often does. As Thomas Sowell points out, like a magician, Obama has a tendency to tell you he is not saying X or doing X, and then with his other hand and using different words he proceeds to do or say what he just claimed he was not doing. It is the equivelent of some old fart starting a story with, "Now, I'm not a racist or anything, BUT.....".

Obama is claiming Racial profiling is seperate and apart from the facts, but he in fact is including it as one the three facts that he claims "its fair to say" when characterizing the event. If we go back to the original "prejudice" of a person applying what they believe is a pattern in general about groups and making a leap of logic without knowing the specifics or the facts. Furthermore, Obama is intentionally trying to obscure the facts of the case. Then he follows up with his public legislative and legal works to address this apparent scourge of racial profiling.

As you know, Lynn, when I was in the state legislature in Illinois, we worked on a racial profiling bill because there was indisputable evidence that blacks and Hispanics were being stopped disproportionately. And that is a sign, an example of how, you know, race remains a factor in the society.

That doesn't lessen the incredible progress that has been made. I am standing here as testimony to the progress that's been made. And yet the fact of the matter is, is that, you know, this still haunts us.

What haunts us? Having people falsely charged because of the color of their skin or their group identity? He is the top law enforcement officer and he is calling this man stupid, for following every conceivable procedure that he has been trained to follow. Gates has told the media that he was arrested by a "white" officer who couldn't handle a black man standing up for himself. Obama, by defending Gates "anger" and then droning on about us being haunted, is using his prejudice about white people and white police officers as well and saying they can be trained and trained and trained, they can be partnered with a hispanic officer and a black officer, and yet, if they come across a black man who is flipping his lid and yelling and screaming to the onlookers and refusing to cooperate, that somehow, because he is white, he STILL can not escape his inherent racism. This message is surprisingly similar to the rantings of friends of the Obamas like the Farakhans and Jeremiah Wrights when they refer to the "white devils". This is "pre-judging" Sgt. Crowley and attempting to destroy him and give him the Joe the Plumber treatment, for daring to get in the way of the King.

And even when there are honest misunderstandings, the fact that blacks and Hispanics are picked up more frequently, and often time for no cause, casts suspicion even when there is good cause. And that's why I think the more that we're working with local law enforcement to improve policing techniques so that we're eliminating potential bias, the safer everybody's going to be.

Interesting how he ends with "bias" as he started by admitting that he is "biased", albeit biased because Gates is his friend. I can't imagine what would happen if Bush commented about the arrest of a friend and called the officer stupid what would happen. Every Joe Wilson and Ray McGovern would claim that Bush is trying to retaliate against opponents to protect rich texas oilmen who want to destroy the universe. So He ends by claiming bias is a bad when others are guilty of it.

He goes on to say he has been a crusader against racial profiling and he is currently working to end the "haunting" so we can "improve policing techniques" with local law enforcement. So he is implying that had there been better training or policies in Cambridge. Gates would not have been arrested. Gates did nothing wrong? He was in his home watching America's Idol and the cops stormed in and dragged him away because he is a "black man in America"

I have to know, What policies could they adopt that might help? What have they not done? Where did the system break down? Officer Crowley has been awarded and congratulated by his African American superior who applauds his 10 years of training others in how not to racially profile. He was accompanied with a black cop and a hispanic cop, who apparently should also be experts in racial profiling. What else can they do? What other hoops should law enforcement jump through?

Is it possible that Gates was wrong? Is it possible for the first time in history a black man FALSELY ACCUSED a white person of racism. Is it possible when Gates threatened the officer and said, "You don't know who you are messing with", what he meant is, "I am a powerful race baiter that makes my living portraying white cops as devils and my best friend is the most powerful man in the world who also happens to be black, and if I pick up the phone, he will call you a stupid white cop and you will be destroyed"

Henry Louis Gates is the equivalent of Mel Gibson yelling at his arresters and saying "Do you know who I am, You dirty SOB!!". He is a self important celebrity who was tired and frustrated after a long trip and who has a racial chip on his shoulder.

It is interesting to view Obama's Sotomayor appointment under this context. In the Ricci case, white New Haven Firemen are assumed to be favored or possibly cheating if they score better than African Americans. Obama sees a ranting lunatic correctly arrested for disorderly conduct and he claims the cop is racist, cheating, poorly trained, and stupid, because he is white.

I think when you consider the nature of Obama's logic in his statement, what we witnessed was an American President stand up in a formal press conference and make open statements of Racial Prejudice, admit he is biased in a case where he attempts to demonize the officer which will definitely result in his being harrassed, and worse yet, he tries to use his demonstrated racial attack as an example why he is making America a better place.

I imagined we got past this behavior with the defeat of George Wallace. I never thought I would witness this type of misguided use of Presidential power in my lifetime.

What happens if we create an energy insurance plan?

When considering the Obama arguments regarding Health Care, such as "If we don't spend more, our nation will go bankrupt", what if we applied the same arguments to Energy and more specifically Carbon based energy.

In the 1970s, they did not say "we need to become energy independent, so green jobs will create a booming economy". They said, "We have an energy shortage". That meant that the demand for energy in the most prosperous nation on earth was higher than the supply available at that time. This caused high prices. I remember finding it difficult to afford gas as a young man, because of the shortage.

Why didn't they create "Energy insurance" or "gas insurance" for me. The rich could drive to grandma's house, commute long distances to a higher paying job and escape the crime ridden Leftist controlled Urban centers for the suburbs. I needed a subsidy and an insurance policy to allow me to meet my basic transportation needs so I could live the American dream. Without Grandma, higher pay, and a tranquil neighborhood, I could have spiraled into a cess pool of despair and poverty and even starvation.

Let's assume, they institute energy insurance today. Americans would have the choice to purchase "private insurance" by paying monthly premiums, that would deliver "Energy care" or an amount of gas that you need each month. You pay "reasonable" premiums each month. The average gas price would be $3.00 per gallon even when summer blends drive up costs.

What about the poor? What about those that can't afford much gas, or no gas at all. The government would provide "government option gas insurance" and you pay no premiums. When you need gas you go down to the gas station and fill up as much as you want. If Grandma lives 1000 miles away, go for it. Commute 3 hours each way if you please. Live in Aspen and use your "free gas card" to travel to work in LA.

Would gas consumption go up? Yes. Would the middle class suddenly start trying to qualify for "Government option gas insurance"? Yup! Would the total amount of demand for gas go up? Oh Yes.

But we have a shortage. We also are told there is a Doctor Shortage and a Nursing Shortage that is driving up costs, making it difficult for people to afford health care.

At what point would the government start telling you when to get gas and how much? They call it rationing. In the 1970s, they had odd even days where the last digit on your license plate decided which day you could buy gas. How does the government deter these poor gas guzzlers from loading up and driving like mad. What is to stop those same people from going to the MAYO Clinic when they have bad gas. How does Bill Gates get in to see his Doctor when he is in line behind the Bad Gas patients?

Its called rationing. Our current energy policy is designed to force us to consume less. Why did Obama consider suspending the Gas tax a gimick in 2008? Because he wanted high gas prices to inhibit consumption. He even said, if we suspend gas taxes, it would cause a spike in demand that would result in a shortage and even higher prices than before the tax cut. Huh?

Using that logic, cutting health care costs with Obamacare will result in a rush to scoop up cheap health care that would result in higher prices than we had before his Debacle.

Obama seems to have selective understanding of Supply and Demand. Which leads us to believe, this is not about relieving our burden, it is about taking control, which results in placing a bigger burden on every American, including those who are not yet able to vote against this yoke on our shoulders.

We had the Spend, Spend,...Now here comes the Tax, Tax!!

They are called Tax and Spend Liberals, ..........but not necessarily in that order.

Six Years Out: Rummy was Right! US troops stand down as Victors

On June 27, 2005, Donald Rumsfeld appeared for the full Hour on Fox News Sunday to talk about the two year old Iraq war. Now four years later the Troops are pulling out of the cities and handing security over to the Iraqis. They will now be stationed at bases in the countryside, not unlike Subic Bay in the Phillipines, or Ramstein in Germany. The War is over. We won.

Now the the Iraqis are the Old Sages of Liberty in the Middle East.

Here is what Donald Rumsfeld said in that interview four years ago about the average lifespan of an insurgency.

We're not going to win against the insurgency. The Iraqi people are going to win against the insurgency. That insurgency could go on for any number of years. Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years.

Reading this interview now as we look back on how we won and how bad it could have been had we lost is a fascinating exercise.

At one point he is asked about a comment Cheney said about the insurgency being in its "last throes". Rumsfeld responds that people in the media use the term "Quagmire" and they ignore the Iraqi Political successes that are required for Democracy to emerge and the fact that the left and the media see the conflict through "quagmire" lenses. He explained that the term last throes could mean the Insurgency is entering a very violent "last throes" that will spike during elections and will "ebb and flow" and eventually die out once the people begin to see that the emergence of Democratic Rule is possible and a reality.

It is generally accepted that although 2007 was the most violent year, it was also the year that the Surge was methodically dismantling the enemy. The year 2006 was nearly as violent, but the violence was not the same.

Let's look at what was happening the year prior to Rumsfelds interview. The Madrid bombings scared away one of our key allies. Al Qaeda attacked the Russian school in Beslan and continuing to flex its mucscles.

A week after this interview were the Al Qaeda bombings in London. Four months later was the French Intifada that immobilized Paris.

But two events stand out as watershed events. One of them an over reach by Al Qaeda and another event that exacerbated the violence in Iraq and most definitely lengthened the occupation. The bombing of the Wedding in Jordan that killed the producer of the movie "Halloween" and his family was a major PR blunder by Al Qaeda. Many Muslims across the middle east when asked, admit that their view of Al Qaeda changed because of the imagery of such a brutal attack on such innocent civilians. This was the beginning of many in Iraqi's Sunni Triangle turning against Al Qaeda.

The other event was the bombing of the Dome of the Al Asakari Mosque in Sammara nine months after the Rumsfeld interview in February of 2006. This Al Qaeda act of terrorism turned 2006 into a bloody sectarian conflict that would take months to dampen the emotions.

What is key to remember is that one year after Rumsfeld discussed the Ebb and Flow and the "Last Throes" being possible a very violent "last throes", the commanders that would later become famous for being the architects of the winning strategy were beginning to share ideas that would later be known as "the Surge".

McKiernan, Odierno, and Petraeus were investigating new techniques and new bold personalities were moving to the forefront, as they tend to do in American Wars, and less bold personalities that lacked vision or feared the negative ramifications of American Domestic Political events on their careers fell back and eventually lost command. Civilians like Fred Kagan and Ret. Gen Keane continued to offer support and key congressional input from John McCain, Roy Blunt and estranged Democrat Senator Joe Lieberman all bolstered Rumsfeld's basic premise, which is Insurgencies take time, and especially a move from insurgency to Democracy in a land where Democracy is alien. I believe Rumsfeld was also trying to argue that the 5 to 12 year window that insurgencies usually tend to last for MAY have been a required transition period for the people to work out long simmering issues and decide whether Democracy was right for them or not.

There was a time a couple of years ago that Iraqis when polled had a surprisingly large number of respondendents advocating a "Strong man" leader with an Iron fist. Now polls show a large majority of Iraqis favoring democracy and predicting its ongoing success.

Another premise that should be considered. The left argued we should just "cut and run". They argued that these people are incapable of understanding democracy, that they are driven by primal religious bigotry and hatred and they do not deserve our help or "one more drop of American blood".

One, with the pullout of US troops today, they were proven wrong on so many levels, and exposed as cynical and bitter opportunists that are willing to put their own selfish domestic political interests before that of our nation and the freedoms and principles we are founded on.

But more importantly, what would have occurred had Rumsfeld waved the white flag and done the bidding of the Pelosis, the Reids and the Obamas.

The greatest fear of the Sunni Muslims in Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the other gulf states for the last 30 years (Thanks to Jimmy Carter) has been a Hegemonistic Revolutionary Islamic campaign launched by the Shiite Muslim Fanatics that run the theocratic government of Iran. The image of Iranian tanks entering Kuwait City was the threat that Saddam used to convince the Royal family to bankroll his war. Saddam bombed the Saudis after feeling betrayed during the gulf war after he had protected them from the Ayatollah's plan to spread out across the middle east by way of Hezbollah, Terrorism, and all out war.

That fear of a Shiite wave spreading west across the Mid East never went away and the image of Iranian tanks and Missile launchers arriving on the shores of the Red Sea in site of Israel and Egypt was a very really concern during the "Cut and Run" debates of 2006. When the Left claimed the Mid East countries hated us, they would have heard a very different tune behind closed doors had we pulled up stakes in 2006 and left.

Of course the left argue that we would "redeploy" to Turkey or Okinawa and if "things got real bad" in Iraq, we would come back and show 'em who's boss!

Does anybody really believe that if we had pulled out after the Sammara Mosque Bombing and let them kill each other that we would under any circumstances have gone back in, especially if the violence was far worse? Even Obama argued that we were willing to tolerate Genocide if need be to get out. The Jordanians, Saudis, and Gulf States knew good and well, that if we left, there would be no cavalry, and no hope of return. If the Al Sadr Militia took on the Sunnis and without the Americans in country then asked for help from the Iranians, there would be nothing stopping the Iranians finishing the unfinished business of the Iran Iraq war of the 80s and reuniting Iraqi Shias under the banner of their Theocracy. Obviously they would not stop there. Knowing that the Americans political situation, they would only have a limited amount of time to take the ground to the west without western intervention, and surely they would have struck.

The Genocide Obama referred to would have occurred and what would have happened when the Iranian and quite possibly Syrian tanks arrived on the Jordan River. Would Obama's Genocide turn into a Nuclear Holocaust?

Obama ran on the premise that the Iranian government "Might" want to solve our differeances peacably. They may want to bargain away their Nuclear Weapons through negotiations. The Iranians can be reasoned with. There was also the premise that, if we discover that they can not be reasoned with and if they turn out to be garden variety thugs that oppress their own people, are not interested in the prosperity of their populace and who are neither religious nor are they interested in Morality, that we would fall back to a more aggressive approach.

I think we have discovered just that. Obama seems to be frozen like a deer in the headlights. Iran is not coming over for the Fourth of July BBQ, they are not to be reasoned with. Important Religious leaders like Ayatollah Montezeri, Rafsanjani, and yes, even Ali Sistani from, hold on,...drumroll,...the Democratic and Sovereign nation of Iraq are meeting in Qom to argue that the Iranian leadership is not only not behaving in an islamic or moral manner, but that they are actually just a brutal dictatorship that lives to retain its own power.

So where does that leave Obama. He claimed to have a hidden backup plan that contained a more "aggressive approach". He claimed that a Nuclear Iran was "unacceptable".

OK, so baby back ribs and sparklers for the Ayatollahs didn't work out so well, so whats next? We're all ears.

I happen to think Obama has no backup plan. They loved asking Bush, "If the Surge doesn't work, what is yoru back up plan?". I think his term "unacceptable" really means "hope". As in...I "hope" the Iranians "change" and disarm themselves. Turn on your TV and see if they have any intention of being peaceful and reasonable.

I like Donald Rumsfeld and I realize George Bush was President and deserves the majority of the credit for standing firm and winning this war, but on this VI day (Victory in Iraq) I wanted to revisit Donald Rumsfelds contribution to winning in this theater of "the long war". I miss his clarity, his honesty, and his ability to dispose of bullshit questions from "Drive by" media Dingbats and Info babes who have no idea of Rummys 5 decades of service to his country.

Rummy was right. This Insurgency would take 5, 6 8, 10 or twelve years. It was actually over in 5, which is the low end estimate, but here we are at 6 so lets celebrate. Whether the insurgency we fought in the Philipines or in Latin America or any number of examples in the last century by the British. This is not the first time this has happened, nor is it a re-run of Vietnam as the questioner posited. Rumsfeld had studied this well and he served his President well. The level of force over the long run was not to small, and he was right that a larger force would have alientated the populace.

In the end we leave Baghdad as victors. The people we liberated are our friends and for now, they are greatful for our sacrifice. Rumsfeld knew this was merely a theater in the long war, but as we are seeing Iraqi Shiites lecturing their oppressed brothers in Iraq about the right path to take...as if the Iraqis are old and wise regarding the ideals of Freedom and Democracy,...Well, Ironically, in that part of the world, they are the old sages of liberty, and like our forefathers they earned the title through their blood sweat and tears. In fact they are wiser about liberty than the Americans that were willing to watch them all die in a genocide for their own selfish power grab.

Yes, the Iraqis are the Old Sages of Liberty in the Middle East. God Bless them and wish them well.

Remember...

Occasionally, in order to remember, we need to revisit our recent past as the Drive By media fights feverishly to make America forget.

George W. Bush was indeed a courageous man...

Chrichton gave the best refutation of Global Warming two years ago

One of my favorite Refutations of "Catastrophism" in Global Warming by the late Michael Chrichton. My appreciation for his intellect continues to grow with his passing. Every high school senior should watch this interview. Start at minute 22 for the global warming stuff. The first 22 minutes is about his final novel, "Next", which was about Biogen companies that own a disease as well as its cure and the new problems posed by genetic research, pandemics and government intervention in medicine. Very timely.

This interview was two years ago and to see how different the rhetoric by Charlie Rose then and now demonstrates how much has changed and how he impacted the argument by being one of the few that had the courage to stand up and say "Bullshit".

Is Obama ignoring the will of the people?

Throughout Bush's Presidency the left argued that Bush was stubborn, would not admit he was wrong, would not be swayed by public opinion, and ignored the will of the people.

So here was a lefty arguing for Demonstrations and protests to force Bush to do what the people wanted, based on polls.

In having a president who completely ignores the will of the people, including the views of some of his most trusted allies and advisors, we are dealing with a situation of arrogance bordering on tyranny. In such situations, pretending as if conditions are normal is absurd. If the president cannot hear our concerns, then we must shake things up in such a way that even he can not longer ignore them.

Combine this information with recent polls that only 37% of Americans supported the massive stimulus package.

Does that mean Obama is ignoring the will of the people and that we should be rioting in the street, protesting his "Tyranny"?

In the recent so called controversy on whether Rush wants Obama to fail in his efforts to turn the country into a socialist state, it was pointed out that James Carville made remarks on the morning of 9/11 that he did not want Bush to succeed. Democrat Pollster Stanley Greenberg agreed and added that he had focus group data that showed people were turning against Bush and that he hoped to use the information to turn people away from the President.

Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.

"We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him," Greenberg admitted.

We often hear people argue that Bush used 9/11 to make himself more popular. Some critics were claiming Bush either caused the 9/11 attacks or was hoping to "not let a good crisis go to waste". There was an argument that prior to 9/11 Bush was unpopular and he seized on 9/11 and "played on our fears" to scare people into supporting him. A Former Vice President, past opponent and symbolic head of the Democrat Party at the time, Al Gore, siad "He betrayed his country".

This notion that Bush was unpopular in his honeymoon period or in his pre-9/11 days is often cited by disgruntled liberals who point to what they consider widespread anger over Bush winning the election despite Al Gore's efforts to contest the results. This also was cited as Bush ignoring the will of the people.

In the current political atmosphere, many Democrats argue that even if there are people that are unhappy about Earmarks, Pork, paying for others mortgages, they claim that Obama is still popular and some even claim he is one of the most popular Presidents ever, so issue oriented polls are irrelevant.

Oh Really?

But the latest polls show that at this point in Bush's Presidency, he actually enjoyed more support than Obama currently does.

Bush more popular than Obama?

How can the worst President in History be more popular than the most popular President in history?

It is simply wrong for commentators to continue to focus on President Barack Obama's high levels of popularity, and to conclude that these are indicative of high levels of public confidence in the work of his administration. Indeed, a detailed look at recent survey data shows that the opposite is most likely true. The American people are coming to express increasingly significant doubts about his initiatives, and most likely support a different agenda and different policies from those that the Obama administration has advanced.

Polling data show that Mr. Obama's approval rating is dropping and is below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001.

So regarding the "loyalty oaths" of the media who ask if we want Obama to succeed? According to Carville and Greenberg, Bush's support based on polling data at the time justified a call to turn against him. According to the above poll, Obama enjoys even less support now than Bush did then, so that would make a call to "turn against" Obama even more imperative.

The Democrats that call a stubbornness in the face of polls measuring a lack of public support as ignoring the will of the people went so far as to call such stubbornness, "Tyranny".

They argued that Americans should not only wish that a stubborn and unpopular President should "fail", but attempted to compel the American public to march in the streets against such a President, to Demonstrate, and to protest until he halts his unpopular policies and submits to the "will of the people".

So if such activities were in order for Bush, who had higher approval ratings than Obama, it makes sense that they would consider it fair and appropriate that the American public should use even more extreme measures to "Halt" Obama's unpopular policies that ignore the will of the people.

So in light of the highly unpopular response to Obama's first Stimulus package, one can assume that his recent call for another Trillion dollar stimulus package will be even more unpopular.

So based on the Democrats logic it is the duty of all Americans to not only wish that Obama fails, but we should be rioting in an effort to bring about his failure.

Send a "get well" card to Barbara Bush

Former First Lady, Barbara Bush, 83, had Heart Surgery yesterday. I met Mrs. "41" many years ago, before she was first lady, and I can honestly say, she was the warmest, most genuine, friendliest woman I have ever met in politics. After reading her book, you realize that she has not lived her life as a leisure seeking socialite. She has been a gritty, hard working woman, who adapted to a rough west Texas environment in a modest home where she raised a large family on her own. She traveled the world at a young age acting as diplomatic support and personal confidante to one of the most experienced and well traveled men ever to hold the office of Vice President or President. And she still had time to raise incredible children, two of which became governors and an eventual President.

This is an incredible American hero, and in the list of impressive women in our history that have served as first lady, she is one of the greatest of them all.

If you would like to offer a "get well" message to Barbara Bush, or well wishes to the Bush family for all they have done for us, here is the address to write:

Yes, there is an "official" channel to contact former President Bush
and his Barbara. It is:

The Honorable George Bush
10000 Memorial Drive, Ste. 900
Houston TX 77024
tel: 1-713-686-1188
fax: 1-713-683-0801

sources:
US Navy:
http://www.staynavy.navy.mil/counselors_resources/content/Recognition/pres_certificate.asp

US Embasy London
http://www.usembassy.org.uk/rcpresad.html

The former first lady uses the same contact information:

Barbara Bush (and Millie)
10000 Memorial Dr., Suite 900
Houston, TX 77024

source:
Author Mailing Addresses
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/4617/authormail.html


You can use the above address with a service like Postful to use email that will be converted into a "mailed" postcard.

Rule number one of personality cults,..State Equals Leader

Rule number one of personality cults is the brave leader equals the state and the state equals the leader.

If the Leader has desires and wants, then it is the desire of the state.

So if you disagree with an opinion of the leader, you oppose the state.

I have never in my lifetime heard a new President come in to office and as a rite of passage, the Media roams the city asking for a loyalty oath of the populace.

The fact that when a dissenter is found and he is hoisted from the flagpole, only proves the extent to how twisted this paranoid way of thinking has become.

This has become a loyalty oath meant to provide cover for a cult leader.

I challenge anyone to find this tradition of "Do you want our leader to fail"?

"Outside the Butt bubble" will now be known as the crosswalk

We have seen how Obama throws his friends and allies under the bus, so how do we describe the rest of the world that has not been thrown under the bus?



Read here about Gibbs new assault on private citizens, as well as the Politico article.

There are those that are on the sidewalk, which is people that wrongly think they are safely out of the path of the steel wheels of the Obama bus.

There are those, especially in the media that know that anybody can be in the path of the bus, so they buy a ticket to get in the back of the bus.

There is the gang that is helping to drive the bus, in the front of the bus, like Rahm Emanuel, and his kitchen cabinet, James Carville, Stan Greenberg, Paul Begala, George Stephanopolous, and Robert Gibbs.

Then there is the Driver of the Bus, Obama himself.

So if you are a current or soon to be target of the Bus, like Rush Limbaugh, Jim Cramer, or Rick Santelli, who have already been targeted or those soon to be Lou Dobbs or Jake Tapper, then you are officially in the "Crosswalk".

The phrase "butt bubble" is Rush's description of the "butt boys" in the media who have chucked all pretense of impartiality and are hopping on the back of the bus begging to be let in.


Thus begins the era of bipartisanship ushered in by the great unifier.


Here is what Obama sees:




Here is what the people see:

Obama plays George Wallace, Blocks Poor Black students from entering DC's best schools

In the fall, I posted a thread that Obama would play the part of George Wallace and block poor Black kids from attending the better private schools of DC by catering to his union thugs and destroying School Choice in DC.


Well, it only took him a month and nestled in the ginormous budget yesterday was a poison pill that followed through on what Obama had been hinting at last year, the end of the popular school choice program that helped poor Black kids to escape from the hellish schools they attend and rub shoulders with the children of the wealthier folks that run Obama's government.

The night before this passed he drew rousing applause from Democrats when he promised funding for Charter Schools, that are run by the Unions of course, where attendance is by government consent. Not Free choice for parents and not the same as vouchers to go to Private schools like Sidwell where Obama's privileged little girls go.

Voucher Subterfuge Hoping no one notices, congressional Democrats step between 1,800 D.C. children and a good education.

Wednesday, February 25, 2009; A18

CONGRESSIONAL Democrats want to mandate that the District's unique school voucher program be reauthorized before more federal money can be allocated for it. It is a seemingly innocuous requirement. In truth it is an ill-disguised bid to kill a program that gives some poor parents a choice regarding where their children go to school. Many of the Democrats have never liked vouchers, and it seems they won't let fairness or the interests of low-income, minority children stand in the way of their politics. But it also seems they're too ashamed -- and with good reason -- to admit to what they're doing.

At issue is a provision in the 2009 omnibus spending bill making its way through Congress. The $410 billion package provides funds for the 2009-10 school year to the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, a pioneering effort that awards scholarships of up to $7,500 a year for low-income students to attend private schools. But language inserted by Democrats into the bill stipulates that any future appropriations will require the reauthorization of the program by Congress and approval from the D.C. Council.

We have no problem with Congress taking a careful look at this initiative and weighing its benefits. After all, it was approved in 2004 as a pilot program, subject to study. In fact, this is the rare experimental program that has been carefully designed to produce comparative results. But the proposed Democratic provision would short-circuit this study. Results are not due until June, and an additional year of testing is planned. Operators of the program need to accept applications this fall for the 2010-11 school year, and reauthorizations are complicated, time-consuming affairs. Indeed, staff members on various House and Senate committees scoffed yesterday when we asked about the chances of getting such a program reauthorized in less than a year. Legislation seeking reauthorization has not even been introduced.

If the Democratic leadership is so worried about process, it might want to review a recent report from the Congressional Budget Office listing the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been appropriated to programs whose authorizations have expired. Many of these programs get far more than the $14 million allocated to the Opportunity Scholarships. House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) was right to call out the Democrats for this back-door attempt to kill the voucher program. The attention should embarrass congressional Democrats into doing the right thing. If not, city leaders, including D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D), need to let President Obama know that some 1,800 poor children are likely to have their educations disrupted.

In my mind I'm picturing the happy singing White children at the liberal private school in west LA, singing the "Obama's gonna do it" song...and then these poor black kids in the following video whose Public school probably receives as much in funds as the LA school charges per child, but as you can see the black kids are basically begging not to be sent back to a prison they do not deserve.

So much for separate but equal.

How is this different than George Wallace or Little Rock of the 1950s?

Republicans liberated them in 2004, Obama is putting their shackles back on.

Contact Rep. John Boehner.

Obama Inherited what?...Don't let them get away with this

One thing I can say about the Democrats, they are disciplined about their talking points.

The latest one is if you are speaking to anyone about anything, intersperse every third sentence with,...."The Deficit that Obama inherited”. You can get away with,.."The Debt that Obama inherited”...or the old standby “The Economic crisis that Obama inherited”.

Now if we want to behave like Republicans of the past, we can just shrug and say, Oh let them have their fun. Why start an argument, We’ll look like obstructionist.

Let’s get something straight. Obama is lying and the Democrats are responsible.

For starters if Bush is to blame for an innocent Obama being saddled with debt, we can assume that Obama would have stopped the debt increase had he been given the chance and he obviously would stop bad, bad debt now. Yet he did not and is not.

Who was that Democrat candidate that raced to Washington in September to ride point on the Democrat congress’ TARP bill, that was initially defeated by the Republicans. That was Barack Obama. He voted for this debt. Had he told his party to hold off, they would have. He told us the money was all going to be used to buy bad assets that would go up and provide us with a profit that he would pay us back. He lied.

Did he try to fix that mistake or did he choose to run up more debt once given the chance to stop bad, bad debt. He criticized Bush’s debt and then successfully outdid every porkladen deficit monster of all time. Then within 48 hours he returned to the scene of the crime and again blamed Bush for creating Deficits “against Obama’s will” and Obama promised to cut them in half. I suppose that means the spending bills will stop now right? Not a chance in hell. This guy has Chutzpah upon Chutzpah.

Charles Krauthammer pointed out that he said last night, there were no ear marks in the stimulus package last week and next years budget will have no earmarks. He didn’t mention that this weeks budget will have NINE THOUSAND earmarks!!! Chutzpah!!!

If you have any doubt that this is the Democrat financial meltdown and very much Obama’s meltdown, read Red State’s top ten lies from last night and the accompanying piece on Obama and his intimate relationship with the meltdown from its early days:

Here is Stanley Kurts describing Obama’s early ties to the Meltdown:

And don’t forget the wannabe Community Organizer in Chief Barack Obama:

ACORN attracted Barack Obama in his youthful community organizing days. Madeline Talbott hired him to train her staff — the very people who would later descend on Chicago’s banks as CRA shakedown artists. The Democratic nominee later funneled money to the group through the Woods Fund, on whose board he sat, and through the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, ditto. Obama was not just sympathetic — he was an ACORN fellow traveler.

The possibility of a financial meltdown was foreseen in advance. Senator McCain co-sponsored legislation to impose bank-like regulation on Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac. That legislation, which could have prevented the current crisis, was killed by the Democrats.

As I wrote over the weekend, the Democrats tried to reward ACORN by providing the organization a portion of whatever profits were to be made in the rejected big bailout. That giveaway to the community organizers was only removed after Senator McCain was able to get Republicans a seat at the negotiations for the big bailout.

And Finally, as the Democrats point blame fingers at others over the rejection of the big bailout, don’t forget that the Democrats control Congress. As my RedState colleague, Mark Impomeni, explained there are more than enough Democrats in the House to pass any bill Speaker Pelosi really wants to pass. But she can’t get it done if she orders her Whip not to do his job.

If you haven’t watched theFannie Freddie video since the campaign, watch it again in the new context of the clean up. Astonishing.



It should be noted that the Regulator by the name of Falco, that is being chewed out was a Clinton Appointee who was once not as concerned about FM/FM, but rightly saw the writing on the wall, knew he was going to take a lot of heat and blew the whistle. This gang beat down he is getting is the result of his coming forward.

First watch this video of Stanly Kurtz explaining Obama’s ties to ACORN, and thus the financial crisis that is destroying the economy. (Inherit my eye!):

Fundamentalists continue to lose in Iraq, Thanks George W. Bush

Some of this is a bit of inside baseball stuff, but seeing the way the Fundamentalists are continuing to lose ground in Iraq's democratic process is an ongoing reminder of the fallacy that Democrats proposed that Iraq was a permanent basket case full of nutty foreigners that were incapable of grasping the concept of liberty.

It also is a reminder of the prescience of George W. Bush whose faith in the Universality of inalienable rights and natural law is playing out before our eyes.....that is if you can dig past the farce of the Drive by Media.

The Islamic party of Iraq was the power structure in place in Anbar before the awakening. They were considered corrupt, impudent, full of promises without action, and in many cases actually collaborating with AQI. The Awakening councils formed and did the heavy lifting of working with the Americans to eject AQI and bring peace to the Sunni Triangle. When they learned the Americans were leaving, they were nervous of the continued power of the Islamic party and galled that agreements in place meant that the Awakening councils would continue to be under the Islamic party...until this weeks elections.

When the US media believed that the Awakening councils had lost they ran to the presses to trumpet the bad news for Iraq, but when it turned out that the Islamic party was stomped, the US media fell silent.

On the Shiite side of the story, it is also worth noting that Muqtada Al Sadr's party has lost big time and Nouri Al Maliki's Shia candidates have shifted the center of gravity from Islamic radicals to a more secular political environment that is more favorable to a unified Iraq than a Fractious State.

Has anybody announced the end of the so called civil war yet?

When they do let's offer our gratitude for the wisdom of George W. Bush.

Back in those days, we had a real President.



From Gateway Pundit:

February 13, 2009
Finally... The Truth About the Islamist Defeat in the Anbar Elections

Iraq held historic democratic elections in January.
The elections occurred without reports of major violence. The sectarian parties made gains and ral-Sadr's radical party was trounced.
This was a magnificent day for Iraq.

But, after the elections the anti-Iraq Western media reported that the elections in the once lost Anbar Province were stolen by the Islamists.
This news was, of course, widely reported:

Tribal groups, known as Awakening Councils, had hoped to win power in Anbar, believing they were entitled because of their contribution to routing al-Qaida.

Election officials have not released official figures from the balloting. Nevertheless, the Iraqi Islamic Party, a Sunni group that is part of the national government, said unofficial tallies showed it would retain control of the province.

Today, we finally hear the truth about the Anbar elections.
The Islamists lost... Big-time.

Nibraz Kazimi, Iraqi expert and blogger at the exceptional Talisman Gate, wrote about the final Anbar election results at The Hudson Institute today.
Nibraz reported on the devastating losses by the Islamist Parties in Anbar Province.
You won't see this reported by the corrupt anti-Iraq media any time soon:

The results from Anbar were supposed to tell us whether tribes are to be a significant political player in Iraq’s future, and the answer is no. The traditional tribal forces had organized themselves within the ‘Tribes of Iraq List’ led by one of several contenders to the grand but ultimately hollow title of the ‘Prince of the Dulaim Tribe’, Ali Hatem al-Suleiman, in alliance with Hamid al-Hayis, a male nurse turned ferocious Al-Qaeda nemesis who had been the former director of the Iraqi National Congress’ office in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar. The Dulaim are by far the most populous tribe in the province. Yet this slate only got 4.5 percent of the vote.

The other Anbar list that most analysts take to be ‘tribal’ is not very tribal at all. It is led by Ahmad Abu Risha, brother to slain Awakening Councils founder Sattar Abu Risha. Their tribe is very small in number, numbering a few hundred. But Ahmad had shied away from tribalism, and billed himself and his coalition as one of urbane businessmen and administrators. They won by 17.1 percent, the second highest vote earners. A rival list, of similar composition headed by the former deputy head of the Iraqi Red Crescent Society, who also happens to be a tribal chief, managed to pull off a respectable 7.8 percent. In a sense, the ‘tribesman-turned-chic’ category was the second biggest winners of Anbar’s ballot.

The foremost winners were the neo-Ba’athists, whose best-performing lists took in 17.6 percent, 6.6 percent and 4.6 percent respectively. The next governor of Anbar will probably be picked from their ranks, and Abu Risha has already signaled that he is willing to join their coalition.

The biggest and most unexpected loser was the Iraqi Islamic Party that had trumpeted itself as the leader of Iraq’s Sunnis. Here in Iraq’s most homogenous Sunni province, they only received 15.9 percent— even so, they are being accused of ballot stuffing to get this paltry showing. (Note: The Islamic Party won a majority in the 2005 Anbar elections. They also claimed to be the most significant national force among Iraq’s Sunnis.)

This is a remarkable defeat for Islamist politics in Sunni provinces, notwithstanding all the accusations of corruption and complicity with the ‘occupation’ leveled against the IP. For example, a more militant and equally well-funded Islamist list that had vocally supported the insurgency squeaked by with only 3.2 percent of the vote, reflecting the fact that fundamentalists have lost their footing among Sunnis in a general sense.

[more]

A Film on Iraq that may surprise you, HBO's "Taking Chance"

On Saturday Feb. 21 through March 1, HBO will be airing "Taking Chance" starring Kevin Bacon.



From what I understand, the Film maker stayed fairly true to the true story told by Lt. Col Michael Strobl in a "Blackfive" MilBlog story from 2004 that I read when it came out. Blackfive is a great MilBlog and for anybody that follows MilBlogs, you read incredible stories of Heroism and drama that you are convinced will never see the light of day, because of the fact that Hollywood controls the ability to tell stories in our culture. They complain that there is a lack of stories so they retell stories from comic characters, any novel that made the New York Times 10 ten, Remakes of Foreign films or old movies that have been forgotten, and sequels of movies that should have been forgotten, but...with millions of real life dramas being played out on behalf of each and every one of us in a land far away, we hear nothing but negative Films coming out of Iraq.

So I was surprised to see this Movie Promo show up in the banner ads at Powerline.

It is the story of an Officer who volunteered to escort the body of a fallen soldier home to his small Wyoming town for his final resting place.

I read a review of this movie that tried to make a political point out of what I have been told is a very non-political movie, saying this Movie underscores why Bush should have allowed footage of flag draped coffins at Dover. I think Lt. Col. Strobl's story does exactly the opposite. I think it reminds us of why each fallen soldier and his family deserve a dignified Homecoming and not have their body be used as a prop for a quick and cute photo caption that can be used for propaganda by people including our enemies that want to undercut the very mission that the fallen soldier gave his life to defend.

If the final epilogue of a soldiers life is that his body was used against his will to work against the cause he died for, that would be a desecration of a life well lived and an injury to all of the Americans you see in this Film that stopped what they were doing to salute this man's sacrifice.

A few years ago, I read "Stoic Warriors", a book about the deeper philosophical underpinnings of the military mind and the traditions that they live by. The book dedicates nearly an entire chapter to respect for the dead, protection against desecration of the body, protocol and procedures, and the reasons for the importance of risking ones life to bring back a dead body of a fallen soldier even in the most dangerous combat zone. The explanation covers thousands upon thousands of years of tradition passed from culture to culture, Soldier to Soldier, Father to Son, Brother to Brother and especially a Soldier to a Mother.

In ancient times, having the body return was proof to a grieving family whose mind struggled to convince their heart that their doubts of a loved one that might have actually survived or there might be a mistake, must be let go. It also gave the families and comrades a central point of focus for all the energy and emotion that was looking for an outlet and a direction to release.

Recent polls show that more Americans today think that the Iraq war will be remembered by history as a success and a cause worth fighting for. In this story, seeing the reverence being paid by not only the soldiers, but each and every average American along the way is a tribute to the very personal relationship that most of us feel with the Men and women who give their last full measure of devotion on the alter of liberty, so that we can all live free.

If you have a few minutes, read Lt. Col. Strobl's 2004, story at Blackfive. If it moves you to act "Snowball Express" and "Operation Homefront" are two great charities for supporting families of the fallen. It's a long story, but well worth reading.

For all of the attempts to use the fallen for the selfish purposes of someone else's cause, honor the life of a hero for the cause he exchanged his finest years for so that we might live free.


The HBO film, "Taking Chance" will air Saturday and Sunday and throughout that week.

From BlackFive in 2004:

...When the remains of a service member are loaded onto a hearse and ready to leave the Dover mortuary, there is an announcement made over the building’s intercom system. With the announcement, all service members working at the mortuary, regardless of service branch, stop work and form up along the driveway to render a slow ceremonial salute as the hearse departs. Escorts also participated in each formation until it was their time to leave.

On this day there were some civilian workers doing construction on the mortuary grounds. As each hearse passed, they would stop working and place their hard hats over their hearts. This was my first sign that my mission with PFC Phelps was larger than the Marine Corps and that his family and friends were not grieving alone.

Eventually I was the last escort remaining in the lounge. The Marine Master Gunnery Sergeant in charge of the Marine liaison there came to see me. He had Chance Phelps’s personal effects. He removed each item; a large watch, a wooden cross with a lanyard, two loose dog tags, two dog tags on a chain, and a Saint Christopher medal on a silver chain. Although we had been briefed that we might be carrying some personal effects of the deceased, this set me aback. Holding his personal effects, I was starting to get to know Chance Phelps...

When Abortion results in murder, It's time to unite on our strategy

With the possibility of a new Supreme court seat opening soon, the debate will revolve again around conservatives claims that Abortion is murder and liberals claims that law can not be based on Religious dogma.

There is a recent story of a woman that delivered a live child before the abortion doctor arrived and one of the owners of the business, who was not a doctor, cut the imbilical and threw the living baby into a garbage bag. Even many liberals are reluctantly admitting this was murder.

The Republican party spends most of its time on the defense on the Abortion issue. When appointing Justices many conservatives have come to the conclusion that appointing strict constructionists, will result in overturning Roe, even if the left believes that strict constructionism is a gimick.

As a conservative, I often have other Republicans disagree with me on the nature of the Abortion debate.

They tell me that Abortion is murder and if you don’t make that the primary thrust of your argument then you are enabling the other side. Although I believe this story is more proof that the Abortion business swims in a culture of death, I think the most effective argument is more difficult for pro-abortionists to defend.

I consider myself constitutionally pro-life. What I mean by that is if one begins with the premise that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional because it is not based on any written words in the constitution then the end result is you thrust it back into the hands of the legislature and the states. If you agree with the basic premise that the state can not inject itself into decision making discussions between a woman and her doctor on whether to place a pair of scissors into the skull of a kicking and writhing baby as its body is still partially in the mothers body, then why is it not also an invasion of privacy for the state to inject itself into a private discussion between a woman and her doctor over Fee for service. This is what Hillary Clinton proposed in 1993. She argued that the state could forbid Doctors to engage in one on one arrangements with patients that wanted to pay directly for services.

My point is the essence of the Morality of the issue will not see the light of day if you do not move the debate to its proper place and that is out of courts and into legislatures. Then one can place the issue in context.

The context is important. Pope John Paul discussed a culture of life as opposed to the West’s devolving into a culture of death. George Bush often spoke of the culture of life and many people thought this was code speak. It wasn’t codespeak. He went into great detail about how we are moving into a new age where technology is getting ahead of our ability to thoroughly investigate as a society the moral implications of its usage. When Professors consider it enlightened to embrace cloning of humans, creating organ farms, and treating aborted fetuses like marketable commodities for their stem cells. When Universal Health care advocates argue that no matter how you have planned out your final years, you will be forbidden from planning for certain expensive life prolonging procedures if they will not substantially lengthen your life or if they are considered by the state to be excessively expensive. The same people will consider life prolonging procedures for those in coma or for those in pain or for those who in moments of depression wish to have others kill them. By the time my grandchildren retire, if the current technological advances remain in the free market, there will be technology available that people will be able to live with nearly half of there body replaced with artificial parts. There will come a time when the very meaning of what is human and what is a life will become confused if our society is not given the ability to debate and comprehend the moral implications of our decisions.

The meaning of conservativism is to not fly off the handle in the name of progress for its own sake. Our predecessors worked out centuries of difficult questions and handed us wisdom to consider. When George Bush discussed a culture of life, this is what he talked about.

When you read the above story and are shocked that a person could do such a thing, don’t be. It makes sense. This person who was not a doctor, ran a business. Every day this person sees babies in varying stages of development come into the light and then wrapped in a bag and then tossed into a pile like a used wad of Kleenex. It is not difficult to imagine a person so desensitized to the trivialization of life’s greatest miracle that they would eventually push it beyond the limits of the existing unconstitutional laws.

The left is often fond of claiming that the right is too focused on restricting people’s exposure to sexuality when in their minds exposure to violence is even more dangerous. What could be more violent than exposing someone to repetitive killing of babies everyday and then add to that a profit motive.

Whoever did this had reasons for doing it. It was either avoidance of legal trouble or protecting a financial stake in a business in which case it was murder because of greed. Or it was a person who has been brainwashed into believing newborns that are fully outside of a woman’s body and alive and screaming are somehow fair game for whatever violent act suits your fancy, as long as you don’t get caught. ...Or this person has just lost their moral compass due to a culturally imposed disregard for their fellow human beings.

Anyone of these overlapping motives has one thing in common. These disgusting motives are all extensions of what are considered “intellectually enlightened” arguments by the compassionate left like the decision of an adult supercedes the rights of a vulnerable child or It is nothing but a mass of tissue or these businesses need to not only be protected, but they need to be subsidized financially by the American public in many cases against their will.

George Bush’s culture of life, was tied into the Republican parties core beliefs in the universal liberty of all human beings, the primacy of the individual over the state, the philosophy of our founders, and a profound respect for the constitution as it was written by our founders.

If one can place the constitutional premise of Roe v. Wade and the philosophical argument regarding the ideas of our founders regarding individual rights and their belief in natural rights that protect a right to life, a right to protect your life and a right to be free to remain living, then the Religious and moral debate of whether it is murder will not be necessary, because we will have repealed Roe v. Wade and returned the issue to the People.

I think there are many pro choice Republicans that would become more vocal supporters of a strict constructionist unified platform and if the most dedicated pro-life advocates would show solidarity with them, the media's attempt to portray a split party would diminish.

The important thing is to win, not to convince your opponents you were right.

This is a very sad story of a very short life.