Political Truth and Fact

Sunday's Web

The day’s top political news:

Obama speech to offer personal commitment to Muslims

President Barack Obama will offer a "personal commitment" to bridge US differences with Muslims in his long-awaited speech to the Islamic world next week in Egypt, say aides.

But White House advisors said Friday that Obama would not shy away from addressing "tough issues" in the speech on Thursday at the University of Cairo which will be co-hosted by Al-Azhar University, an ancient center of Islam and learning.

"The speech will outline his personal commitment to engagement, based upon mutual interests and mutual respect," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.0d36e60ce28699094108bce0f5e6b839.21&show_article=1

Sotomayor’s focus on race issues may be hurdle

'The American ideal is that justice should be colorblind,' GOP senator says

The selection of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court has opened a new battle in the fight over affirmative action and other race-conscious remedies for patterns of inequality, with each side invoking the election of the first black president in support of its cause.

Now conservatives say her strong identification with such race-based approaches to the law is perhaps the strongest argument against her confirmation, contending that her views put her outside an evolving consensus that such race-conscious public policy is growing obsolete.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31011651

Cuba accepts US migration talks

Havana has agreed to resume talks with Washington on immigration by Cubans to the US, the state department says.

The talks were halted in 2003 after Havana refused to give exit permits to people who had been granted US visas.

The news comes ahead of a visit by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Honduras for a meeting of the Organization of American States, where Cuba's possible readmission is expected to be discussed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8076007.stm

Opinion:
ACORN and the spotlight on its political scam

The first election I covered on site (as a radio news reporter),  – a site at which they were counting ballots and consolidating the results – was in Phenix City, Alabama just over 50 years ago.

Phenix City was, of course, notorious in those days and its politics were even more so.  John Patterson had been elected Attorney General in a previous election, only to be gunned down in an alleyway.  Phenix City was mob infested in its ”hey day” and a clean up had required bringing in the National Guard.

By 1958, it was generally assumed the crime had abated, and the corruption ebbed.  I was fresh from having been a B-47 pilot on active duty in SAC – not exactly naïve, but certainly not versed in southern Democrat politics.  (In those days, politics in the South was ALL Democrat – only an occasional odd-ball ran as a Republican back then)

I was amazed at the lengths the various candidates in that Phenix City election pursued to make sure they got an honest count.  When the counting was mercifully suspended about three am, and the uncounted ballots stored in the vault in the sheriff’s office, an elderly candidate refused to leave and insisted on sitting where he could see the vault all night – until the counting resumed the next morning.

I thought he was overreacting – I just had no clue just how corrupt politics was in reality.  Naively, I thought the Sheriff’s promise of security should have been honored.  In the half century of political experience since that spring night in Alabama, I have learned a great deal more.  I have worked election day activities in states across the country, and I have been witness to corruption, fraud, and outright theft.

It is not partisan for me to report that overwhelmingly, Democrats have a distinct edge in fraud and theft.  In the mid 70s, RNC efforts even sent a newly elected Lousiana Democrat Congressman and his cohorts were sent to jail.

Four years later, my office at the RNC was notified by some of our people in Ohio that a challenge was certain to give the 1976 presidential election to Gerald Ford – overt theft and fraud by Democrats had been identified, certified, and could be easily proven.

Ford ordered us to halt all efforts in that regard.  In reference to the Watergate scandal and the Nixon resignation, Ford said “the nation has been through enough”.  Thus did Ford save the nation further political turmoil.  However, he did so at the cost of handing over the Oval Office to Jimmy Carter.  Nuff said.  Doing what is honorable doesn’t always lead to honorable results.

I can honestly testify that I have seen almost no election in which fraud and theft were not involved.  The struggle for power often brings out the very worst in people.

Vote chicanery is widespread and relentless.  That Alabama candidate was being pragmatic in insisting he be allowed to sit and watch those uncounted ballots throughout the night.  Knowing Phenix City politics as I came to know it, and knowing Democrat politics in today’s real world, the chances of those uncounted ballots having be subject to tampering was beyond huge…almost a certainty.

All this brings us to ACORN.

While I’m not a big fan of Glenn Beck, I will readily concede he has done the nation a great service in his tracking down serious questions about ACORN and its activity.

Of course, ACORN has been indicted, prosecuted, and accused of wrong doing in more than a dozen states.  From experience, I’d be willing to bet a handsome amount ACORN is far guiltier than has been charged, and involved in violations in far more states.

ACORN is a big time Obama ally.  In fact, Obama has been very intimately involved with this group.  We can only speculate how much he may know about the “funny money” shuffling of dollars in a former funeral home in New Orleans.  Political  corruption in New Orleans makes Phenix City seem as simple as a Kindergarten. 

Anyone closely familiar with real world politics is also skeptical of a census data gathering in which ACORN is a major player.  Census results determines the lines of Congressional Districts, and Gerrymandering is an old political game.  Personally, I have no doubt that ACORN involvement will produce a census report that will be corrupts as hell. 

To make matters worse, the White House has decided to take over control of the 2010 Census process.  This means very partisan Democrat politicians will be directing and controlling a very serious government process in which a very openly corrupt organization is charged with collecting the data.   Based on ACORN’s voter registration result, we can expect a large population of Mickey Mouses to be counted within the American population and counted again and again.

Let me cut to the bottom line: a Census process run by White House partisans using ACORN workers, will be as predictably corrupt as that vote count would probably have been fifty year ago in Phenix City.

That is a fact.  That is reality.

Unfortunately, we don’t havd a determined old man or a chair in which he could sit and watch over uncounted ballots.  He could have assured an honest count.

Given what is involved in next year’s Census, America has no such assurance – in fact it  has no such likelihood.  At all.

Buddy

The day’s top Blogs:

1.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Furor-grows-over-partisan-car-dealer-closings-46261447.html

Furor grows over partisan car dealer closings
Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor

Evidence appears to be mounting that the Obama administration has systematically targeted for closing Chrysler dealers who contributed to Repubicans.

What started earlier this week as mainly a rumbling on the Right side of the Blogosphere has gathered some steam today with revelations that among the dealers being shut down are a GOP congressman and closing of competitors to a dealership chain partly owned by former Clinton White House chief of staff Mack McLarty.

The basic issue raised here is this: How do we account for the fact millions of dollars were contributed to GOP candidates by Chrysler dealers who are being closed by the government, but only one has been found so far that is being closed that contributed to the Obama campaign in 2008?

Florida Rep. Vern Buchanan learned from a House colleague that his Venice, Florida, dealership is on the hit list. Buchanan also has a Nissan franchise paired with the Chrysler facility in Venice.

"It's an outrage. It's not about me. I'm going to be fine," said Buchanan, the dealership's majority owner. "You're talking over 100,000 jobs. We're supposed to be in the business of creating jobs, not killing jobs," Buchanan told News 10, a local Florida television station.

Buchanan, who succeeded former Rep. Katharine Harris in 2006, reportedly learned of his dealership's termination from Rep.Candace Miller, R-MI. Buchanan owns a total of 23 dealerships in Florida and North Carolina.

Also fueling the controversy is the fact the RLJ-McCarty-Landers chain of Arkansas and Missouri dealerships aren't being closed, but many of their local competitors are being eliminated. Go here for a detailed look at this situation. McClarty is the former Clinton senior aide. The "J" is Robert Johnson, founder of the Black Entertainment Television, a heavy Democratic contributor.

A lawyer representing a group of  Chrysler dealers who are on the hit list deposed senior Chrysler executives and later told Reuters that he believes the closings have been forced on the company by the White House.

"It became clear to us that Chrysler does not see the wisdom of terminating 25 percent of its dealers. It really wasn't Chrysler's decision. They are under enormous pressure from the President's automotive task force," said attorney Leonard Bellavia.

RedState.com's Josh Painter has a useful roundup of what has been found so far by a growing number of bloggers digging into what could be a very big story indeed. Also, see my column on this issue and how it fits into the larger context dubbed by the Examiner's Michael Barone as "gangster government."
As part of Chrysler's bankruptcy agreement with the White House, the company plans to close roughly a quarter of its 3,200 dealerships.  Lists of the dealerships being cut and those retaining their Chrysler franchises can be found here in pdf format.

Many dealers contend the criteria being used to determine which dealerships survive is not clear and that many of those that are being closed in fact are profitable businesses, despite the current recession.

  Unreal. After Weeding Out Dealers Chrysler Looking To Open New Dealerships
More Hope and Change...

** Earlier it was reported that the Obama Administration may have targeted GOP donors in deciding which Chrysler dealerships would have to close their doors.

** Last night it was discovered that a Big Dem Donor Group was allowed to keep all 6 Chrysler dealerships open.... And, their local competitors were eliminated.

** The Auto Task Force, which includes Obama cabinet members, is reportedly calling the shots on which dealerships will close and stay open.

** The closings in several instances appear to benefit Dem donating dealers where local GOP-linked dealerships were closed.

** Even Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla) lost his Chrysler dealership in Florida and found out from a colleague on the House floor.

** Lithia Motor Group's owners gave $15,000 to two Democrat candidates and support nationalized healthcare. They will likely lose just two of 29 dealerships and gain 5 more.
** One report claims the odds that these Chrysler closings occurred without partisan bias are less than 1%.

(NOTE: We must concede evidence suggesting political payback is involved in the dealership cancellations, but the burden of proof has substantially shifted.  There is more than a little evidence what most of America would see as “Chicagoo-type” Democrat party politics is at work.  If this scandal is not refuted and refuted effectively, it may result in scandal that makes Watergate a matter of small potatoes.)

Now this...

Automotive News is reporting that Chrysler is already looking to open new franchises after closing 789 dealerships.

Chrysler did more last week than thin the dealer ranks in clogged metro markets. Chrysler also took out some underperforming dealers, leaving some good smaller markets without any Chrysler stores.

Chrysler President Jim Press said the company will be back in those markets.

Chrysler has been managing its dealer count downward in overdealered metro markets, a program called Project Genesis.
Of course, several of the dealerships that were closed had owners who happened to donate to Republicans and a number of these businesses were profitable "5 Star" dealerships.

By the way... Here is a look at a few of the players on the Obama Auto Task Force who are calling the shots on the Chrysler dealership closings:

The task force, headed by investment banker Steven Rattner, is comprised of Cabinet members and Obama administration officials who have extensive backgrounds in finance. They include Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson.

No wonder they're closing the GOP-linked dealerships.

2.

The Liars Club
Bruce Walker

The unfolding spectacle of Speaker Pelosi attending a briefing, in which the CIA of informed her of enhanced interrogation techniques, and then lying about it, is part of the grave danger to our democracy.  The Left is shrinking honesty into an empty, ignored, and mocked virtue.  Pelosi is not just lying about being at a vital briefing; she has decided that the best defense is a good offense:  accuse the CIA of misleading Congress and, particularly, her.  This is much worse than simply holding the wrong policy on issues. 

Mike Mansfield often held very wrong positions on issues, but he never lied to America or to his colleagues.  The Left, when it had men like Mike Mansfield, Eugene McCarthy, and Hubert Humphrey valued honesty.   When the Left stood for something more important than the personal gain of power, wealth, or fame, Leftists were willing to tell the truth even when it hurt them politically.

Freedom of speech is most important when the speech is unwelcome.   People require no legal protection for saying what is popular. They require protection for saying what angers people.  But the Left cares nothing at all about freedom and it cares even less about truth.

(NOTE: “Lying politician” is a phrase we once used only with a hint of humor.  No longer.  Liberals today have removed the humor, yet the anger most certainly remains.)

Nancy Pelosi is lying and she is compounding that offense by lying about lying.  The man who might have led the Democrats, "Pretty Boy" John Edwards looked at reporters and the American people and flatly, boldly lied to us. Bill Clinton did almost exactly the same thing when he flatly and indignantly denied having sex with Monica Lewinsky.  The affair itself was sordid, childish, selfish, and sleazy, but the affair was a peccadillo.  The grand crime was lying. 

Recall what the Left said about his lying then?  Stuff like this:  "Lying is sometimes good," "It is healthy to lie," and "Well, virtually all of us lie."  John Edwards was the Vice Presidential Nominee for the Democrats in 2004 and one of the leading contenders for the nomination in 2008.  Bill Clinton was elected president twice.  Honored members of the Liars Club.

Does anyone believe that Barack Obama's Chief of Staff knew nothing about Blago's auctioning the Illinois Senate seat?  Emanuel and Obama initially said that neither had any conservations with the ex-Governor about whom to support to fill Obama's seat.  Did that make any sense?  Why would he have not talked with Blago? But as soon as the seat-selling scandal broke, Obama and his top aide denied any contact.  Then, it transpired, that Emanuel did, indeed, visit with Blago.  Later it turns out that Emanuel had multiple" conservatives with Blago.  The president and his Chief of Staff, before even taking office, were lying.

The moral disease seems rampant in the Left.  Joe Biden, repeatedly, has said that a drunk driver killed his wife and child.  There was virtually no evidence of alcohol by the other driver in the crash and, in fact, there was evidence that the crash was caused by he wife, not the poor wretch condemned to be the straw man for one of Biden's favorite lies.

John Kerry offered phony claims to recall spending Christmas on a gunboat in Cambodia in 1968 under President Nixon:  perhaps in an alternative, Bizarro universe; even those men who served with Kerry on swift boats and who supported him said, well, no, we were never in Cambodia, and Richard Nixon, of course, was not president in December 1968.

Al Gore, well, where to begin?  He began to confront the tobacco companies forcefully after his sister died from lung cancer. (That same month, he got a $1,000 speaking fee from U.S. Tobacco; he voted against raising taxes on tobacco three times after that and even supported discounted tobacco; he campaigned in 1988, four years after his sister's death, bragging about his work in planting and cultivating tobacco.)  He authored the Earned Income Credit (although the bill became law in 1975, two years before he was entered Congress.)

This list goes on and it is depressingly familiar.  Leftist Democrats simply lie about everything that they think will help them politically and that they think they can get away with.  The Liars Party (also, to an amazing degree, the Lawyers Party) does not care about any of the policies which it professes to advocate (Why, for example, would Gore be deeply involved in the tobacco industry if he thought it was bad?  Why would Edwards have a profoundly hurtful affair behind the back of his dying wife unless all his blathering about the rights of women was just vote-getting flattery?  Or why would Clinton and his wife defend him from all the women who accused him of acting like precisely the sort of most who they argue the federal government should do more about?  If Pelosi cared about water boarding as "torture," then she should have sought all she could and done all she could in 2002 -- even she acknowledges she was either truly ignorant or too profoundly indifferent to research or to act.)

Members of the Liars Club do not even merit the dubious honor of being called Leftist ideologues.  They are simply utterly selfish and profoundly amoral liars who view the moral conscience and fidelity to truth of conservatives as more dangerous to them as any notions of market theory, natural rights, or rule of law.

The rhetoric of the Liars Club means nothing -- nothing at all.  Barney Frank, when he lied about the Republicans passing a bill to reform the banking industry before Frank became a committee chair in 2007 -- which Barney Frank voted against! -- did not care about the truth.  He cares about power.  In a democracy in which the mainstream media actively conceals the lies of the Left, then the Liars Club are vindicated:  dishonesty is the best policy.

3.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/24/on-offense-cheney-scores-points/

On offense, Cheney scores points
Donald Lambro (Contact)

Former Vice President Dick Cheney's sweeping indictment of administration policy changes on the handling of terrorism-suspect detainees has thrown President Obama on the defensive and scored points for the vice president and his party, according to pollsters and political analysts.

While Mr. Cheney has come under increasing fire from Democrats for charging that Mr. Obama's policies have made the country more vulnerable to future terrorist attacks, polls show a majority of Americans side with him on using aggressive interrogation methods on high value al Qaeda prisoners and are against moving them from the detention facility at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to maximum-security facilities in the U.S.

"Cheney's critical comments in recent weeks and the Senate vote against funds for closing Guantanamo did put the president on the defensive and led to his speech" defending his national security policies, said Thomas Mann, a presidential scholar at the liberal Brookings Institution.
That speech occurred on the same day Mr. Cheney delivered a blistering speech of his own in defense of the Bush administration policies that he helped to shape and that he said had kept the nation safe in the wake of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

(NOTE: Cheney clearly had the edge in fact and truth in the exchange.  Intervening discussions and evaluations of the two speeches continue awarding the victory to the former Vice President.  Obama has his back to the wall, and liberals trying to take his side either don’t get it, or are choosing to misunderstand or misstate the issue itself.  Among other things, defenders of the President’s plan to bring the terrorists to detention in this country, are compelled to overlook a distinct possibility – some left wing judge, sometime in the future, just might decide these terrorists should not be jailed – letting them loose into America’s own population.  That possibility should end the discussion.)

Mr. Cheney's aggressive, nonstop criticism of the White House's actions, beginning with Mr. Obama's ban on harsh interrogation techniques such as waterboarding, have unleashed a wave of attacks from his liberal critics. It has also won him praise from his party's conservative base and, according to polls, support for his positions among independent voters that the GOP needs if it is to make a political comeback in future elections.

"I have tested the message and the message clearly helps Republicans," said Whit Ayres, a pollster for Resurgent Republic, a GOP advocacy group. A poll he conducted May 11 to 14 found voters supported "harsh interrogation" of al Qaeda prisoners by a 19-point margin, 53 percent to 34 percent - including 53 percent support among independents.

A similarly "strong majority believes the Guantanamo Base prison helps protect America, rather than undermines our moral authority. Independents are, again, much more like Republicans than Democrats on this issue," Mr. Ayres said in a report on his poll's findings.

"The challenge for Republicans now is winning back independents who abandoned Republicans in droves in 2006 and 2008. This helps persuade independents that their values are most closely aligned with Republicans than with Democrats," he said.

While Mr. Cheney has been a constant Democratic target of derision for his outspoken criticism of Mr. Obama's policies on terrorism, polls show his low approval ratings have begun to rise lately. A CNN poll conducted last week found that 55 percent still view the former vice president unfavorably, but 37 percent now have a favorable impression of him, up eight points since January.

"Vice President Cheney has been the target of every media, from mainstream to comic. But he spoke today as before without regard to politics, but with abiding respect for the truth. His address today was direct, well-reasoned and convincing," former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said Thursday.
Nevertheless, some of his supporters say he remains a divisive figure who can undercut the effectiveness of his role as a critic of administration policies.

"He is very effective and well-received in the Republican red states that voted for John McCain, but at the same time he is a polarizing figure, and in the larger universe of American politics you are either going to like him or hate him," said Republican media strategist Ron Bonjean, a former communications adviser to the Republican leadership in Congress.

"But right now, Cheney's message and his constituency is paying off and making Obama look extremely weak on fighting terrorism," Mr. Bonjean said.

Still, Republican leaders in some of the key swing states that will be critical to the GOP's future were cautious in their comments last week about Mr. Cheney's effectiveness as a party messenger.
"I don't think there is anything wrong about his speaking up and speaking out when he thinks policies will weaken our national security. I don't find any fault in that," said Florida Republican state Chairman Jim Greer.

"At the same time, I don't believe the American public, including many Republicans, want to revisit the past and the decisions that were made and why they were made," Mr. Greer said. Rebuilding the party is "going to require that we talk about the future and not the past."

Mr. Mann, of the Brookings Institution, thinks that "Cheney's argument is with Bush, not Obama, and his charge that Obama is making Americans less safe from terrorists is unsupported by the evidence," and that the president will eventually "get his way with [closing] Guantanamo" and moving its prisoners elsewhere.

But the overwhelming House and Senate vote, including most Democrats, against closing the facility if it means moving detainees into the U.S. suggests Mr. Cheney and the Republicans have turned it into a winning issue for the GOP and a major setback for the president.

Meanwhile, a key former adviser to Mr. Cheney, says he has no intention of folding his tent and going into retirement anytime soon, as long as he feels Mr. Obama's policies will endanger the country's security. A major objective for him will be to force the administration to release key intelligence memos he says will show that aggressive interrogation methods were effective in producing valuable information that kept Americans safe from terrorist plots.

"As long as you engage the country in the policy debate, then people have a choice. This is why he is going to stay on this, advocating releasing the effectiveness memos," said former Cheney adviser Mary Matalin.

"You can't play politics with national security. This is all about policy for Cheney and the Republicans, moving forward on those policies. It has everything to do with getting back from where we never should have strayed. That's why he's spoken up," Mrs. Matalin said.

"Obama's clearly on the defensive here. He turned this into a values fight. This is not about moral relativism. Evil people want to kill innocents. Wanting to defend ourselves is not an abrogation of our values," she said.

As last week's war of words wound down on Friday, the president's press secretary Robert Gibbs said Mr. Obama didn't have any particular problem with Mr. Cheney's speaking out on the national security issues he believes are important.

Still, he added, the president will not "shy away" from further debate on the issue.

Thursday's Web

The day’s top political news:

Stimulus projects bypass hard-hit states

States hit hardest by the recession received only a few of the government's first stimulus contracts, even though the glut of new federal spending was meant to target places where the economic pain has been particularly severe.

Nationwide, federal agencies have awarded nearly $4 billion in contracts to help jump-start the economy since President Obama signed the massive stimulus package in February. But, with few exceptions, that money has not reached states where the unemployment rate is highest, according to a USA TODAY review of contracts disclosed through the Federal Procurement Data System.

In Michigan, for example — where years of economic tumult and a collapsing domestic auto industry have produced the nation's worst unemployment rate — federal agencies have spent about $2 million on stimulus contracts, or 21 cents per person. In Oregon, where unemployment is almost as high, they have spent $2.12 per capita, far less than the nationwide average of nearly $13.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-05-27-contracts_N.htm

Top Obama administration officials are close to recommending that Congress create a single regulator to oversee the entire banking sector, people familiar with the matter said, a departure from the hodgepodge of federal agencies that failed to contain the financial crisis as it ballooned out of control last year.

The new agency is expected to be a major plank in a proposal that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and White House officials send Capitol Hill in a few weeks with the goal of overhauling supervision of financial markets.

The new bank regulatory agency could prove controversial because it would consolidate the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision and strip supervisory powers from the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

The Fed and the FDIC would gain other powers, though, as White House officials want the Fed to be able to oversee systemic risks in the economy. They also want the FDIC to have new powers to take large financial companies that aren't banks into receivership.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124347634088461159.html

Sonia Sotomayor -- a member of the racist, and separtist group 'La Raza'

As President Obama's Supreme Court nominee comes under heavy fire for allegedly being a "racist," Judge Sonia Sotomayor is listed as a member of the National Council of La Raza, a group that's promoted driver's licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police.

Meaning "the Race," La Raza also has connections to groups that advocate the separation of several southwestern states from the rest of America.

Over the past two days, Sotomayor has been heavily criticized for her racially charged statement: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99420

Opinion:
Have no illusions about the Supreme Court and the Obama selection

Make no mistake about it – Obama could, if he wished, nominate a ham sandwich and get it confirmed by the Senate.  That’s what dominating numbers mean in an easily understood sense.

His nominee, Sotomayor has made obviously racist comments and has  ruled in a racist manner in at least one case – the one involving fire fighters who were penalized in terms of promotions, because they are white.

It doesn’t matter.

Sotomayor has become an icon for Hispanics, and Hispanic voting power is increasing.  (And this doesn’t count the illegal aliens Democrats will manage to use in schemes based on fraud, deceit and outright theft).

Attack Sotomayor and you seen as attacking Hispanics generally by many.  Sotomayor may be a racist, but she is discriminating against a demographic group no  one will defend: White males.  It they are White males who are Christian and from a Southern State, they are even more fair game when it comes to discrimination and racism.

None of this really plays into the current Supreme Court discussions.  Democrats have the numbers to do what they wish in both the House and the Senate, and, of course, the Obama White House will be a co conspirator in whatever they do.

So dominating is Democrat power on the Hill these days, they are even discussing an imposition of a national sales tax.  Democrats brush off condemnation of their tax scheme by saying “most European countries have one”.  Huh?  Who cares what Europe does, its decline into largely irrelevant status is not a path many Americans would want as a blue print for our future.

The Democrat tax is a “Value Added” scheme.  It is also one more case in which we find Obama has lied to the American people.  It’s hardly the first time.

Forget his solemn pledge of “Americans making less than $250,000, will not see a dime’s increase in their taxes”.  Even in the cynical world of politics, that ranks as a whopper.

Already in the wings is the so-called “cap and trade” scheme that will be a major tax for every American using energy or products based on coal.  The VAT is just another tax and count on its not being the last time we learn Obama’s “not one dime” pledge is a conscious bald faced lie.

But, back to the Supreme Court process.

Republicans are quite powerless to stop or even slow the Sotomayor locomotive.  There’s even worse news for normal America – should some miracle defeat Sotomayor’s nomination, whoever Obama chooses as a replacement will be every bit as bad or maybe worse, than she.  Obama will not choose a Justice normal America can honestly support.  Count on any and all Obama nominations to come from a list of extreme left wing candidates.  They will all be confirmed unless American voters rise up, reflect the anger and fury demonstrated by the tea party protests, and organize to elect enough Republicans to the Senate to become able to put a stopper in the bathtub of left wing extremism that the Obama era represents.

The fact that many of us can turn to those who thought it would be nice to elect someone as novel as Obama to the presidency, and say “I told you so” – doesn’t help a bit. 

Shortly, an additional web site will be going up with a goal of focusing the tea party sentiment on pragmatic political goals and objectives.

Americans can become active in such a movement, or they can simply shrug helplessly, and sit on the sidelines and watch the Obama government’s drastic surge to the left go unchallenged.

Buddy

The day’s top blogs:

1.

Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look
Levy Viewed as Way to Reduce Deficits, Fund Health Reform
Lori Montgomery

With budget deficits soaring and President Obama pushing a trillion-dollar-plus expansion of health coverage, some Washington policymakers are taking a fresh look at a money-making idea long considered politically taboo: a national sales tax.

Common around the world, including in Europe, such a tax -- called a value-added tax, or VAT -- has not been seriously considered in the United States. But advocates say few other options can generate the kind of money the nation will need to avert fiscal calamity.

(NOTE: Thus, for Democrat politicians, this is the best of all worlds.  The can bring us spending that reaches new heights, plus thus provide justification for new taxes.   We have seen Democrat salivating over the tax increase scam represented by the so-called “cap and trade” scheme.  Even more attractive is an opportunity to impose the VAT.  They defend the outrageous suggestion by noting most all European nations have such a tax.  That sort of absurd reasoning is now running things in Washington – especially on Capitol Hill.)

At a White House conference earlier this year on the government's budget problems, a roomful of tax experts pleaded with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner to consider a VAT. A recent flurry of books and papers on the subject is attracting genuine, if furtive, interest in Congress. And last month, after wrestling with the White House over the massive deficits projected under Obama's policies, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee declared that a VAT should be part of the debate.

"There is a growing awareness of the need for fundamental tax reform," Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said in an interview. "I think a VAT and a high-end income tax have got to be on the table."

A VAT is a tax on the transfer of goods and services that ultimately is borne by the consumer. Highly visible, it would increase the cost of just about everything, from a carton of eggs to a visit with a lawyer. It is also hugely regressive, falling heavily on the poor. But VAT advocates say those negatives could be offset by using the proceeds to pay for health care for every American -- a tangible benefit that would be highly valuable to low-income families.

Liberals dispute that notion. "You could pay for it regressively and have people at the bottom come out better off -- maybe. Or you could pay for it progressively and they'd come out a lot better off," said Bob McIntyre, director of the nonprofit Citizens for Tax Justice, which has a health financing plan that targets corporations and the rich.

A White House official said a VAT is "unlikely to be in the mix" as a means to pay for health-care reform. "While we do not want to rule any credible idea in or out as we discuss the way forward with Congress, the VAT tax, in particular, is popular with academics but highly controversial with policymakers," said Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for White House Budget Director Peter Orszag.
Still, Orszag has hired a prominent VAT advocate to advise him on health care: Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and author of the 2008 book "Health Care, Guaranteed." Meanwhile, former Federal Reserve chairman Paul A. Volcker, chairman of a task force Obama assigned to study the tax system, has expressed at least tentative support for a VAT.

"Everybody who understands our long-term budget problems understands we're going to need a new source of revenue, and a VAT is an obvious candidate," said Leonard Burman, co-director of the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, who testified on Capitol Hill this month about his own VAT plan. "It's common to the rest of the world, and we don't have it."

Seeking New Revenue

The surge of interest in a VAT is testament to the extraordinary depth of the nation's money troubles.

While some conservatives have long argued that a consumption tax would provide a simpler and more efficient alternative to the byzantine U.S. income tax code, this time it's all about the money.

The federal budget deficit is projected to approach $1.3 trillion next year, the highest ever except for this year, when the deficit is forecast to exceed $1.8 trillion. The Treasury is borrowing 46 cents of every dollar it spends, largely from China and other foreign creditors, who are growing increasingly uneasy about the security of their investments. Unless Congress comes up with some serious cash, expanding the nation's health-care system will only add to the problem.

Obama wants to raise income taxes for high earners and impose new levies on business, but those moves would not generate enough cash to cover the cost of health care, much less balance the budget, and they have not been fully embraced by Congress. Obama's plan to tax greenhouse-gas emissions could raise trillions of dollars, but again, Congress is balking.

Key lawmakers are considering other ways to pay for health reform, including new taxes on sugary soda, alcohol and employer-provided health insurance. The last proposal could raise a lot of money -- nearly $1 trillion over the next five years, according to White House budget documents. But options on the table would raise a fraction of that sum. And while it might pay for health care, it would barely dent deficits projected to total nearly $4 trillion over the next five years and to grow rapidly in the future, as baby boomers draw on Social Security and Medicare.

Enter the VAT, one of the world's most popular taxes, in use in more than 130 countries. Among industrialized nations, rates range from 5 percent in Japan to 25 percent in Hungary and in parts of Scandinavia. A 21 percent VAT has permitted Ireland to attract investment by lowering its corporate tax rate.

The VAT has advantages: Because producers, wholesalers and retailers are each required to record their transactions and pay a portion of the VAT, the tax is hard to dodge. It punishes spending rather than savings, which the administration hopes to encourage. And the threat of a VAT could pull the country out of recession, some economists argue, by hurrying consumers to the mall before the tax hits.

A VAT's Bottom Line

What would it cost? Emanuel argues in his book that a 10 percent VAT would pay for every American not entitled to Medicare or Medicaid to enroll in a health plan with no deductibles and minimal copayments. In his 2008 book, "100 Million Unnecessary Returns," Yale law professor Michael J. Graetz estimates that a VAT of 10 to 14 percent would raise enough money to exempt families earning less than $100,000 -- about 90 percent of households -- from the income tax and would lower rates for everyone else.

And in a paper published last month in the Virginia Tax Review, Burman suggests that a 25 percent VAT could do it all: Pay for health-care reform, balance the federal budget and exempt millions of families from the income tax while slashing the top rate to 25 percent. A gallon of milk would jump from $3.69 to $4.61, and a $5,000 bathroom renovation would suddenly cost $6,250, but the nation's debt would stabilize and everybody could see a doctor.

Sales Tax Gains Momentum

Burman, who helped House Democrats craft an unsuccessful 2007 plan to repeal the alternative minimum tax, said he's received a number of phone calls from lawmakers interested in his idea, though "they can't quite imagine how to make it happen politically." Burman said the 25 percent rate has caused some sticker shock, and he's trying to figure out how to bring it down.

Graetz's proposal drew an endorsement from Volcker, who last year called it "a sensible plan for reform." (Volcker did not respond to a request for comment.) It also has piqued the interest of Conrad, the Senate Budget Committee chairman who argues that it could be modified to accommodate Obama's pledge not to raise taxes on families who make less than $200,000 a year.

"I think interest is quietly picking up," Graetz said. "People are beginning to recognize that the mathematics of the current system are just unsustainable. You have to do something. And a VAT has got to be on the table if you want to do something big and serious."

Still, the Senate Finance Committee declined to include a VAT among the options it is considering to pay for health reform. And even VAT supporters doubt the tax will find a place among the tax-reform proposals the Volcker panel has been asked to produce by Dec. 4.

Though the nation's fiscal outlook is grim, Burman said "the situation will have to get more desperate" before lawmakers are likely to consider a new levy aimed directly at the pocketbooks of every one of their constituents.

Most lawmakers are still looking for "a painless source of revenue" to overhaul the health-care system and dig the nation out of debt, Burman said. "Who knows?" he added. "Maybe the tooth fairy will bring that to them."

2.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/27/a-judge-too-far/print/
 
EDITORIAL: A judge too far
 
With his nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the U.S. Supreme Court, President Obama has abandoned all pretense of being a post-partisan president. While he may like to think of himself as a thoughtful moderate soaring above the issues that divide America, his actions reveal what hides under that hopeful lining.

Presidents usually nominate judges that espouse their philosophy. So what does this nomination tell us about Mr. Obama's true colors?

Even the liberal establishment worries that Judge Sotomayor tilts too far to the left. New Republic essayist Jeffrey Rosen reports that fellow liberals who have watched or worked with her closely "expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and... [they have said] she is 'not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench.' "

A suspiciously high number of her decisions have been overruled by higher courts. Wendy Long of the Judicial Confirmation Network said that record shows "she is far more of a liberal activist than even the current liberal activist Supreme Court."

There will be much to say in days to come about Judge Sotomayor's manifest lack of appropriate judicial restraint and about other problems in her record. For now, though, three red flags beg for attention.

Speaking at Duke University Law School in 2005, Judge Sotomayor said the "Court of Appeals is where policy is made." On its face, the assertion runs counter to more than 200 years of American legal tradition holding that courts are merely meant to interpret existing law, not actively make policy choices.
 
Immediately realizing she was on thin ice, the judge continued: ". . . and I know this is on tape and I should never say that, because we don't 'make' law." To much laughter, and with facial and hand gestures to indicate that her next line was to be taken with humor as a useful fiction, she added: "I'm not promoting it and I'm not advocating it."

But judicial activism is no joke. It undermines the Constitution and substitutes judicial whim for democratic decision-making. Unelected judges, answerable to no one but themselves and serving for life, can all too easily become dangerous oligarchs.

Judge Sotomayor seems to think that inherent racial and sexual differences are not simply quirks of genetics, but make some better than others. Consider her 2002 speech at the University of California-Berkeley School of Law.

"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," she said. "I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."

She also accepted as potentially valid the idea that the "different perspectives" of "men and women of color" are due to "basic differences in logic in reasoning" due to "inherent physiological or cultural differences."

If a white male had said these openly racialist words in a prepared speech, his chances of reaching the U.S. Supreme Court would be gone in an instant. Instead, it seems that these outlandish remarks are what qualified Judge Sotomayor in Mr. Obama's eyes.

Judge Sotomayor seems to favor racial discrimination. Consider the case of Ricci v. DeStefano. In that controversial case, 19 white firemen were denied promotion because no blacks scored high enough on a race-neutral test to also be promoted. Judge Sotomayor ruled against the white firefighters.

(NOTE: Racism and discrimination are judged alright IF aimed at White males.  If those White Males are overtly Christian, or from the South, there are no limits at all to the discrimination the establishment and the media will accept.  They will laugh and applaud.)

If Mr. Obama wanted a judge with the right "empathy," he struck out with Judge Sotomayor. One of the white firefighters denied promotion, Frank Ricci, is dyslexic. In order to ace the promotion exam, he quit a second job, spent $1,000 for instruction materials, and spent many hours reading those books into an audio tape to help him study. For his extraordinary efforts, he finished sixth out of 77 applicants for promotion - but then was denied, simply because he is white.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jose Cabranes, appointed by a Democratic president, complained that the ruling written by Judge Sotomayor and two other judges "contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case."

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on Ricci v. DeStefano before the Senate votes on Judge Sotomayor's nomination. It would be an extraordinary rebuke were a current nominee to be overruled on such a controversial case by the very justices she is slated to join.

Judge Sotomayor seems to be the most radical person ever nominated for the high court. To continue to command public respect, the Senate will have to ask her some hard questions. The simplest one to ask will be the hardest one for her to answer: Given her statements against whites and males, can she be fair to all Americans?

3.
 
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/05/27/here-comes-the-internet-tax

Here Comes the Internet Tax
Brett Joshpe

What is the single modern invention most responsible for enhancing peoples' freedom and standard of living across the world? Arguably, it is the Internet. Yet, Democrats from revenue-starved states and Congress are proposing to make it less free by taxing Internet commerce. (Content regulation should be coming soon to a screen near you.)

This should not come as a terrible surprise. After all, the Internet was just too good, too free, too easy, too innovative, and too favorable to small businesses for government to stay away. So now, several states, and Congress, are considering laws that would require online retailers to collect state and local taxes from online consumers.

(NOTE: The Internet is the only source for news that can escape passing through a liberal filter.  No wonder Democrats are so anxous to reel it in.  Of course, whenever they are stumped for a plan through which to solve a problem, Democrats have a consistent idea – create a new tax, or raise those already in place.)

New York was the first state to pass such a law last year in defiance of the 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Quill v. North Dakota, which held that retailers must have a physical presence within a state for that state to require sales tax collection. The decision, which was based upon the dormant commerce clause doctrine -- which essentially says that Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce implicitly denies such power to the states -- upheld a bright line physical presence test. It also held that only Congress, through legislation, could delegate broader powers to the states.

New York's legislation attempted to end run around Quill by requiring online retailers to collect state and local sales tax if they had affiliate advertisers within the state. (It depends on what the meaning of physical presence is?) Affiliate advertisers basically consist of websites, often run by small businesses or organizations like the Parent Teacher’s Association, that carry advertisements from other online retailers, like Overstock.com or Amazon.com. As a result of the massive administrative costs that the law would have imposed, Overstock.com immediately terminated its relationship with approximately 3,400 affiliates. Jonathan Johnson, Overstock.com's president, explained that "New York’s law made the cost of doing business with affiliates based in New York prohibitively high."

Overstock.com and Amazon are now litigating the constitutionality of the New York law before the New York Appellate Division, but other states are considering passing similar laws in order to generate more tax revenue. Thus far, opponents have succeeded in defeating these proposals in many states where they have been proposed, although the Hawaii and Minnesota legislatures recently passed Internet sales tax bills that still must be signed into law. However, the real fight appears headed for Congress, where proposed legislation would allow states that are part of the Streamlined Sales Tax Project (designed to simplify state tax collection) to force online retailers to collect state sales tax.

As part of the growing co-dependency of big government and big business, the National Federation of Retailers supports the tax, since it would significantly burden pesky online competitors who provide consumers with lower priced products. And proponents of the proposed federal law argue that it would not significantly increase the burden of online retailers to collect state and local taxes. However, despite the Streamlined Sales Tax Project, online retailers could still be forced to collect taxes under thousands of separate tax regimes -- something that would be technologically difficult and very expensive for many smaller online businesses.

Currently, consumers who purchase online products are required in many cases to report those purchases and pay sales tax on their own. Of course, most do not. And the high rate of non-compliance should raise questions about the entire sales tax regime as it exists, especially
vis-à-vis the Internet, which has been a boon for smaller businesses and consumers.

It is simply too administratively burdensome to require businesses to become agents for local and state tax collectors all across the country. Similarly, it is as ridiculous to expect consumers to monitor and report online purchases as it is to expect babysitters to report their income to the IRS.

If the government wants to impose a sales tax on consumers who purchase products online, there is a simple, fair, and efficient way of doing so: pass a federal FAIR Tax law that establishes a uniform consumption tax rate in place of the current income tax regime. Doing so would balance administrative feasibility with the need for government revenue, without destroying incentives to do business.

That, however, is not happening in the current political environment. They always say freedom isn't free. Lawmakers throughout the

Brett Joshpe is co-author, along with S.E. Cupp, of the recent book, Why You''re Wrong About the Right: Behind the Myths: The Surprising Truth About Conservatives (Simon & Schuster). Mr. Joshpe also founded Students for Protecting America while attending Harvard Law School, an organization that supported the war in Iraq. He currently serves as general counsel of the American Civics Exchange.

4.

New details emerge...Bigshot Democrat Mack McLarty's competition deep sixed.  The developing scandal that could demolish the Obama administration.
 
More evidence emerges that Chrysler Dealer closings was politically motivated
Rick Moran

I wrote yesterday of the possibility that Chrysler dealers who had been given the ax were disproportionately Republican - many of them large contributors to GOP candidates and the RNC.

Now comes more evidence that these dealer closings were politically motivated. Through Reliapundit at Astute Bloggers, we learn that the lawyer for the dealers being torpedoed believes that the closings were ordered not by Chrysler, but by the White House: (via Reuters )

A lawyer for Chrysler dealers facing closure as part of the automaker's bankruptcy reorganization said on Tuesday he believes Chrysler executives do not support a plan to eliminate a quarter of its retail outlets.

Lawyer Leonard Bellavia, of Bellavia Gentile & Associates, who represents some of the terminated dealers, said he deposed Chrysler President Jim Press on Tuesday and came away with the impression that Press did not support the plan.

"It became clear to us that Chrysler does not see the wisdom of terminating 25 percent of its dealers," Bellavia said. "It really wasn't Chrysler's decision. They are under enormous pressure from the President's automotive task force."

(NOTE: as an old time Democrat politician once admitted: “you cant take politics out of politics.  The Chrysler fiasco is politics, based on the data made available from studies looking at this issue.  So what?  It’s a clear reflection of the sort of strong arm politics that is common within the Chicago Democrat machine – the very machine that selected, groomed and successfully marketed Barack Obama.  This is obviously political payback.)

The dealer closings were not ordered by the bankruptcy judge but by the White House. This puts a whole new light on how the dealers to be closed were chosen and, more importantly, who did it.
And Jim Hoft has found an incredible piece of information. Apparently, a politically connected group of Democrats who own six Chrysler dealerships not only were allowed to keep them, but their competition was deep sixed. Hoft has a link to a blog on the Chrysler dealer shutdowns run by Joey Smith who reports:

The company is called RLJ-McLarty-Landers, and it operates six Chrysler dealerships throughout the South. All six dealerships are safe from closing. The dealer locations are:

Bentonville, AR (northwest Arkansas)
Lee's Summit, MO (south of Kansas City, MO)
Branson, MO
Olathe, KS (near Kansas City)
Bossier City, LA (near Shreveport)
Huntsville, AL

The interesting part is who the three main owners of the company are. The owners are Steve Landers (long-time car dealer, 4th-generation dealer), Thomas "Mack" McLarty (former Chief of Staff for President Clinton), and Robert Johnson (founder of Black Entertainment Television and co-owner of the NBA's Charlotte Bobcats). Landers has given money to Republicans in the past, but McLarty campaigned for Obama in 2008, and Johnson has given countless amounts of money to Democrats over the years.

This thing is getting stinkier by the hour. And it's starting to smell like rotten bananas - as in the tactic the White House is using is something you'd find in a central American banana republic and not the greatest nation on earth.

I wrote a piece on my own blog a while back when Chrysler dealer George Joseph wrote a letter published on AT about his own troubles with being shut down. In that piece, I made the argument that what we were seeing was not socialism, but gangsterism. And how did it happen?
It can happen because we are barking up the wrong tree when we accuse the Democrats of practicing socialism. Any Chicagoan recognizes what's going on as pure gangsterism - the application of power through the use blackmail, threats, and pure muscle and the devil take the Constitution, the rule of law, and simple fairness.

It can happen because we've elected a president who aggrandizes power unto himself while running roughshod over individual rights.

This story is about ready to explode. All the ingredients are there for a gigantic political scandal that would shake the Obama administration to its foundation and perhaps take down several high ranking officials. All that's needed is one connecting piece of evidence that would tie the White House Automotive Task Force to some political arm of the Democratic party.
Stay tuned...

   

 

Wednesdays' Web

The day’s top political news:

The push is on to confirm the first Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court.

The GOP faces an uphill battle in defeating the New York-born daughter of Puerto Rican parents, but Republicans are promising a thorough and perhaps lengthy hearing process that scrutinizes her record and judicial philosophy.

Sotomayor is an extreme left winger, based on her background and track record.  She is already taking shots for comments judged as being racist.

As extreme as Sotomayor is, normal America can expect little better from Obama – given  his personal philosophy and the raw domination of the Senate by liberal Democrats, an extreme left winger is a sure bet, no matter what happens.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090527/D98EID6G1.html

North Korea threatens military action against U.S. and South Korean warships plying the waters near the Koreas' disputed maritime border, raising the specter of a naval clash just days after the regime's underground nuclear test.

Pyongyang, reacting angrily to Seoul's decision to join an international program to intercept ships suspected of aiding nuclear proliferation, called the move tantamount to a declaration of war.

"Now that the South Korean puppets were so ridiculous as to join in the said racket and dare declare a war against compatriots," North Korea is "compelled to take a decisive measure," the Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of Korea said in a statement carried by state media.

Does this mean “MASH” will be resumed on over-the-air TV this fall?  It’s far more likely the N Korean saber rattling, nuke, and missile testing is no more than aggressive marketing – an attempt to attract buyers for its military technology from radical Islam and its terrorists.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090527/D98EKAHG0.html

A General Motors bankruptcy filing seemed inevitable after a rebellion by its bondholders forced it to withdraw on Wednesday a plan to swap bond debt for company stock.

GM has until Monday to complete a government-ordered restructuring that includes debt reduction, labor cost cuts and plant closures.

But a Chapter 11 reorganization is likely after the company said its offer to exchange $27 billion in unsecured debt for 10 percent of the company's stock had failed. GM has received $19.4 billion in federal loans.

John Pottow, a professor at the University of Michigan who specializes in bankruptcy, said GM evading bankruptcy now is almost impossible.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/30951032

Opinion:
“Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble” Shakespeare was five hundred years  or so early with the prediction of his three hags in “Macbeth”.

Today, normal America contemplates the vision of the hags and see the era of Obama.  This morning is a vantage point of pending historical magnitude.

Obama has made his first nomination for the Supreme Court.  As Republicans predicted during the campaign, it was a nomination that would send the Court farther to the left.  MUCH farther.

If you check a website for “extreme left wing fanatic” Sotomayor’s photo will abut the description.  She is the liberal’s liberal.  A Latina with a background of poverty who grew up in the  public housing liberals created. Those projects have become warrens of neglect and crowding, and seedbeds for left wing radicalism.

Sotomayor comes from that seedbed and seems to have never forgotten it.  Already You Tube carries tapes of her discussing activism by judges.  She airily jokes about legislating from the bench – a position conservatives find conflicting with constitutional aims and provisions.   She also sees a Hispanic woman as being superior in judgment to white males.   We need not spend time discussing how such a comment by a Republican nominee would be assaulted – and with gusto.

Sotomayor is a Justice such liberal cabals as the NY Times, would adore.  Correction: “WILL adore”.  Make no mistake about it – given the realities regarding the liberal Democrat domination of the Senate – Obama could get a ham sandwich approved as a justice to use a version of an old time parody.

Republicans haven’t the slightest shot at preventing her nomination and her ascension to the Court.  Given the health of the other woman on the court, Obama will get a second nomination in the not very distant future.  In both cases, we will have liberals replacing liberals, but it will be a case of VERY liberals replacing liberals.

Should one of the conservative members of the Court step down or be forced by health to leave, Obama will be able to radically change the nature of the court – and for decades to come. 

To think, many ridiculed suggestions of such corruption of the court when Republicans mentioned that issue during the campaign.

But this isn’t the total menu of our troubles today.

As if the financial chaos is not enough, we are seeing momentum building for bankrupting GM – an event pundits note will give the Obama government more than 60% ownership of what was once one of the most powerful corporations in the country.  Chrysler, of course, has already headed down that hill.

As Chrysler cuts hundreds of dealerships – forcing them into financial disaster, there are those on the Internet who are tracking the coincidence of dealerships cancelled by Chrysler, and dealers who contributed to Republican candidates last year.  I would suggest a “hmmmmm” is in order, but its not needed.  We all know too well what is afoot there.

As if these domestic crises are not enough, North Korea piles on, detonating a Hiroshima-like nuke and successfully firing some missile delivery systems.  While it is most likely N Korea is simply showing off its technological abilities for prospective weapons clients among those of radical Islamic supporters, Dictator Kim raises the bet one step higher by announcing in effect – the Korean War is resumed.

Of course, that war never ended officially --  even after “MASH” was camceled.  A potential for violent clashes are quite possible on the seas of the area.  The US and others have discussed a naval quarantine to prevent N Korean nuclear capabilities from being exported.

Even as Israel contemplates decisions to assure its survival of Iranian nuclear threats, it must now consider how N Korea’s demonstrated capabilities may affect the Middle East balance, and find options for confronting the new, implies, threat.

Double trouble? That’s an understatement.

Buddy

The day’s top blogs:

1.

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2009/05/26/why-you-should-oppose-sonia-sotomayors-nomination-to-the-supreme-court/

Why you should oppose Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court
Roger Kimball

Brace yourself. Take a Dramamine. You’ll be hearing about Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor ad nauseam in the coming weeks. Did I say “Sonia Sotomayor”? I meant, of course, “Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court.” It will be a constantly recurring epithet, like “swift-footed Achilles,” “gray-eyed Athena,” or (perhaps more to the point) “honest Iago.”

That Obama would nominate a female to succeed David Souter, who retires next month, was the unanimous opinion in scribe-osphere. And of course a minority female would be particular attractive to our politically correct president, even if this particular female minority was not the brightest bulb on the billboard. The air hadn’t stopped vibrating with the news that Justice Souter was taking his quill pen and heading back to New Hampshire before Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court, emerged as a front-runner on the SCOTUS racing form. Comments there noted her qualifications — correct complement of chromosomes and suitable ethnic identity, above all, but also the requisite armory of left-liberal opinions without which no candidate for the Court under Obama need apply.

There were also some reservations. Jeffrey Rosen, writing on May 4 in [1] The New Republic, for example, noted that “despite the praise from some of her former clerks, and warm words from some of her Second Circuit colleagues, there are also many reservations about Sotomayor.” Rosen mentioned Sotomayor’s temperament (hot) and her intelligence and legal competence (questionable). In short, in the wor ds of one observer, Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court, is “not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench.”

I don’t doubt it. But a lack of brains has never been an obstacle to legal preferment, and I see no reason to change our policy on that now. And as for being a bully: well, Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court, won’t be the first bully to don the black robes. Granted, it’s not pretty. It’s not desirable. But I don’t see that it is disqualifying.

No, I think we have to give her a pass on matters of temperament and general competence. Matters of basic judicial philosophy, on the other hand, are another question. Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court, believes that the job of judges is to make the law, not uphold it.

Don’t believe me? Look at [2] this clip from a 2005 symposium at Duke University. The Court of Appeals, said Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court, “is where policy is made.” She went on to note that she shouldn’t say that publicly — after all, cameras were rolling — but that, she said, was the truth of the matter. I hope that video clip is played early and played often.

[UPDATE: I hope her [3] 2002 comments at Berkeley about how it is appropriate for judges to draw upon their “experiences as women and people of color" in their judicial decision making are aired often as well. The more one looks into Sotomayor's recrod, the clearer it is that, as a friend of mine put it, identity politics is her judicial philosophy.]

To my mind, what Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court, said there disqualifies her from her position on the Court of Appeals. It should render her beyond the pale for a position on the Supreme Court of the United States. Will it? Of course not. But it should prompt anyone who cares about the rule of law to oppose her nomination.
 
2.

War Over A Trojan Horse
Robert L. Paquette

A few weeks ago, the Delta Phi fraternity at Hamilton College distributed on campus fliers welcoming students to attend "the 53rd annual Mexican Night" party. The invitation, which was intended to be symbolic of spring-break excursions to Cancun and other vacation spots south of the border, contained the image of a Trojan Horse in the shape of a Mexican pinata towering over an armed guard in front of a stout U. S. border fence. The words "Proper Documentation Required," a spoof of the usual language for proper identification at parties that serve alcohol, ran to the left of the image. In a flash, student activists and their faculty allies had mobilized in ginned-up outrage to protest this latest alleged example of institutionalized racism and to demand action by the administration and trustees on a laundry list of particulars that includes a speech code (masked as a "social honor code"), mandatory diversity courses, and the establishment of a multi-million dollar cultural education center to provide "safe spaces" for aggrieved student groups. Administrators competed with each other to see how artistically they could grovel to protesting students. Acting President Joseph Urgo and the college's "diversity ombudsman" called the fraternity to account and pressured its leaders to cancel the party. In an all-campus email, Urgo claimed to have extracted from the contrite fraternity leadership an expansive confession that the image not only "hurt and offended many members of the Hamilton community," but that it "trivializes a contemporary political crisis and reduces the complex history and culture of Mexico to a simple stereotype."

Urgo and other administrators then joined protesting faculty and protesting students in holding a candlelight vigil. Speeches, poetry, and spiritual songs of the Kumbaya variety expressed feelings of solidarity with the disrespected, vulnerable, and marginalized on campus and around the world. Fraternity leaders rained apologies from all directions to no avail. The dean of students, standing in like a kind of sacrificial lamb, bleated enough mea culpas to elicit God's forgiveness of a rash of mortal sins. Unforgiving students, however, led by a group called the Social Justice Initiative, followed by commandeering another faculty meeting. Looking anything but vulnerable and threatened, they seized the microphone and threateningly wagged the finger of blame at college officials for their "lack of response" and "lack of action" to the fraternity's benightedness. Dozens of sympathetic faculty, including leaders of the Diversity and Social Justice Project, signed on to a proposed resolution that would signal to posterity "Our profound appreciation and affection... for our international students and students of color who may have felt marginalized by recent events on campus." The faculty eventually passed overwhelmingly a resolution that supported the creation of a cultural education center on campus, that urged---Hamilton College's recently imposed open curriculum notwithstanding---mandatory "educational and programmatic initiatives" to intensify diversity training, and that directed administrators to expand the powers of existing harassment and grievance boards to "raise critical awareness of different forms of harassment." Stay tuned, for the full extent of the concessions by the guilt-stricken have yet to be determined.

When college officials, trustees as well as administrators, face social justice hostiles on the warpath encircling the administration building or the faculty meeting, they possess neither the wit nor the courage to act like Madame Roland before the guillotine: "Oh, social justice, what crimes are committed in thy name." Social justice activism has not only infiltrated college campuses, it pervades academic culture at many of this country's elite institutions of higher learning. For the Doubting Thomases, perform this simple test. Go to the website of your alma mater. Click on the news-and-events page. Activate the search engine by plugging in social justice and such auxiliary words as diversity, multiculturalism, sustainability, environmentalism, ecological crisis, activism, and identities. Total the references. Now perform a similar search for, say, conservative, Western civilization, Shakespeare, Christian, and entrepreneur. Get the point.

Unhappily, college officials seem to be missing the point. More than a quarter century ago, Friedrich Hayek, the greatest anti-Keynesian economist of his day, whose Road to Serfdom (1944) should make for particularly good bed-time reading these days, declared that "the prevailing belief in 'social justice' is at present probably the gravest threat to most other values in a free society." Indeed, the mantra-like recitation of this "quasi-religious" term to enlist public support for one or another program of statist wealth redistribution so disturbed him that he promised as a personal mission to make fellow members of the clerisy "thoroughly ashamed" every time they deployed "social justice" in speech or publication. The very concept of social justice, as Hayek pointed out, invariably leads to frequent displays of "sloppy thinking and even dishonesty," not exactly the kind of values that readily comport with the typical college's mission statement.

(NOTE: Once upon a time, “patriotism” was claimed to be the “refuge of scoundrels”.  Today, the refuge is racism, sexism, and whatever the offended group of the day might be.  Reason, logic, and intellectual consideration is quite alien to the equation.  Especially many in academia – no matter which side of their square hat the tassel hangs – are spring loaded to find offense whenever they need a reason to create a scene.  In my college days, things were simpler.  IN that springtime, we had only panty raids – no one was stupid enough to take them seriously.)

Activists rarely define the term with any degree of precision, for, in truth, social justice masks a totalitarian impulse behind a utopian enticement. Every totalitarian movement of the twentieth century waved the banner of social justice in ascending to power. The concept, as Hayek insisted, has no meaningful measure in a society comprised of free individuals. Policies invoked in the name of social justice boil down to demands for public submission to the claims of particularly powerful interest groups, what economists call rent-seekers. Human beings, according to social-justice thinkers, exist as so much infinitely malleable clay to be reshaped by statist power. Grow Leviathan; demolish protective mediating institutions between the state and the individual; reconfigure the arrangements of society; and let statist bureaucrats engineer the remains into the New Man.

Hayek's brilliant contemporary, the French political theorist Bertrand de Jouvenel, pointed to the absurdity of such thinking. Not only do the premises of social justice deny the existence of a human nature, the logical outcome of this deadly illusion of the engineered society is that "everything would be arranged justly" so that "no one would have to be just." In fact, social justice thinking eviscerates the older notion of individual, restorative justice--suum cuique (to each his own)-- by creating a nation of free-riders. To the extent that private property weakens and the state socializes externalities, human beings increasingly fail to bear the full consequences of their own actions, making it less likely that they will discriminate between liberty and licentiousness, what is properly their own and what properly belongs to someone else. George Will is not alone in noticing that Team Obama's extension of a command economy to a degree that would have made Adolf Berle and Rexford Tugwell wince has come "cloaked in the raiment of 'economic planning' and 'social justice.'" Is there a connection between campus and beltway cultures? Well, from little acorns, we now know, mighty ACORN grows.

With increasing frequency the term social justice crops up in academic job announcements; a commitment to it, like the possession of an advanced degree, certifies the applicant's bona fides. For classroom use, the University of California at Berkeley held a major social-justice conference in 2008 that showcased the thinking of law professors on such topics as teaching for "social change," teaching for "transformative change," and "How to put Activism into Your Course." Administrators, whether in sympathy with the social-justice agenda or under pressure from its acolytes to embrace it, continue to reallocate resources to fund a broad array of social-justice programs and positions. Administrative "diversity" watch-dogs have as part of their portfolio the construction of social-justice events and programming. Money for these positions often comes at the expense of established courses. At my own institution, Hamilton College, a lavishly funded Diversity and Social Justice Project, complete with its own administrative staff, offers not only more programming than any discipline on campus, but also fellowships to undergraduates "to conduct social justice internships." Such money might underwrite student activity that, say, aids illegal immigrants, secures foot soldiers for Amnesty International, or promotes the agenda of Planned Parenthood. That's what happens when Diversity people are in charge.

Robert L. Paquette, who teaches history at Hamilton College, is co-founder of the Alexander Hamilton Institute for the Study of Western Civilization
 
3.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docid=news-000003125079

FEC Pick Raises Eyebrows
By Shawn Zeller, CQ Staff

When candidate Barack Obama decided last year that he was so flush with donations that he would spurn public financing for both the nomination and general election campaigns, he worried many of those who were trying to reduce the influence of big money on elections. Obama seemed to reassure them, though, by promising that if he became president he would push to fix the system.

By naming labor lawyer John Sullivan to the Federal Election Commission this month, however, Obama’s got the advocates of tough campaign finance enforcement fretting again.

“The gusto with which Mr. Sullivan has bashed important elements” of the 2002 campaign finance law “and repeatedly taken radical deregulatory positions does not inspire confidence,” says J. Gerald Hebert, executive director of the Campaign Legal Center in Washington.

(NOTE: There are many things terribly wrong with the 2002 “campaign reform” bill.  Many of these things are beyond the bounds of reason or logic.  However, Obama’s selection of a pro Union, partisan lawyer to help sit in judgment of those whose campaigns, PACs, and other groups come before it.  It is just one more old time Democrat political schemes of the sort  typical of the Chicago Democrat Machine – the most corrupt political cabal in the country, and the one that found Obama, cleaned up his act, then contrived to sell him to a gullible electorate.)

Even with Obama in the White House and Democrats — usually more supportive of campaign finance restrictions than Republicans — in control of Congress, Hebert is worried about the drift of things.

Last fall the Republican National Committee filed court challenges to the bans on unlimited contributions to political parties and on coordinated expenditures between parties and campaigns.

“Their enthusiasm is based on the current composition at the Supreme Court,” says Hebert. Because of the two justices chosen by George W. Bush , “we know there are five justices that are skeptical of the campaign finance regulations.”

Recent FEC decisions have been lenient in their enforcement of campaign finance rules, says Amanda Adams, a policy analyst at the watchdog group OMB Watch, largely because the commission has drawn a vague boundary between advocacy on an issue, which is allowed for many groups not subject to finance limits, and advocacy for a particular candidate. “The way it’s set up they decide on a case by case basis, and so that leaves open a lot of questions” for groups that want to engage in issue advocacy, Adams says.

Sullivan has been associate general counsel of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and as such he’s questioned the need for disclosure rules on advertisements aimed at influencing voters. His stance, Hebert contends, was “so radical that not even the most visible, well-known opponents of campaign finance restrictions supported it.”

In 2006, Sullivan filed comments with the FEC questioning rules on coordinated communications between candidates and outside groups, such as unions.

Some critics of the 2002 campaign finance law, in fact, seem more enthused about Sullivan’s appointment. “Sullivan’s litigation on behalf of the SEIU and other organizations makes us optimistic that he understands how campaign finance restrictions” in the law “threaten Americans’ political free speech rights,” says Bradley A. Smith, a former FEC commissioner who founded the Center for Competitive Politics to try to lift restrictions on campaign finance.

The White House, meanwhile, thinks criticism of Sullivan is ill-founded.

“He has devoted his professional life to understanding the mechanics of voting and ensuring that elections are free, fair and open,” says spokeswoman Kate Bedingfield. And one group that advocates public financing of elections, Public Campaign, praised the appointment earlier this month, noting that Sullivan had pushed the SEIU to endorse public financing.

4.

 http://www.ocregister.com/articles/job-program-stimulus-2425198-arra-readiness

Mark Steyn: Statism the only thing being stimulated

We're spending trillions we don't have to create government programs to spend even more trillions we don't have.
I was in Vermon the other day and made the mistake of picking up the local paper. Impressively, it contained a quarter-page ad, a rare sight these days. The rest of the page was made up by in-house promotions for the advertising department's special offer on yard-sale announcements, etc. But the one real advertisement was from something called SEVCA. SEVCA is a "nonprofit agency," just like The New York Times, General Motors and the state of California. And it stands for "South-Eastern Vermont Community Action."

Why, they're "community organizers," just like the president!

The designated "anti-poverty agency" is taking out quarter-page ads in every local paper because they're "seeking applicants for several positions funded in full or part by the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA)" – that's the "stimulus" to you and me.

(NOTE: Given the manner in which the “stimulus” bill was rammed through the House and Senate, there is no telling as yet, of just how many horror stories await.  Never forget, not a single member of either house – not a single vote  -- not an iota of analysis or serious thought – was accorded Obama’s scam on the basis of its content.  The Obama strategy was clearly one of forcing passage on a time scale that prevented the slightest degree of attention or study.  This vote will be seen historically as one of the greatest political scams of all.)

Isn't it great to see those bazillions of stimulus dollars already out there stimulating the economy? Creating lots of new jobs at SEVCA, in order to fulfill the president's promise to "create or keep" 2.5 million jobs. At SEVCA, he's not just keeping all the existing ones, but creating new ones, too. Of the eight new positions advertised, the first is:

"ARRA Projects Coordinator."

Gotcha. So the first new job created by the stimulus is a job "coordinating" other programs funded by the stimulus. What's next?

"Grantwriter."

That's how they spell it. Like in "Star Wars" – Luke Grantwriter waving his hope saber as instructed by his mentor Obi-Bam Baracki ("May the Funds be with you!"). The Grantwriter will be responsible for writing grant applications "to augment ARRA funds." So the second new job created by stimulus funding funds someone to petition for additional funding for projects funded by the stimulus.

The third job is a "Marketing Specialist" to increase "public awareness of ARRA-funded services." Rural Vermont's economy is set for a serious big-time boom: The critical stimulus-promotion industry, stimulus-coordination industry and stimulus-supplementary-funding industry are growing at an unprecedented rate. The way things are going we'll soon need a Stimulus-Coordination Industry Task Force and Impact Study Group. By the way, these jobs aren't for everyone. "Knowledge of ARRA" is required. So if, say, you're the average United States senator who voted for ARRA without bothering to read it you're not qualified for a job as an ARRA Grantwriter.

I don't want to give the impression that every job funded by the stimulus is a job coordinating the public awareness of programs for grant applications to coordinate the funding of public awareness coordination programs funded by the stimulus.

SEVCA is also advertising for a "Job Readiness Program Coordinator." This is a job coordinating the program that gets people ready to get a job. For example, it occurred to me, after reading the ad, that I might like to be a "Job Readiness Program Coordinator." But am I ready for it? Increasing numbers of us are hopelessly unready for jobs. Ever since last November, many Americans have been ready for free health care, free day care, free college, free mortgages – and, once you get a taste for that, it's hardly surprising you're not ready for gainful employment. I only hope there are enough qualified "Job Readiness Program Coordinators" out there, and that they don't have to initiate a Job Readiness Program Coordinator Readiness Program. As the old novelty song once wondered, "Who Takes Care Of The Caretaker's Daughter While The Caretaker's Busy Taking Care?" Who coordinates programs for the Job Readiness Program Coordinator while the Job Readiness Program Coordinator's busy readying for his job? If you hum it, I'll put in for the stimulus funding.

Oh, and let's not forget the new job of "VITA Program Coordinator." VITA? That's "Volunteer Income Tax Assistance." It's an IRS program designed "to help low- and moderate-income taxpayers complete their tax returns at no cost." The words "no cost," by the way, are used in the new Webster's-defined sense of "massive public expenditure." Whoops, I mean massive public "investment." You might think, were you a space alien recently landed from Planet Zongo, that, if tax returns are so complicated that "low- and moderate-income taxpayers" have difficulty filling them in, the obvious solution would be to make the tax code less complex. But that's just the unfamiliar atmosphere on Planet Earth making you lighthearted and prone to cockamamie out-of-this-world fancies. Put in for a Job Readiness Program, and you'll soon get with the program.

Of course, it's not just "low- and moderate-income taxpayers" who have difficulty completing their tax returns. So do high-income taxpayers like Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Tragically, they're ineligible for the "Volunteer Income Tax Assistance" program. Indeed, the treasury secretary seemed under the misapprehension that it was a "Volunteer Income Tax" program, which would be a much better idea. But, being ineligible for VITA, Secretary Geithner was forced to splash out $49.95 for TurboTax and, simply by accidentally checking the "No" box instead of "Yes" at selected moments, was able to save himself thousands of dollars in confiscatory taxation! Oops, my mistake, I meant that, tragically, by being unable to complete his tax return due to a lack of Volunteer Income Tax Assistance, Timothy Geithner was the only one of 300 million Americans to pass the Treasury Secretary Job Readiness Program.

SEVCA serves two rural counties with a combined total of a little over 40,000 households. If you wanted to stimulate the economy, you'd take every dime allocated to Windsor and Windham counties under ARRA and divide it between those households.

But, if you want to stimulate bureaucracy, dependency and the metastasization of approved quasi-governmental interest-group monopolies as the defining features of American life, then ARRA is the way to go. Oh, you scoff: ARRA, go on, you're only joking. I wish I were. We're spending trillions we don't have to create government programs to coordinate the application for funds to create more programs to spend even more trillions we don't have.

The stimulus will do nothing for the economy, but it will dramatically advance the cause of statism (as Mark Levin rightly calls it). Last week's vote in California is a snapshot of where this leads: The gangster regime in Sacramento is an alliance between a corrupt and/or craven political class wholly owned by a public sector union-bureaucracy extortion racket. So what if the formerly Golden State goes belly-up? They'll pass the buck to Washington, and those of us in nonprofligate jurisdictions will get stuck with the tab. At some point, the dwindling band of citizens still foolish enough to earn a living by making things, selling things or providing services other than government-funded program coordination will have to vote against not just taxes but specific agencies and programs – hundreds and thousands of them.

The bad news is that our children will not enjoy the American Dream.

The good news is they'll be able to apply for an American Dream Readiness Assistance Coordination Grantwriter Program.

May the Funds be with you!

 

Tuesday's Web

The day’s top political news:

Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, has been selected by Obama as the next Supreme Court Justice.

She now faces confirmation by a Senate that is dominated by liberal Democrats – giving Republicans little chance of stopping her appointment.

“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,” said Judge Sotomayor.

This was not the only instance in which she has publicly described her view of judging in terms that could provoke sharp questioning in a confirmation hearing…and predict an era of radical actions on the nation’s highest court.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html

California Supreme Court to issue Prop. 8 decision today

Rulings are expected on the legality of the measure barring same-sex marriage and the status of those who married before it was approved by voters.

After San Francisco officials began allowing same-sex couples to wed there in 2004, the courts intervened, invalidating the marriages on grounds that local officials had overstepped their authority.

But in May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that the state Constitution protects a fundamental "right to marry" that extends to same-sex couples.
That made California the second state in the union, after Massachusetts, to permit same-sex marriage.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8court26-2009may26,0,4718659.story

Obama Set to Create A Cybersecurity Czar With Broad Mandate

Shielding Public, Private Networks Is Goal

President Obama is expected to announce late this week that he will create a "cyber czar," a senior White House official who will have broad authority to develop strategy to protect the nation's government-run and private computer networks, according to people who have been briefed on the plan.

The adviser will have the most comprehensive mandate granted to such an official to date and will probably be a member of the National Security Council

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/25/AR2009052502104.html

Opinion:
The real fear created by North Korea’s bomb and missiles

The little nut running North Korea stuck his finger in the eyes of those who counsel patience and diplomacy.  Not for the first time has Kim proven he is oblivious to the desires and demands of other nations.

An old adage holds “it is both unwise and impossible to negotiate with a mad dog”.  Kim is a mad dog.  The real crisis comes when we note he is not the only one. Iran has another of that breed in Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad has pledged the destruction of Israel and that threat must be taken seriously.

If the two nuts get their heads together, the result could be truly horrific.

My theory is a simple one:  North Korea test fired an atomic bomb with a force equal to that of the bomb the US dropped on Hiroshima back in 1945.  At the same time, North Korea also successfully launched two missiles capable of carrying such a weapon.

The missiles have a potential range of 2,500 miles.  It could hit Guam – a US territory.  The good news is there is nothing on Guam worth Kim’s using his sparse atomic arsenal
to destroy.  Anderson Air Force Base is certainly not a worthy target.

Should Kim be off his meds for a day or two, he might order attacks on South Korea or Japan.  Neither would require missiles of the range tested this week ene.  He already has missiles of much shorter range for such an idiotic purpose.

My guess is Kim was not so much involved in weapons testing, as in weapons sales.  North Korea is known to be selling technology to radical Islamic states of the sort that would salivate over a potential possession of nuclear weapons atop missiles with a capability of reaching Tel Aviv or other Israeli targets.  Perhaps, the strategy would be unveiling the capability and then blackmailing the West.

A 2,500 mile missile would be very suitable for Iran.  With such a weapon, they could not only reach Israel, but also threaten major sections of Europe and many US bases.

We saw North Korea’s efforts to build a nuclear weapons’ facility in Syria – one that Israel bombed and destroyed.  North Korea’s foreign policy, therefore, is not just belligerent in its own behalf, but in its ability to create threats for others.

North Korea is already deeply involved with the Iranian nuclear weapon now thought to be in the final stages of production.

Israel bombed and took out the Syrian nuclear threat.  They may be threatened with having to seriously contemplating doing the same with Iran – and doing it sooner rather than later.

Meanwhile, the impotent actions by the UN is only another angry resolution – an act that is not only meaningless, but an act that underscores, dramatizes and displays for all, just how totally powerless the UN is to do anything substantive.

If North Korea and Iran are stopped, the UN will not be what stopped either of them.

North Korea has proven it can detonate an atomic bomb with devastating effect.

In 1945, when Colonel Paul Tibbets, flew the Enola Gay over Hiroshima and dropped the first bomb, it was a most heroic act that saved millions of lives – Japanese as well as American.  It brought WWII to an end.  It also showed the world that warfare as it had been known throughout history, was finished.

Not only that, but the threat of use of nuclear weapons kept the world from having to witness a major war between the US and the Soviet Union.

What it failed to do, was prevent smaller wars from happening.  Thus we have had the Korean War, and others such as the current wars in the Middle East.

North Korea’s nuke will not have such a great result.  This is especially true if Iran gets its hands on one.  That North Korea proves it can make a bomb, and Iran has, with North Korean help, gotten close, is enough to give the civilized world nightmares – especially those in Israel.

What will Obama do?

I don’t expect he will no more than send a nasty letter to Kim.  Nastier in tone to the pap provided by the UN, perhaps, but no more effective.

Begging “please” is not a position of strength.

Buddy

The day’s top blogs:

1.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124329282377252471.html

Millionaires Go Missing

Maryland's fleeced taxpayers fight back.

Here's a two-minute drill in soak-the-rich economics:

Maryland couldn't balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. Politicians in Annapolis created a millionaire tax bracket, raising the top marginal income-tax rate to 6.25%. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O'Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were "willing and able to pay their fair share." The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would "grin and bear it."

One year later, nobody's grinning.

One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller's office concedes is a "substantial decline." On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year -- even at higher rates.

(NOTE:  New York is facing threats of a similar fate as high income media types talk of  relocating to Florida where there is no income tax.  There is a limit to just how much rape our productive segments will accept before shouting “enough”.)

No doubt the majority of that loss in millionaire filings results from the recession. However, this is one reason that depending on the rich to finance government is so ill-advised: Progressive tax rates create mountains of cash during good times that vanish during recessions. For evidence, consult California, New York and New Jersey (see here).

The Maryland state revenue office says it's "way too early" to tell how many millionaires moved out of the state when the tax rates rose. But no one disputes that some rich filers did leave. It's easier than the redistributionists think. Christopher Summers, president of the Maryland Public Policy Institute, notes: "Marylanders with high incomes typically own second homes in tax friendlier states like Florida, Delaware, South Carolina and Virginia. So it's easy for them to change their residency."

All of this means that the burden of paying for bloated government in Annapolis will fall on the middle class.

Thanks to the futility of soaking the rich, these working families will now pay Mr. O'Malley's "fair share."

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A18

2.

Liberals frustrated on gun, Guantanamo issues
CHARLES BABINGTON, AP

Frustrated liberals are asking why a Democratic-controlled Congress and White House can't manage to close the Guantanamo prison or keep new gun-rights laws from passing.

After all, President Barack Obama pledged to shut down the military detention center on Cuba for suspected terrorists. And Democratic control of the government would suggest that any gun legislation leads to tighter controls on weapons, not expanded use.

Even as they grouse, however, liberal lawmakers acknowledge that no one factor explains last week's disappointing back-to-back votes in Congress.

The Obama administration is focused on other priorities, they say. Party leaders don't want to endanger Democratic lawmakers from conservative districts by stressing divisive issues such as gun control.

On Guantanamo, many say, Obama and his allies were caught napping as Republicans stirred public fears about relocating suspected terrorists.

"I think it's one of the few times that he didn't think it all the way out," said Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., an unabashed admirer of the president.

(NOTE: The mistake is most probably of Obama’s handlers having become victims of “in-speak” – a circumstance resulting in discussing an issue or issues only among the insider group – even an inside the beltway sort of group.  The feelings, sentiments, and convictions of normal America don’t reach those discussions – that’s how bad decisions get made.)

As for trying to keep loaded guns out of national parks, Cummings said, "I don't think he put a lot of energy into it." Issues such as national security and the distressed economy deserve greater attention, at least for now, he said, adding that the president "picks his fights very carefully."

Such explanations provide small comfort to left-leaning Democrats after eight years of George W. Bush's presidency and nearly a dozen years of Republican control of Congress.

"We'll probably end up passing more gun bills" that expand owners' rights "than we did during the Republican administration," said Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., a leading gun control advocate. "That is what surprises me."

She placed less blame on the White House than on ordinary Americans and advocacy groups that are consistently outflanked by gun owners' groups, especially the National Rifle Association.

"Until the American people say enough is enough, and get active in it," Democratic control of Congress and the White House will not be enough to turn the tide, said McCarthy, whose husband was killed by a gunman in 1993.

Two votes in Congress last Wednesday dismayed many liberals and exposed the limits of their influence even with Obama as president and Democrats holding solid majorities in both houses.

The Senate voted 90-6 to join the House in blocking the transfer of any prisoners from Guantanamo. Harsh treatment and indefinite detention of suspects there have sparked worldwide criticisms of the U.S. government and helped al-Qaida recruit volunteers, said Obama, who pledges to close the prison early next year. Lawmakers say they want more details on where detainees will be sent.

Also Wednesday, the House voted overwhelmingly to join the Senate in letting people carry loaded guns in national parks and wildlife refuges. More than 100 House Democrats and 174 Republicans voted for the gun measure, which was attached to an Obama-backed bill imposing new restrictions on credit card companies.

Earlier this year, gun-rights supporters derailed a bill to give the District of Columbia voting rights in Congress by adding a provision that would repeal the city's strict gun regulations.

The gun votes were less surprising to many Democrats than were the Guantanamo developments. The NRA remains among the most powerful lobbies, and many lawmakers take care to stay off its political enemies list.

"People do not want to be on the wrong side of this particular cultural divide," said Rep. David Price, D-N.C., who supports tougher gun controls. "It's too bad there's not a more responsible national organization" to counteract the NRA, he said.

In some ways, the gun-control lobby is choking on Democratic success in congressional races. "The seats we're picking up come disproportionately from those more conservative areas," Price said, where linking the Democratic Party to gun control can be dangerous at re-election time.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey of California is another Democrat frustrated by the gun debate. When she asks colleagues why they don't support tougher restrictions, she said, they reply, "You just don't get it, Woolsey. You don't have our districts."

"It has to do with being afraid they'll lose their election if they stand up against guns," she said.
Guantananamo is a more pressing issue for the administration.

For months, congressional Republicans and conservative commentators said Obama's plan to close the prison would place terrorists on U.S. soil, even though the locations presumably would be prisons. By the time the administration offered more details and reassurances, congressional Democrats were backpedalling, voting to block funds to relocate detainees.

"I'm not sure they realized the opposition they were going to come up against," Woolsey said.
Many Democratic lawmakers predicted that Obama will resolve the Guantanamo problem and eventually turn to gun issues, where he has advocated ownership rights with "common sense" regulations.

"I do believe that down the road the president will start working on some of the gun violence issues," said McCarthy, the New York Democrat. "But let's face it," she said. "We've got an awful lot of issues on our plate right now."

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

3.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/21/biggest-loser-will-be-the-nation/

Hayden says Congress damages CIA

Michael V. Hayden 
OPINION/ ANALYSIS

When CIA officers went to work at the Langley headquarters last Tuesday, the first item in the daily press summary prepared by their public affairs office took their breath away.

"Democrats: CIA Out to Get Us" was the way Politico headlined a piece on recent Capitol Hill events. For an agency that had been criticized from the right for a supposed organized campaign to undermine President Bush in the 2004 election and criticized again in 2007 for a national intelligence estimate that was purportedly written and timed to undercut the administration's Iran policy, the accusation must have seemed like comic relief.

Comic relief or not, any smiles were gone by midday Thursday when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi explicitly accused the agency of lying - "The CIA comes to the Congress, withholds information about the timing and theuse of this subject" - and of lying frequently - "They mislead us all the time."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, hastened to add, "The CIA is not an agency that is above not telling the truth." Rep. Anna G. Eshoo, a senior member on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, chimed in: "You have to play 20 questions with them. They are not forthcoming with information."

(NOTE: Those who follow such things in Washington will advise any who ask, that it is not smart to anger the CIA.  While the agency has a distinctly leftward inclination, it also  has a power to slice and dice an opponent – and do so without leaving fingerprints.  Don’t be on Pelosi’s long term survival as Speaker.)

In my first hand-off with the new CIA Director, Leon E. Panetta, I told him that one area I felt needed a lot of improvement was the relationship between the agency and Congress. I pointed out that we had tried hard. In practically every category of dialogue with the Hill - briefings, hearings, written notifications - the statistics for CIA engagement with the 110th Congress dwarfed those for any of its predecessors. But more information did not routinely lead to any calming of the atmosphere. It was just wild.

At the height of the Iraq surge debate, for example, we briefed a wide swath of congressional members. Because of the superheated atmosphere, we prepared our analysts (many of whom were now very junior because of our recent hiring) with a short sentence to help them cut off overly contentious or overtly partisan sessions: "I'm sorry, but I will be unable to continue our dialogue if you continue to question my integrity or that of my Agency."

Even senior analysts were taken aback by how caustic the exchange could become. At one memorable offsite briefing that Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell had arranged for the House Intelligence Committee and all the intelligence community leadership, several intelligence seniors went off the agenda and asked for the committee's help in responding to a story that had appeared that morning in a major daily. The story was long and difficult to track but it followed the usual pattern of such stories by going to what we would call the "darkest corner of the room" with threatening overtones of large databases, data mining and serious civil liberties infringements.

"It's hard for us to defend ourselves in these circumstances," we said, "but you have access to all of our activities. We're an open book to you. You know what we're doing. You're in a position to defuse this."

The members refused; The talk quickly went beyond any healthy constitutional skepticism inherent in a discussion between Article I and Article II entities. It was a stark foreshadowing of last week's "we don't believe you."

This has implications that go well beyond hurt feelings. Whatever its shortcomings or limitations, the regime of congressional oversight practiced in the United States is necessarily the most expansive in the world. It is not uncommon for American congressional delegations from our oversight committees to have difficulty visiting facilities overseas that we share with our partners - the kinds of facilities they routinely visit when such facilities are wholly American - because our partners' parliamentarians are never allowed such visits.

So be it. Our oversight regime is the right fit for our Constitution, our system of separation of powers and our political culture. We all recognize that the founders built inherent tension into this system, and since intelligence agencies often work on the outer edges of executive prerogative, flash points are inevitable.

But when this system becomes hopelessly adversarial, there are real costs. Without some elemental baseline of trust and confidence, no Congress, no executive, no intelligence agency can make it work.

Mr. Panetta admirably held the line last week when he attested that the CIA and its officers are truthful. Now his challenge is to do better than his immediate predecessors in convincing his former colleagues on the Hill that this is so. Otherwise the agency and its officers will surely suffer. But it is the nation that will be the biggest loser.

Michael V. Hayden is a retired Air Force general and former director of the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency.
 
4. 
 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/23/pelosi-shuts-down-questions-on-cia-dispute-republi/

Pelosi refuses queries on CIA dispute
Republicans accuse her of stonewalling
Kara Rowland (Contact)

In her first news conference since accusing the CIA of lying to her about the use of harsh interrogation techniques, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Friday refused to answer questions on the controversy, telling reporters only that she stands by her earlier statements.

Flanked by fellow House Democratic leaders, Mrs. Pelosi spent 23 minutes at a pre-recess press briefing recounting the party's accomplishments so far this year, took just five minutes of questions, and declared out-of-bounds any inquiries on her confrontation with the CIA.
"I have made the statement that I'm going to make on this," Mrs. Pelosi said. "What we are doing is staying on our course and not getting distracted from it."

(NOTE: In short, Pelosi is stonewalling.  It is obvious that a great deal of strategic planning had gone into this latest appearance before the media – Pelosi had been drilled to avoid responding to any questions regarding the CIA…and she was flanked by a gauntlet of Democrat luminaries who attended as an obvious ploy to give Pelosi cover.  She prays the issues will die.  It’s not at all likely her prayers will be answered.)

The highly anticipated news briefing came amid Republican calls to investigate Mrs. Pelosi's assertion that the CIA mislead her when she was briefed in September 2002 about so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" such as waterboarding, which the Obama administration has deemed torture.

House GOP leaders have demanded that she back up her claim or apologize to the intelligence agency, but Democrats voted down a resolution Thursday that would have created a special panel to investigate her charges.

Mrs. Pelosi last week said the CIA lied to her in 2002 by concealing that it had already used enhanced interrogation techniques, and said the agency continues to lie today by mischaracterizing the briefing. She also said the CIA lied in the run-up to the Iraq war.

"They mislead us all the time," she said.

On Friday, CIA Director Leon E. Panetta wrote a memo to his employees defending them and calling for the rhetoric attacking his agency to be toned down.

Mrs. Pelosi issued her own statement afterward saying her accusations were directed at the Bush administration, not at the employees of the CIA.

Some Republicans, including Rep. Steve King of Iowa and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, have called for Mrs. Pelosi to resign as speaker.

Mr. King said he would introduce a resolution when Congress returns calling for Mrs. Pelosi's security clearance to be revoked.

Congress is on a weeklong break next week and Mrs. Pelosi appears to be hoping that scrutiny of her charges will fade as other news - including the global warming debate and a potential Supreme Court nomination announcement - changes the focus in Washington.

At her news conference Friday she and her fellow Democratic leaders went into detail on the upcoming global warming fight and other bills the House has passed this year, but did not address Mrs. Pelosi's CIA charges until a reporter asked her about them.

Mrs. Pelosi flatly refused to say anything more about her charges.

"I won't have anything more to say about it. Another subject?" she responded.

Republicans were not as willing to let the subject drop.

In a statement, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio accused Mrs. Pelosi of "stonewalling."
"She has had more than a week to produce evidence supporting her allegation that the CIA deliberately lied to Congress and does so 'all the time.' She still has not done so, and House Democrats are now stonewalling a bipartisan investigation to determine the facts," Mr. Boehner said.

"Claiming that the CIA engaged in a pattern of deception without either backing it up with evidence or retracting her statement and apologizing is an affront to the men and women who put their lives on the line to protect our country," he added.

Ken Spain, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Mrs. Pelosi was becoming a political liability to her party.

"Her obsession with the previous administration and her disdain for America's intelligence officials have reduced her to cheerleader status within the far left wing of her party and a distraction to the substantive debate over how to best move our economy forward," Mr. Spain said.
 
 
 

 

Monday's Web

The day’s top political news:

Colin Powell fires back at Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney

In the latest intra party feud, former Secretary of State Colin Powell Sunday defends his Republican credentials and fires back at radio host Rush Limbaugh and former Vice President Dick Cheney, saying the party had to expand beyond its conservative base.

It must be noted, Powell deserted the party and became a celebrity supporter of Obama – apparently endorsing those extreme left wing politics.  It is highly unlikely real Republicans will desert their long time principles to follow Powell to the extreme left.

“Neither [Cheney] nor Rush Limbaugh are members of the membership committee of the Republican Party,” Powell said.  But Powell misses the point – one is.  There is no such position.  Powell rejected the party and its principles, not the other way around.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22902.html

North Korea sets off a new A-bomb test

Pyongyang announced the test, and Russia's Defense Ministry confirmed an atomic explosion at 9:54 a.m. (0054 GMT) in northeastern North Korea, estimating the blast's yield at 10 to 20 kilotons - comparable to the bombs that flattened Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Obama gets the 3 a.m. call he dreaded -- now his answer is for all the marbles.

The regime also test-fired three short-range, ground-to-air missiles later Monday from the same northeastern site where it launched a rocket last month, the Yonhap news agency reported, citing unnamed sources. The rocket liftoff, widely believed to be a cover for a test of its long-range missile technology, drew censure from the U.N. Security Council.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090525/D98D7MT80.html

Two Illinois Banks Seized, Bringing U.S. Tally This Year to 36

Two Illinois banks with combined assets of almost $1 billion have been closed by regulators, pushing the toll of failed U.S. lenders to 36 this year amid the longest recession since the 1930s.

Strategic Capital Bank in Champaign and Citizens National Bank in Macomb were closed and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was named receiver of both, the FDIC said. Strategic Capital’s deposits were assumed by Midland States Bank of Effingham, Illinois, and deposits at Citizens National were purchased by Morton Community Bank.

Regulators are closing banks at the fastest pace in 15 years, including BankUnited Financial Corp. in Florida yesterday, and pumped $200 billion into the biggest banks in a Treasury rescue program. Costs from closing banks in the second quarter climbed to more than $8 billion, including $4.9 billion for BankUnited, from $2.28 billion in the first, FDIC data show.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a42Xg57jVTzM

Opinion:
Obama and his failures

Understanding Obama is important for making political judgment these days.

Obama projects an attitude of an extreme narcissist.  He seems arrogant, and over powering.

The truth is quite the opposite.  I believe Obama’s arrogance is a mechanism through which he is desperately trying to hide an inferiority complex.  He is very unsure of himself.  But feelings of inadequacy and inferiority are common among most liberals.  It’s why they are such dedicated supporters of project and programs through which more and more people are given handouts by an accommodating government.

Liberals are terrified of honest competition – they dare not contend in the market place.

This is most dramatically seen in the total failure of liberal talk radio.  It consistently fails even as conservative talk radio soars and attracts multitudes.  Liberals cannot win in the marketplace of ideas.

Obama cannot stand opposition – which is why liberals are so angry over honest movements such as the tea party protests.  Obama cant bear the thought of millions of Americans shouting down his proposals and denouncing his philosophy.

But they did and they do.

Obama was picked out, groomed, and marketed by the Chicago Democrat Machine – the most corrupt political organization in the nation – except, perhaps, Obama’s own ACORN scam.

Obama owes that machine and we have no idea the size of the debt or how the Chicago machine expects repayment.  Of course, the fiasco involving the governor and, maybe, even Rham Emanuel – Obama’s closest handler.

Those handlers dare not let Obama speak off the cuff.  It’s why he is never allowed to wander far from a teleprompter – he took 25 on his European trip.  His gaffes may be fewer that his hapless Vice President, Joe Biden, but they are there whenever Obama ad libs.

Obama isn’t man enough to accept honest accountability.

In face, we are told Obama blames straw men for his current financial mess.

Buddy

NOTE: The emphasis comes from my friend HJBecker.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/05/obama_blames_7_straw_men_for_b.html
 
Obama Blames 7 Straw Men for Being 'out of money'
Lee Cary

Unable to blame Bush directly for current and pending budget deficits, President Obama has taken to blaming Straw Men.

On Saturday, May 23, during a C-SPAN interview with Steve Scully, the President had this exchange according to DRUDGE:

SCULLY: You know the numbers, $1.7 trillion debt, a national deficit of $11 trillion. At what point do we run out of money?

OBAMA: Well, we are out of money now. We are operating in deep deficits, not caused by any decisions we've made on health care so far. This is a consequence of the crisis that we've seen and in fact our failure to make some good decisions on health care over the last several decades.

(Enter Straw Man #1: Failure to nationalize health care sometime after Harry Truman first proposed the idea. In other words, it's not Obama's fault that "we are out of money." It's not the fault of the new health care system he wants. It's the fault of those who didn't pass a health care plan earlier.)

So we've got a short-term problem, which is we had to spend a lot of money to salvage our financial system, we had to deal with the auto companies, a huge recession which drains tax revenue at the same time it's putting more pressure on governments to provide unemployment insurance or make sure that food stamps are available for people who have been laid off.

(Obama opted to deal with the auto companies by nationalizing two of the "big three." He could have let bankruptcy court deal with them, pursuant to the free market system. Invisible Straw Man #2 made him do it - The "had to" Straw Man.)

(Food stamps represent a small fraction of the deficit spending. This is Straw Man #3.)

So we have a short-term problem and we also have a long-term problem. The short-term problem is dwarfed by the long-term problem. And the long-term problem is Medicaid and Medicare. If we don't reduce long-term health care inflation substantially, we can't get control of the deficit.

(The deficit today is not due to Medicaid and Medicare, or even Social Security, all failed government programs. It is due, in part, to the explosion in entitlements over decades. By shifting the conversation away from the deficits today onto long-range problems, he creates Straw Man #4 and #5 - Medicaid and Medicare.)

So, one option is just to do nothing. We say, well, it's too expensive for us to make some short-term investments in health care. We can't afford it. We've got this big deficit. Let's just keep the health care system that we've got now.

(There's nothing "short term" about Obama's proposed "investments" in health care.  This is Straw Man #6.)

Along that trajectory, we will see health care cost as an overall share of our federal spending grow and grow and grow and grow until essentially it consumes everything...

(So here it is: We're out of money, so let's go more broke to pay for a new national health care program that we can't afford because of all the other entitlements we've accumulated over the decades. Oh, by the way, let's continue to grow the payroll of government employees.)

SCULLY: When you see GM though[t  of] as "Government Motors," you're reaction?

OBAMA: Well, you know - look we are trying to help an auto industry that is going through a combination of bad decision making over many years and an unprecedented crisis or at least a crisis we haven't seen since the 1930's. And you know the economy is going to bounce back and we want to get out of the business of helping auto companies as quickly as we can. I have got more enough to do without that. In the same way that I want to get out of the business of helping banks, but we have to make some strategic decisions about strategic industries... 

(So the billions spend by the federal government to "help" the auto industry - excluding Ford - is not the government's fault; it was just trying to "help out." The implied, unspoken Straw Man #7 is the previous administration. Namely, Obama had no option but to throw billions into GM and Chrysler because he inherited the situation from Bush.)

SCULLY: States like California in desperate financial situation, will you be forced to bail out the states?

OBAMA: No. I think that what you're seeing in states is that anytime you got a severe recession like this, as I said before, their demands on services are higher. So, they are sending more money out. At the same time, they're bringing less tax revenue in. And that's a painful adjustment, what we're going end up seeing is lot of states making very difficult choices there...

(States in financial trouble must cut services by making "difficult choices." So, where are difficult choices being made by the federal government to cut services?)

Don't blame me, Obama says.  It's those 7 Straw Men who are responsible. 
 
The  day’s top blogs:

1.

Poll Shows Surge Under Obama in Voters Calling Themselves 'Independent'
 
Conservatives are holding their own, while the ranks of independents have skyrocketed since November's presidential election, the latest Pew Research Center poll shows.

The poll of 3,013 adults from March 31 to April 21 found that there had been "no consistent movement away from conservatism, nor a shift toward liberalism" since the election. Republican losses are slowing, the poll found, while Democrats have begun losing ground too. And independent and unaffiliated voters are approaching record highs.

The implications for the president, Congress and the political parties in the next election could be profound. Among the results:

• Thirty-nine percent of adults now call themselves independent in Pew's poll of party identification and values. When it comes to all things Washington, independents are "more skittish than they were two years ago about expanding the social safety net and are reluctant backers of greater government involvement in the private sector," the poll said.

• People identifying themselves as Democrats have slipped from 39 percent in December to 33 percent now.

• People identifying themselves as Republicans have fallen from 26 percent to 22 percent, their lowest level in 25 years, according to Pew. However, among Republicans, 66 percent call themselves conservative, up from 60 percent in 2,000.

• Overall, independent voters lean Democratic. That is typical for the Pew poll, though it also shows conservatism is rising among unaffiliated voters: 33 percent say they are conservative, up from 28 percent in 2007 and 26 percent in 2005.

(NOTE: the implications are clear…while Obama manages to remain personally popular, his actions, philosophy, and program are failing the test of popularity and acceptance.  It’s an opening normal America must use in preventing the damage liberals such as Obama pose for our country’s future.)

"On an annual basis, the only previous year when independent identification has been this high was in 1992 when Ross Perot ran a popular independent candidacy," the Pew center said in releasing the results of the poll, which it has conducted since 1987.

2.

Pelosi as president 
Cheri Jacobus 

Expecting the honorable gentlewoman from California to do the honorable thing and resign as Speaker of the House is reasonable. The stakes are high. But Nancy Pelosi (D) is digging in her Manolos, and it’s not likely she will go quietly into that good night.

The Speaker of the House is second in succession to the presidency, just after the vice president. Should the unthinkable happen and the president and vice president be rendered unable to serve, the nation would be saddled with an unelected president whose actions have already proven potentially dangerous to the U.S.

 Were Pelosi to ascend to the presidency, it would be, tragically, at a time when the nation was in deep peril and in dire need of leadership, strength and integrity.

(NOTE: Not only has Pelosi undercut the credibility of our intelligence operation, but she has a long record of doing all she can to undercut and betray our troops in combat in the Global War on Terror – she tried and failed 40 times to pull the rug from under our troops by ending funding.  Pelosi cannot be trusted with our national security…not because I say so, but because her own record in the past three or so years, proves it beyond any doubt.)

After launching a full-scale attack on the Bush administration for enhanced interrogation methods, including waterboarding, Pelosi was cornered. Her own colleagues revealed she was fully briefed on the techniques used to extract information that would prevent terrorist attacks. But Madam Speaker casually switched her story, claiming said briefing was a discussion on the possible future use of the enhanced interrogation methods. When her friends in the media didn’t immediately fall into line, she simply fell back on the same old desperate, baseless Democratic standby, claiming Bush — or at least his CIA — lied to her as well as the rest of Congress.

For Pelosi, there is this one small problem. Former fellow California Democratic congressman and current Obama CIA chief Leon Panetta called her out and exposed her. A fierce partisan while in Congress, and with many doubting his qualifications as CIA director when Obama tapped him for the post, Panetta seems to be putting partisanship aside, and putting country first. He’s not pretending to buy the Pelosi fairytale.

As Pelosi sits waiting for her Democratic congressional colleagues to scramble to her side and support her lie, it all has an eerily familiar feel to it. When President Clinton was caught with Monica Lewinsky, he ordered his own Cabinet members out en masse in front of the White House press corps (women in front, of course!) to back him up on his “version” of the truth.

A distinct difference between Pelosi and Clinton is that he was lying in a matter that held his own political career, and possibly his marriage, in the balance. True, the credibility and therefore the influence of a U.S. president was victim to the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal. But Pelosi’s lie is more serious and much more ominous. She lied about a matter of national security, solely to score cheap political points against a former political adversary.

On second thought, it’s downright Nixonian.

The Obama White House, albeit known for throwing its own under the bus, isn’t touching this with the proverbial 10-foot pole. It’s likely most congressional Democrats would prefer Pelosi just go away, rather than take them down the tubes with her, or force them to force her from the Speaker’s throne. They know she lied. The press knows she lied. And judging by the reaction from the White House, President Obama also knows she lied. But the failure to boot Pelosi in short order makes all them complicit in her scheme.

If Pelosi’s constituents choose to keep her in Congress, that is their choice. But it is in the best interests of the nation for this woman, who could be president in a time of potentially unprecedented crisis, to be evacuated from the job of Speaker of the House and second in the queue for commander in chief as soon as possible.

Jacobus, president of Capitol Strategies PR, has managed congressional campaigns, worked on Capitol Hill and is an adjunct professor at George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management.  She appears on CNN, MSNBC and FOX News as a GOP strategist. 

http://thehill.com/cheri-jacobus/pelosi-as-president-2009-05-21.html

3.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/22/gop-call-for-pelosi-investigation-stymied/

GOP call for Pelosi probe stymied
Stephen Dinan (Contact) and Kara Rowland (Contact)

House Democrats on Thursday blocked a Republican attempt to force Speaker Nancy Pelosi to document her charge that the CIA lied to Congress about interrogation methods used by the Bush administration against terror suspects and other matters.

Leveraging their substantial majority, Democrats used a parliamentary motion to turn back a Republican resolution calling for a bipartisan panel to investigate the California Democrat's accusations last week that CIA employees "mislead us all the time."

The House voted 252-172 on the motion to block the inquiry, with all 250 Democrats who voted joined by two Republicans in support of Mrs. Pelosi.

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, who made the parliamentary move, called the Republican resolution an example of "the politics of personal destruction."

"This is a serious matter, but it's not being treated seriously. It's being treated politically by the minority party," said the Maryland Democrat, Mrs. Pelosi's top deputy.

He pointed to times in recent years when top Republicans in Congress have questioned the veracity of information the CIA provided.

Still, Republicans sensed an opening and Republican Party leaders have repeatedly demanded the speaker back up the claims she leveled last week.

"The speaker is the second in line for the presidency, and the weight of the allegations against America's top foreign intelligence agency makes this bipartisan investigation necessary," said Minority Whip Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the top Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told The Washington Times this week that Mrs. Pelosi's remarks constituted a "wrecking ball" to the morale of rank-and-file CIA officers. And former Vice President Dick Cheney insisted in a speech Thursday that Mrs. Pelosi and other key lawmakers were fully briefed on the techniques.

Without mentioning Mrs. Pelosi or other legislators by name, Mr. Cheney criticized members of Congress who, he said, demanded to be briefed on top-secret programs, "support them in private, and then head for the hills at the first sign of controversy."

The Republican resolution would have set up a special subcommittee from the intelligence panel of two Democrats and two Republicans to look into Mrs. Pelosi's charges.

Mrs. Pelosi has challenged CIA records that say she was briefed on enhanced interrogation techniques on Sept. 4, 2002, and she said last week the CIA continues to lie today about that briefing.

Still, she has acknowledged she learned waterboarding and other harsh questioning methods were being used from her top intelligence aide after he was briefed on Feb. 5, 2003.

CIA Director Leon E. Panetta sent a memo to employees the day after Mrs. Pelosi made her accusations, defending their honesty and asking for Washington to tone down the rhetoric.

Afterward, Mrs. Pelosi sent out her own statement saying she did not intend to disparage the CIA, but rather the Bush administration that approved the interrogation policies.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who has criticized the use of harsh interrogation techniques in the past, said he would prefer to move on but understands why House Republicans brought the resolution.

"We should move forward, but if Nancy Pelosi doesn't apologize, it creates a problem for the country at large," he said. "... I didn't want to go back and try [President Bush] and I don't frankly want to retry Nancy Pelosi. But if we're going to look at one, we're going to look at both."
The two Republicans who voted with Democrats to block the inquiry were Rep. Walter B. Jones of North Carolina and Ron Paul of Texas.

(NOTE  Walter Jones often betrays his GOP support and votes in a very liberal manner --  as for Ron Paul – no comment is necessary)

4.
 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124303306250148601.html#mod=djemEditorialPage

Memorial Day Makeover
Congress has an eye on your holiday menu.

Hot dogs, potato chips, soda and beer are staples of the traditional Memorial Day cookout, but Washington wants to redesign the menu. Just in time for your neighborhood block party, the Obama Administration and Senate Finance Committee are signalling a change in your diet.

President Obama has named Thomas Frieden, the New York City health commissioner who championed a ban on artificial trans fats, as the new director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Dr. Frieden's campaign forced McDonald's to change the way it cooks french fries -- you may have noticed the taste -- and he has lately called for all restaurants to use less salt. Let's hope he spends at least some of his time considering flu pandemics and bioterrorism.

In any case, when Dr. Frieden arrives in Washington, he'll find an ally in Michael Jacobson, head of the Naderite Center for Science in the Public Interest. Mr. Jacobson has made a career attacking ethnic restaurants, fast-food chains and grocery manufacturers for allegedly unhealthy fare. While he may be the last guy you'd want at your barbecue, Mr. Jacobson was recently an honored guest at Senate Finance. At a hearing to brainstorm on ways to pay for Mr. Obama's new health-care entitlement, Mr. Jacobson recommended that Congress enact a 50% reduction in the salt content of America's food supply, a tax of up to one cent per ounce on soft drinks, and a tripling of the federal excise tax on beer, to roughly 16 cents a can.

Is government to be the servant of the people, or their (thigh)master? Mr. Jacobson's view of the role of government was illuminated by his gripe that since 1991 beer has been taxed at a flat $18 per barrel. "Since then, inflation has robbed the Treasury of more than one-third the value of the taxes," he said.

The committee staff was apparently listening, because a Senate Finance report released this week listed a federal beer tax increase and a new levy on soft drinks among the options for financing new health-care spending. In sum, Washington looks set to provide you with a host of new incentives to enjoy grilled veggies and a refreshing glass of water at your next cookout.

(NOTE Democrats never see an opportunity for raising our taxes, or imposing new ones.  They rape the productive elements of our society in order to prop up unproductive elements.)

This doesn't mean that the feds are taking all the fun out of the weekend when we rightly honor Americans who have sacrificed their lives in war. After all, many Americans tune in each year to watch the Indianapolis 500 auto race, and the sport is sure to win new suburban fans now that Detroit has been ordered to make more fuel-efficient cars.

We can only imagine the thrill of hearing the high-pitched whine of hybrid engines as low-emission vehicles achieve speeds exceeding 80 miles per hour. Though perhaps "the greatest spectacle in racing" will soon be presenting itself as "a sustainable activity, when appropriately balanced with carbon offsets."
 
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A10
 

 

Sunday's Web

The day’s top political news:

Saudi Arabian Oil Minister Says Oil to Reach $75 a Barrel

George Bush unilaterally sent the price of gas at the pump crashing down by cancelling the federal ban on off shore drilling, thus sending a clear signal of US commitment to become energy independent. 

Obama’s administration reversed Bush’s action, and prices are headed back up to the levels of last summer – some of which reached $4 a gallon.

“We’ll get there eventually,” Minister al-Naimi told reporters in Rome where he will attend meetings with energy ministers from the Group of Eight industrialized nations. “The trick is keeping it between $70 and $80. It will be achieved as demand rises and the minister, Naimi says he will recommend OPEC members “stay the course” at their meeting in Vienna on May 28. Saudi Arabia is the biggest and most influential member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which produces about 40 percent of the world’s oil.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=awtQr3leXiOk&refer=worldwide

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a longtime critic of Beijing's rule over Tibet and its human rights record, has arrived in China for a trip said to be focused on energy and climate change.

Given her raging fiasco in calling the CIA liars, and her woeful attempt to stonewall reporters and the nation by refusing to honestly discuss her allegations, Pelosi very urgently needed an escape abroad.

US embassy spokeswoman Susan Stevenson confirmed Pelosi had arrived in Shanghai but could not say who the top US official was going to meet in the country's financial hub.

Pelosi is scheduled to attend a clean energy forum in Beijing on Tuesday along with Senator John Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Other details of her itinerary were not immediately known.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090524/wl_asia_afp/chinausclimaterightscongresslead_20090524135128

British banks revolt against Obama tax plan

British banks and stockbrokers may refuse to take on American clients if new international tax proposals outlined by President Obama are passed.

The decision, which would make it hard for Americans in London to open bank accounts and trade shares, is being discussed by executives at Britain's banks and brokers who say it could become too expensive to service American clients.

The proposals, which were unveiled as part of the president's first budget, are designed to clamp-down on American tax evaders abroad. However bank bosses say they are being asked to take on the task of collecting American taxes at a cost and legal liability that are inexpedient.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/5374095/British-banks-revolt-against-Obama-tax-plan.html

Opinion:
Sorry, but I get really upset seeing politicians who neither respect nor honor our military, exploiting the holiday designed to pay homage to our heroes.

Face it.  There are a lot of Democrat politicians who hate our military.

We saw it from Bill Clinton – a man who ran from honest military service like a scalded dog, and we have seen it from Democrat Senate Leader, Harry Reid, when he unilaterally surrendered to the radical Islamic terrorists we are fighting in the Global War on Terror.

Nancy Pelosi, of course, is famous for having 40 times tried to pull the rug out from under our troops under fire in combat by cancelling their funding.  Now Pelosi slanders our intelligence people.

Barack Obama, of course, has never served, and his distaste for our military is more than obvious.  For far too many Democrats, the outrageous sentiments of such locales as Frisco and Berkeley are the norm.

Even those Democrats who have served conspire against our military – with Congressman John Murtha of Pennsylvania heading the list.  Murtha was in the Marine reserves long enough to claim retirement, but spent all but a short time in the states.  When he went to Vietnam, it was for a desk job.  Yet, he bitterly slandered US Marines who were actually in combat, going so far as to accuse them of murdering civilians  -- a charge that proved dead wrong.  All the Marines Murtha accused were exonerated in court.

Of course, we also have John Kerry who conveniently has scuttled away to China this Memorial Day.  Kerry returned from Vietnam and became a radical opponent of the war, beginning with an outrageous appearance in the Capitol in which he slandered those with whom he claimed he fought.  Kerry went on to engage in anti war protests among those who urged the Communists to fight on in Vietnam, even as the Communists were prepared to sue for peace.  The Kerry-Jane Fonda types thus prolonged the Vietnam war for an additional eight years.  Their actions are responsible for the deaths of thousands of our military.

Kerry did more.  I personally witnessed his leading an antiwar demonstration on the Mall in Washington – a demonstration featuring a live broadcast from Hanoi, chanting of Communist slogans, and a sea of waving Communist flags.  I call that an act of treason, but, perhaps, that’s just me.

I drew a long straw and missed actual combat.

I was an RB-47 pilot on a lead combat crew in SAC – the old Strategic Air Command.

In a sense, we were in combat constantly – having to remain ready to fly “The Mission” at the drop of a hat. We had our targets and trained on them.  We even had information on those we might find useful in escaping should we be shot down. We had to allways notify others regarding where we were and where we could be reached (in a day long before cell phone convenience) at all times.  We knew that at any moment in those days, WWIII could break out and we had to be fully prepared.

General Curtis LeMay would have it no other way.

Nine of us were checked out as crew members, the summer of 1957.  We then flew a mission that took us and about 2,000 other US air crews to within the coast of the Soviet Union – the strategic point of the mission was never offered.

Meanwhile, two of our group of nine, were shot down by Soviet Mig Fighters over the Baltic Sea in a special, secret, version of the B-47.  Four of the crew died, two, my friends, were picked up by the Communists and kept imprisoned in Moscow for a year and a half until being traded (along with U-2 Pilot Gary Powers) for Soviet Spy Rudolph Abel.

I chose not to sign up as a career officer – but many of my friends did so, and I have always saluted their services and questioned whether I should have followed a different course given the reality of the world at the time.

Some Democrats, such as old time DNC Finance guy Terry McAuliffe, openly insulted and denigrated our Reserves and National Guard.  His disgusting remarks were brought on by the liberal assault on George Bush.  Democrats did their best to attack the Bush military career – attacks that were nothing but bald faced lies.   Fortunately, we have Dan Rather to thank for ending the debate.  Rather’s fraudulent attack was demolished and proven totally phony.  Rather was retired in disgrace.

I was impressed and quite proud of the first Air Assault helicopter forces that took a new approach to warfare and tactics from Fort Benning to Vietnam.  They carried on the heroic traditions of our military – despite the back biting and opposition from Democrats.

Ronald Reagan won the Cold War – even as many Democrats in Congress were not supporting our position.  He had the proper strategy “we win, they lose” – far far better and more effective than the Democrat alternative of cut, run and surrender.

Republicans have been steadfast in their support of our military, as have pro-Republican and other conservative groups such as the American Legion.  Meanwhile, Democrats have embraced radical anti military groups such as Code Pink, and Moveon.org.

There IS a difference and as we continue enduring and contemplating the threat to our society and culture posed by radical Islamic terrorists and those who support them, and that difference should be kept in our minds every day.

We owe our liberty and our freedoms to those who were willing to go in harms way and confront our enemies – from the days of the Revolution, until this very day.  It is them we should salute and honor.

But pardon me if I express a bit of personal outrage over hypocrites who pay lip service on holidays such as this, then return to undercutting and betraying our military the rest of the year.

Buddy

The Day’s top Blogs:

1.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/
 
No Class

Power Line ^
John Hinderaker

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:

Our fighting men and women - and the military families who love them - embody what is best in America. And we have a responsibility to serve all of them as well as they serve all of us.

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.

(NOTE I would readily concede it may be possible for a liberal Democrat to be patriotic, but – given statements by Pelosi and the Hapless Reid -- the burden of proof has shifted substantially.)

Barack Obama, the soldiers' friend! As ( Chris Stirewalt) notes:

It gets little notice, but even to this day Bush makes calls on wounded veterans at military hospitals, corresponds with families of fallen service members and gives his own money to veterans charities. In office, Bush hugely increased funding for veterans programs and worked relentlessly to improve the lot of ordinary troops.

It would be interesting to know how much of his own money Barack Obama has given to veterans' charities over the years. I'd hazard a guess: zero.

Obama's incessant attacks on the Bush administration tell us nothing about former President Bush, but a great deal about Barack Obama: the man has no class.

2.

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/05/21/barney-frank-lies-about-acorn

Barney Frank Lies About ACORN
Matthew Vadum

House Financial Services Committee chairman Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) lied to Lou Dobbs on national television the other night but no one seems to have noticed.

On the May 18 edition on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minnesota) said she was worried about the fact that ACORN and other organizations would "have access potentially to $8.5 billion" in federal funds.

ACORN, which Bachmann noted has received about $53 million in federal money since the early 1990s, has "a pattern of indictment for voter fraud," she said. "It's very concerning. No organization has a right to federal taxpayer money."

(NOTE Vote fraud and theft is nothing new to Democrat politicians.  For decades, they have exploited such groups as Black Southern voters in scams that have, on occasion, even used Church buses to carry voters to polls to vote for fraudulently registered or mythical voters.  Greenville, Alabama is notorious for such fraud and theft. ACORN is taking such an example nationwide and has found co conspirators in or government to funnel money to them to carry it out.  In many ways, ACORN’s scandal is more destructive than some of our financial fiascos.)

During the heated discussion that followed, longtime ACORN ally Frank said, "the notion that they're eligible for $8 billion is nonsense." A moment later Frank, who appeared last year in one of the group's promotional videos on YouTube called "ACORN Grassroots Democracy Campaign," repeated his mantra.
"But it's not $8 billion," he said.

Bachmann, whose provision blocking ACORN from receiving funding in a recent mortgage reform bill was stripped out at the urging of Frank, has previously said that ACORN and other left-wing advocacy groups could have a shot at pocketing up to $8.5 billion this year.

She's correct. I am the researcher who came up with the $8.5 billion figure.
Let's break the $8.5 billion down.

The relevant fiscal provisions are buried deep in the $800 billion-plus stimulus package now known formally as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 or Public Law 111-5 and in the $47.5 billion proposed fiscal 2010 budget for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The stimulus legislation originally set aside $5.2 billion that could flow directly or indirectly into the coffers of ACORN and its liberal friends. The $5.2 billion was chopped down to $3 billion in the version of the bill that President Obama signed into law on February 17. The $3 billion consists of $2 billion in funds set aside for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes and $1 billion in Community Development Block Grants (CDBG).

CDBG is good old-fashioned graft. Local politicians of both parties adore CDBG because it is flexible. The program gives them wide latitude when spending grant money and allows local leaders to use federal dollars on local projects that they wouldn't dream of asking local taxpayers to fund. In the words of Heritage Foundation analyst Brian Riedl, CDBG "serves as little more than a congressional slush fund for favored interests...it funds local projects that local governments would not spend their own tax dollars on."

ACORN loves CDBG because it is especially adept at extracting CDBG funds from local governments.
In addition to the $3 billion available in the stimulus package, the proposed HUD budget for the fiscal year that begins October 1 provides $1 billion for the affordable housing trust fund and $4.5 billion in CDBG funds that could in theory find their way to ACORN and other liberal groups.

ACORN acknowledged at page 47 of its 2006 year-end report that it expected to be able to receive funds from "a housing trust fund" that would "make funding available for our development program." The housing trust fund ACORN was hoping for was not enacted until 2008 as part of the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac rescue bill.

But the funding formula in the legislation enacted called for Fannie and Freddie to contribute to the housing trust fund out of profits, and it doesn't look like the two government-sponsored enterprises will be able to pay into the fund anytime soon. Adding new money to the fund through the HUD budget is an excellent way to roll out the goodies for loyal supporters in left-of-center political advocacy groups such as ACORN.

Moreover, as the Competitive Enterprise Institute's John Berlau wrote on these cyber pages last June 17, there is no guarantee that the trust fund monies will find their way to their intended recipient. The housing trust fund "is almost set up from the beginning to be diverted to purposes other than affordable housing," he wrote.

The legislation contains few safeguards to ensure the money is spent on affordable housing and has so many holes in it that "would allow the money to be easily siphoned off to liberal activist groups such as Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) for lobbying and political campaigning."

Federal lawmakers have known about ACORN's unorthodox financial practices, including its use of government resources to promote legislation and its commingling of funds within its network of affiliates.

A congressional report noted that there was "apparent cross-over funding between
ACORN, a political advocacy group and ACORN Housing Corp. (AHC), a non profit, AmeriCorp [sic] grantee" that is a major affiliate of ACORN.

The government-funded AmeriCorps, which promotes public service, suspended AHC's funding "after it was learned that AHC and ACORN shared office space and equipment and failed to assure that activities and funds were wholly separate."

The report noted that, "AmeriCorps members of AHC raised funds for ACORN, performed voter registration activities, and gave partisan speeches. In one instance, an AmeriCorps member was directed by ACORN staff to assist the [Clinton] White House in preparing a press conference in support of legislation." ("Report on the Activities of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities During the 104th Congress," Report 104-875, January 2, 1997)

It's impossible to figure out where all of ACORN's money goes. As the Employment Policies Institute noted in a report: "Because it operates a virtual self-contained economy, ACORN entities exchange millions of dollars every year for goods and services. The scant financial documents available for public inspection paint a picture of a spider web of ACORN-run organizations that trade loans, leases, payments, and grants."

Congresswoman Bachmann is right to be worried about ACORN getting its hands on federal tax dollars.
Given its long history of electoral fraud and unorthodox accounting practices it shouldn't get even a penny of federal money.

3.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/05/obama_vs_cheney_man_vs_manchil.html
 
Obama vs. Cheney: Man vs. Manchild
Rick Moran

It was an extraordinary moment for our times. Two men with radically opposing viewpoints gave speeches on national security at roughly the same time and addressed most of the same subjects.
 
One, former Vice President Dick Cheney. The other, our current President Barack Obama. While it is difficult to be objective about the content of both speeches, a couple of general observations about the style and tone of the addresses can be made based on long standing principles of good speechmaking without resorting to (too much) partisanship.

I found the contrasting styles of the speeches fascinating. Cheney - elder statesman, experienced in government and politics - gave a speech that was a classic debaters' defense of Bush era policies as well as a straightforward tour d'horizon listing the threats we face an (sic) the nature of our enemies. Cheney's appeal was to the head, not the heart.

Obama, on the other hand, gave a speech he could have given a year ago during the campaign. High minded but defensive - almost as if he were responding to a campaign faux pas:

The third decision that I made was to order a review of all pending cases at Guantanamo. I knew when I ordered Guantanamo closed that it would be difficult and complex. There are 240 people there who have now spent years in legal limbo. In dealing with this situation, we don't have the luxury of starting from scratch. We're cleaning up something that is, quite simply, a mess -- a misguided experiment that has left in its wake a flood of legal challenges that my administration is forced to deal with on a constant, almost daily basis, and it consumes the time of government officials whose time should be spent on better protecting our country.

Note the appeal to sympathy and evasion of responsibility. Obama's speech is peppered with these little emotional appeals for understanding which is not only unseemly for a president but only serves to highlight his confusion and refusal to place national security above the plane of rhetoric and "values" and treat it like the hard headed, real world responsibility that it must be if we are to stay safe.

Cheney cooly dissected most of Obama's arguments, praising the president for some of his actions but pointing out in no uncertain terms that the president's starry eyed view of the threats we face as well as his plans with regard to Guantanamo do not make us safer:

On his second day in office, President Obama announced that he was closing the detention facility at Guantanamo. This step came with little deliberation and no plan. Their idea now, as stated by Attorney General Holder and others, is apparently to bring some of these hardened terrorists into the United States. On this one, I find myself in complete agreement with many in the President's own party. Unsure how to explain to their constituents why terrorists might soon be relocating into their states, these Democrats chose instead to strip funding for such a move out of the most recent war supplemental.

The administration has found that it's easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo. But it's tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interests of justice and America's national security. Keep in mind that these are hardened terrorists picked up overseas since 9/11. The ones that were considered low-risk were released a long time ago. And among these, it turns out that many were treated too leniently, because they cut a straight path back to their prior line of work and have conducted murderous attacks in the Middle East. I think the President will find, upon reflection, that to bring the worst of the worst terrorists inside the United States would be cause for great danger and regret in the years to come.

In the category of euphemism, the prizewinning entry would be a recent editorial in a familiar newspaper that referred to terrorists we've captured as, quote, "abducted." Here we have ruthless enemies of this country, stopped in their tracks by brave operatives in the service of America, and a major editorial page makes them sound like they were kidnap victims, picked up at random on their way to the movies.

Note how Cheney cuts through the clutter and gets to the heart of the matter. He does it by appealing to logic and reason, not emotion. Even his frequent mentions of 9/11 during the speech were contextual and not designed to elicit an emotional reaction. It's what Obama failed to do in his speech. His context was "cleaning up the Bush mess," rather than fighting and winning the War on Terror.

There was nothing radically wrong with Obama's speech stylistically - if, as I said, he were still running for president. It flowed nicely. It laid out the liberal narrative on torture and Guantanamo smoothly. The frequent breaks for applause proved that his appeal to emotion worked quite well.

But the speech itself was appalling. It sounded whiny in places and extremely defensive. And this part sent chills down my spine:

National security requires a delicate balance. One (sic) the one hand, our democracy depends on transparency. On the other hand, some information must be protected from public disclosure for the sake of our security -- for instance, the movement of our troops, our intelligence-gathering, or the information we have about a terrorist organization and its affiliates. In these and other cases, lives are at stake.

Now, several weeks ago, as part of an ongoing court case, I released memos issued by the previous administration's Office of Legal Counsel. I did not do this because I disagreed with the enhanced interrogation techniques that those memos authorized, and I didn't release the documents because I rejected their legal rationales -- although I do on both counts. I released the memos because the existence of that approach to interrogation was already widely known, the Bush administration had acknowledged its existence, and I had already banned those methods. The argument that somehow by releasing those memos we are providing terrorists with information about how they will be interrogated makes no sense. We will not be interrogating terrorists using that approach. That approach is now prohibited.

In short, I released these memos because there was no overriding reason to protect them. And the ensuing debate has helped the American people better understand how these interrogation methods came to be authorized and used.

I don't think I've ever seen such a narrow, self serving definition of government secrecy nor a lamer excuse for violating it. The same argument was made for opposing the Terrorist Surveillance Program; terrorists already know we listen to them so what's the big deal?

(NOTE: Face it – Obama is reading a speech almost certainly written by people who reflect the thinking and philosophy of radical places such as Berkeley and Frisco.  They have no sincere feelings of patriotism, no honest understanding of our military, and continue the Democrat heritage of the past generation of clinging to a single strategy for any and all our military conflicts: cut, run and surrender.)

Cheney, to say the least, is not impressed:

One person who by all accounts objected to the release of the interrogation memos was the Director of Central Intelligence, Leon Panetta. He was joined in that view by at least four of his predecessors. I assume they felt this way because they understand the importance of protecting intelligence sources, methods, and personnel. But now that this once top-secret information is out for all to see - including the enemy - let me draw your attention to some points that are routinely overlooked.

It is a fact that only detainees of the highest intelligence value were ever subjected to enhanced interrogation. You've heard endlessly about waterboarding. It happened to three terrorists. One of them was Khalid Sheikh Muhammed - the mastermind of 9/11, who has also boasted about beheading Daniel Pearl.

We had a lot of blind spots after the attacks on our country. We didn't know about al-Qaeda's plans, but Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and a few others did know. And with many thousands of innocent lives potentially in the balance, we didn't think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time, if they answered them at all.

Maybe you've heard that when we captured KSM, he said he would talk as soon as he got to New York City and saw his lawyer. But like many critics of interrogations, he clearly misunderstood the business at hand. American personnel were not there to commence an elaborate legal proceeding, but to extract information from him before al-Qaeda could strike again and kill more of our people.
 
Cheney knows full well it is stupidity and folly to "assume" your enemy "already knows" something so it is safe to release classified information. You never know what value the enemy will receive from such releases and besides, why take the chance that they can get anything that would help them?

For Obama, his "feel good" national security policy requires that it doesn't matter if the enemy gains an advantage, only that we adhere to his idea of "American values" - which wouldn't mean very much to dead Americans who were killed due to his frightening naivete and stupidity.

These were two speeches that featured competing world views, competing visions of America, and competing ideas on how to deal with the threats that face us. Cheney's statesmanlike address contrasted with Obama's campaign-style, defensive talk. One appealed to the head, the other the heart. One was delivered by a man, the other a man-child.

Dick Cheney is emerging as the elder statesman of the Republican party and the goto guy on critiquing Obama's national security policy. Let's hope he is accorded the opportunity to comment often.

 
 
 
 

 

Saturday's Web

The day’s top political news:

In a sobering holiday interview with C-SPAN, President Obama boldly told Americans: "We are out of money."

C-SPAN host Steve Scully broke from a meek Washington press corps with probing questions for the new president.

SCULLY: You know the numbers, $1.7 trillion debt, a national deficit of $11 trillion. At what point do we run out of money?

OBAMA: Well, we are out of money now. We are operating in deep deficits, not caused by any decisions we've made on health care so far. This is a consequence of the crisis that we've seen and in fact our failure to make some good decisions on health care over the last several decades.

http://drudgereport.com/flashocs.htm

Pelosi stonewalling: "Nothing more to say" on her CIA allegation 

Pelosi stonewalled on obvious media questions regarding her claim the CIA lied to Congress.

“I have made the statement that I'm going to make on this," she told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference. "I don't have anything more to say about it. I stand by my comment."

Pelosi thus stands pat on her assertion the CIA has lied to Congress.  Given that position, there is an obligation to proceed with a criminal investigation – Pelosi has no option of simply remaining silent. The CIA deserves an apology, America deserves an honest answer.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98BCGD80&show_article=1

Congress attacks GM revamp

General Motors is preparing to file for bankruptcy protection as early as May 31, but a speedy restructuring of the carmaker faces headwinds from an increasingly sceptical US Congress.

Under the current plan, the US government would cancel most or all of its existing debt in the company and invest in a “new” GM that could emerge from bankruptcy in the autumn, said a person close to the matter.

GM would receive tens of billions of dollars in new government money, probably in stages, to prop up its business at a time when car sales are threatening to be lower than the 10m annual rate at which GM says it can break even.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2dca3956-46f2-11de-923e-00144feabdc0.html

Opinion:
Republicans and their Southern base

I cannot let this article pass without noting that much of the story of the southern turn to the GOP came as a direct result of the personal efforts of myself and a host of my close friends.  Has we not come along, it is likely the South’s southern base would not exist today – at least it would not be as strong.

None of us ran for office, but we were the mechanics who had their hands begrimed with the sticky stuff that is often confronted in politics – especially Democrat politics.

We had our heroes, of course.  Strom Thurmond of South Carolina switched parties and brought along Albert Watson, a congressman representing the northern South Carolina district.

Newt Gingrich who led a revolution that gave the GOP majority status, was among our friends.  We suffered with him through three tries until he finally made it across the finish line.  During one strategy session, he was stung by kidding suggesting he might become a Georgia version of Harold Stassen (a Minnesota ex-Senator who ran for the GOP presidential nomination for years, despite the fact he had no chance of winning).

Newt’s ultimate success was a lesson in political commitment and a “never say die” approach.  These days, in political discussions, we no longer joke about Newt, these days we cite a connection with him as a matter of reinforcing our own credibility.

Newt seems poised to run for President.

But then there’s Haley.  Haley is also a long time friend – friendship dating back to his being Executive Director of the Mississippi party at a time in which I was representing the RNC in the Deep South states.

Haley and Newt are both among the smartest political thinkers I know – even smarter than any pundits whose columns I read and judge.

In Haley’s case, he brings a common sense approach to politics that replicates the image Fred Thompson held from his days of acting, playing the District Attorney who always had an answer based on down home logic and reason.

Haley was national GOP chairman even as Newt was becoming our leader on Capitol Hill.  It was a truly amazing pair.

America faces a crisis as never before.  Despite efforts to place blame on its Southern strength, it’s a crisis created by the extreme left – a demographic dominating today’s Democrats. 

It’s past time to discuss this crisis and its causes openly, factually, and with an honest approach to reality.

Be assured.  Such a discussion will be vigorously opposed by the left, and any conclusion that is anti liberal will be met with ridicule and vicious attack from the left.

Much of their power stems from the corruption of the mainstream media – almost an organic arm of the DNC, a liberal corruption of our system of justice, the obvious left wing corruption of public education and academia in general, and the left wing corrupt even of our churches – especially the churches of denominations who have surrendered to the National and World Councils of Churches, another group that has openly and vehemently denounced this country and condemned it.

The country’s crisis is not due to the influence of the South on Republicans in and out of office.

However, it is most likely, based on history, that a way out of that crisis will come from a southern Republican.  After all, few outside the south are willing to take the challenge.

Buddy

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/cs_20090523_2195.php

For GOP, A Southern Exposure
REPUBLICAN STRENGTH IN THE SOUTH HAS BOTH COMPENSATED FOR AND MASKED THE EXTENT OF THE PARTY'S DECLINE ELSEWHERE.
Ronald Brownstein

Founded in the decade before the Civil War as the Northern voice of union, the Republican Party today is more electorally dependent on the South than at any point in its past.

In the House and Senate, nearly half of all Republicans were elected from that region, defined as the 11 states of the Confederacy, plus Kentucky and Oklahoma. In each chamber, Southerners are a larger share of the Republican caucus than ever before. Similarly, beginning with the 1992 presidential election, the South has provided at least 59 percent of the Electoral College votes won by the GOP nominee, including by George W. Bush in his 2000 and 2004 victories. That percentage is nearly double the South's share of all Electoral College votes and by far the most that GOP presidential nominees have relied on the region over any sustained period.

Republican strength in the South has both compensated for and masked the extent of the GOP's decline elsewhere. By several key measures, the party is now weaker outside the South than at any time since the Depression; in some ways, it is weaker than ever before.

Today the GOP holds a smaller share of non-Southern seats in the House and Senate than at any other point in its history except the apex of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's popularity during the early days of the New Deal. What is perhaps even more dramatic is that Republicans in the past five presidential elections have won a smaller share of the Electoral College votes available outside of the South than in any other five-election sequence since the party's formation in 1854. Likewise, since 1992, Republican presidential nominees have won a smaller share of the cumulative popular vote outside of the South than in any other five-election sequence since the party's founding, including the five consecutive elections won by Roosevelt and Harry Truman (1932 to 1948).

The Republican domination of the South "looked great when we were holding on to our Northeastern and Midwestern seats and continuing to sweep the South," said Whit Ayres, a GOP pollster who specializes in Southern races. "The challenge arises when the rest of the country says, 'I don't believe the same things,' or 'I don't admire the same candidates,' as the South does."

Since Bush's re-election in 2004, the GOP has lost ground electorally in the South and the rest of the nation. But the erosion has been much more severe outside the South. That dynamic has threatened Republicans with a spiral of concentration and contraction. Because the party has lost so much ground elsewhere, the South represents an increasing share of what remains -- both in Congress and in its electoral coalition. The party's increasing identification with staunch Southern economic and social conservatism, however, may be accelerating its decline in more-moderate-to-liberal areas of the country, including the Northeast and the West Coast. "Many of the things they have done to become the dominant party in the South have caused them to be less successful in other places," said veteran Democratic strategist Bill Carrick, a South Carolina native.

(NOTE: Decline of GOP support on the West Coast is far more a matter of economic policies and philosophies.  That coast has surrendered to embracing extreme concepts and philosophies.  Arguably, the Frisco area and its close environs such as Berkeley and Oakland, are the most anti American areas of the country – not just not in agreement, but actively anti American, especially in the case of national defense.  Of course last week’s rejection of Arnold’s tax hikes may change things and sends a message sure to rattle cages in Washington.)

These intertwined trends -- the Republican Party's growing reliance on the South and the erosion of its strength elsewhere, particularly along the coasts -- have prompted some unusually public soul-searching within the GOP about whether the party has grown too defined by the unflinchingly conservative priorities of its most loyal region. Although the GOP congressional leadership includes more non-Southerners than it did in the 1990s, much of the party's most militant opposition to President Obama has come from Southern leaders, such as South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford and Texas Gov. Rick Perry. The Texan even raised the possibility of secession in response to Obama's initiatives.

In the view of former Rep. Charles Bass, R-N.H., who was defeated in 2006, "The current crisis of the Republican Party is whether it wants to be a regional party or whether it can try to expand ideologically and appeal to other regions."

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a former Republican National Committee chairman, argues that the election of Republican governors in New England, the Midwest, and California refutes the idea that the GOP is becoming excessively Southern. "If it wasn't for the governors, it would be more of a danger, more of an issue," Barbour said. "When I became a Republican in 1968, we were not a national party. We weren't competitive in a lot of the South. And you don't want to ever get as a party where you are not competitive in any area of the country."

Although not as severe, the regional challenges now confronting the GOP resemble those that Democrats faced in the first decades of the 20th century, when Republicans dominated Congress and the White House. From 1896 until Franklin Roosevelt's election in 1932, the Solid South, which still rejected Republicans as the perpetrators of "Northern aggression" in the Civil War, provided the sole regional base for the depleted Democrats. But throughout much of that period, the Democrats' pervasive identification with the South made it harder for them to loosen the Republicans' commanding grip on the rest of the country. In those years of Democratic decline, "the South was the majority faction in a minority party," notes Emory University political scientist Merle Black, co-author of the 2002 book The Rise of Southern Republicans. "And now it looks like the Southerners are becoming close to a majority faction in a minority Republican Party."
Presidential Balloting

For seven decades after the end of Reconstruction, Republicans were pariahs in Southern politics. From 1880 through 1948, Republican presidential nominees did not win a single state in the Old Confederacy, except Tennessee in 1920 and Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia in 1928, when Democrats nominated Northern Catholic Al Smith. Over that long period, the only other Southern states that Republicans carried were in the outer South: Kentucky in 1896, 1924, and 1928; Oklahoma in 1920 and 1928.

In terms of presidential politics, Republicans made their first inroads into the South from 1952 to 1964, when Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and Barry Goldwater each won five to seven states there. After the Democratic-controlled Congress joined with Democratic President Johnson to end state-sponsored segregation by enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the traditional Southern Democratic coalition shattered. In 1968, Democratic presidential nominee Hubert Humphrey won only one Southern state, Texas; Nixon carried seven; and former Gov. George Wallace of Alabama, a segregationist running as an independent, carried the other five.
 
Since then, Republican presidential nominees have dominated the South. In the five elections from 1972 to 1988, Republicans won all of the South's electoral votes three times (1972, 1984, and 1988) and more than 90 percent of them in 1980. During that period, the only Democrat to win a majority of Southern Electoral College votes was former Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter in 1976.

From 1972 to 1988, Republicans ran nearly as well outside the South as they did in the South. In three of that period's five presidential elections (1972, 1980, and 1984), the Republican nominee won at least 90 percent of the non-Southern Electoral College votes. Likewise, the party's nominee won almost three-fourths of them in 1988 and nearly three-fifths of them in 1976.

Beginning in 1992, the GOP's fortunes in the South and the non-South diverged. Since then, the GOP has remained strong in the South. Even as Arkansas's Bill Clinton was twice winning the White House for the Democrats, the GOP won about two-thirds of the region's Electoral College votes. In 2000 and 2004, Texan George Bush won all of the South's Electoral College votes, even though his first race was against a fellow Southerner, Al Gore of Tennessee. In 2008, Democrat Barack Obama made potentially significant inroads into the region by capturing Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia -- Southern states influenced by outside migration -- but Republican John McCain still won two-thirds of Southern Electoral College votes.

Elsewhere, though, the GOP's presidential performance has tumbled in recent election cycles.

Democrats have won at least two-thirds of the Electoral College votes outside the South in each of the past five elections. Even Bush won only about 30 percent of the non-Southern Electoral College votes in 2000 and again in 2004.

In all, across these past five presidential elections, Republicans have won an average of only 21.1 percent of the Electoral College votes at stake outside the South. That's less than the 22.7 percent of the non-Southern Electoral College votes they captured in the five elections from 1932 through 1948. In fact, as noted above, from 1992 through 2008, the GOP won a smaller share of non-Southern Electoral College votes than it did during any other five-election sequence since the party picked John C. Fremont as its first presidential nominee in 1856.

As the Republican Party weakened elsewhere from 1992 to 2008, the 13 Southern states provided 59 to 69 percent of all the Electoral College votes won by its presidential nominees. Only once before had the region provided more than 36 percent of the party's Electoral College votes. The exception was in 1964, when five Southern states were the only places Barry Goldwater won outside of his native Arizona.

The story is similar with the presidential popular vote. For many decades after Reconstruction, the GOP was annihilated in the South: None of its nominees, for instance, exceeded 30.1 percent against FDR or Truman. But the party established a Southern beachhead from 1952 through 1964 (winning just under half of the region's votes) and raced past the Democrats after Wallace's insurgency.

In all 10 elections from 1972 through 2008, the GOP presidential nominee outpolled the Democratic nominee in the South, except in 1976 when native son Carter beat Gerald Ford in the region, according to calculations performed for National Journal by Polidata, a political data analysis firm. In seven of these 10 elections, the Republican nominee won an absolute majority of Southern votes -- four times reaching at least 57 percent. As he did in the Electoral College, Obama made inroads in last November's popular vote: He won 46 percent of Southern votes, more than any other Democrat since 1976 except for President Clinton in 1996. Even so, McCain drew a solid 53 percent of the region's votes.

From 1972 through 1988, the Republican nominee also carried the non-Southern popular vote each time, according to Polidata. In 1992, however, the South and non-South diverged once again. Starting that year, the Democratic nominee has outpolled his Republican rival in the non-Southern states each time. And the Republican nominee has exceeded 45 percent of the popular vote in the non-South only in 2004, when Bush won re-election while attracting almost 48 percent. In 2008, Obama crushed McCain outside the South, receiving 56 percent to his rival's 42 percent, Polidata found. That 14-point difference was the third-widest margin of victory ever for a Democrat over a Republican in the non-Southern states. Only Johnson in 1964 and Roosevelt in 1936 exceeded it.

Overall, Republicans won just 41.9 percent of the cumulative presidential popular vote outside of the South from 1992 through 2008, the Polidata calculations show. That was a stunning drop from their average of 53.3 percent in the non-South from 1972 through 1988. It was also less than the 45 percent of the popular vote that the GOP won in the non-Southern states during the five elections of the FDR-Truman era, a halcyon time for the Democratic Party.

Like the GOP's showing in the Electoral College, the Republican popular-vote tally outside of the South since 1992 is, in fact, the party's worst performance for any five-election sequence since its founding. The last time either party fared so poorly outside the South over five elections was 1916 through 1932, when the Democrats won only 40 percent of the non-Southern cumulative popular vote. The Republican total was low in 1992 and 1996 in part because independent candidate Ross Perot siphoned off votes from both major-party nominees. But third-party candidates split the vote in earlier periods, too. And even considering only the votes for major-party candidates, the Republican average in the non-Southern states from 1992 through 2008 is the party's worst showing ever over any five-election sequence.

A Similar Pattern On The Hill

Republicans were just as marginalized in Southern congressional contests as they were in the region's presidential races for many decades after Reconstruction. From 1900 through 1960, Republicans held more than 10 percent of the South's House seats in only three Congresses. In the Senate, between 1878 and 1960, the GOP only once -- in 1924 -- held more than two of the region's 26 seats. In the 20th century, Republicans did not elect a senator from the Old Confederacy until John Tower won the Texas seat that Lyndon Johnson vacated in 1961.

In both chambers, Southern Republicans started advancing in the early 1960s. Their gains accelerated over the next quarter-century, as a powerful constellation of issues -- including school busing and civil rights, abortion, gun control, gay rights, taxes, and national security -- drove legions of conservative white Southerners from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party.

The Republican share of Southern House seats doubled from 7.5 percent in 1960 to 15 percent in 1964, crossed 30 percent in Richard Nixon's 1972 landslide, and reached 36 percent when Ronald Reagan routed Jimmy Carter in 1980. Dixie Democrats largely held their ground for the next decade, but in 1994, the backlash against Clinton's chaotic first two years allowed Republicans to win a majority of Southern House seats for the first time since 1868.

The GOP's Southern progress in the Senate followed a similar track. The party grew from three seats in 1962 to 10 in 1972 and 12 during President Reagan's first term, before losing some ground later in the 1980s. The 1994 Republican surge then lifted the number to 16, giving the GOP its first majority of the South's Senate seats since 1872.

After the 1994 election, Republicans controlled a majority of House seats not only in the South but also in the non-South (about 53 percent in each case). Holding House majorities both inside and outside the South was another post-Reconstruction first for the party, Merle and Earl Black noted in The Rise of Southern Republicans. Following the 1994 election, Republicans also controlled most Southern Senate seats and exactly half of non-Southern seats.

In a pattern similar to the presidential balloting, the GOP's experiences in the South and the non-South diverged after 1994. The party has remained strong across the South. From 1996 through 2004, Republicans controlled at least 17 Southern Senate seats (peaking at 21 seats) and consistently won about three-fifths of Southern House seats. In both chambers, Republicans have surrendered some Southern seats since 2006 because of the public's widespread disillusionment with Bush's performance.

(Most notably, Democrats have gained 11 Southern House seats.) But, the GOP still holds 56 percent of the region's House seats and 19 of its 26 Senate seats. Outside the South, though, the GOP's position has sharply deteriorated. In the House, the party's non-Southern majority held for only two years, falling to 49 percent in 1996. Through 2004, the party retained control of nearly half of non-Southern House seats. The bottom fell out in 2006. Over the past two elections, the GOP share of non-Southern House seats has plunged to just 33.5 percent. Only twice in the party's history has it controlled a smaller share of House seats outside the South -- after the 1934 and 1936 elections at the height of FDR's popularity.

The GOP has followed a similar downward trajectory in the Senate. Republicans held exactly half of the chamber's 74 non-Southern seats from 1994 through 1998, but their share fell to around 45 percent during Bush's first term. After sharp losses in 2006 and 2008, the Republican share of non-Southern seats has dwindled to around 28 percent (counting Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter as a Democrat). That is the smallest percentage of non-Southern Senate seats controlled by Republicans, except after the 1936 FDR re-election landslide that reduced the GOP to its modern low point in Congress.

The Republicans' Southern advance has steadily tilted the balance of power in the congressional GOP toward the region. With only a single exception, the share of the House Republican Conference from the 13 Southern states has increased in every Congress since 1960. (Only the Congress elected in 1986 broke the pattern.) The progression hasn't been quite as linear in the Senate, but even there the South tripled its share of Republican seats from 9 percent in 1962 to 28 percent in 1992, before rising steadily to about one-third in 2000.

The party's losses in other regions during George W. Bush's second term shifted the balance even more sharply toward the South. In the House, the share of Southern members in the Republican caucus jumped from about 37 percent in 2000 to 45 percent now; in the Senate, the South's share spiked from 34 percent in 2000 to 48 percent now (19 of 40 members). In both chambers, the Republican conference is now considerably more concentrated in the South than ever before. These percentages far exceed the contribution of the 13 Southern states to Congress's overall makeup (about one-fourth of the Senate and one-third of the House). They also represent the biggest Southern tilt in either party since Dixie provided a comparable share of House and Senate Democrats in the mid-1950s.

Pulled To The Right

From Reconstruction through the modern civil-rights era, a consuming -- and often insurmountable -- challenge for Democratic leaders was reconciling the priorities of a solidly conservative South with the views of the party's supporters elsewhere. Republicans today face a similar test. Over the past 50 years, with the decline of the party's moderate wing, the GOP's center of gravity has shifted to the right. But more often than not, the South still defines the party's right flank.

Southern House Republicans, for instance, have overwhelmingly opposed Obama, even on the handful of issues where he's made inroads among GOP legislators from other regions. Nearly one-third of House Republicans from outside of the South supported expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program, but only one-tenth of Southern House Republicans did so. Likewise, just 5 percent of Southern House Republicans supported the bill expanding the national service program, compared with 22 percent of Republicans from other states. (In the Senate this year, there's no such gap between Southern and non-Southern Republicans. Few moderates from any region remain in the Republican Conference.)

Overall, the GOP's congressional leadership is more regionally diverse than it was in the 1990s, when it was dominated by Newt Gingrich of Georgia, Dick Armey of Texas, Trent Lott of Mississippi, and other Southerners. But in Congress and beyond, Southern Republicans have frequently led the resistance to Obama, heatedly denouncing his initiatives. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., has described Obama as "the world's best salesman of socialism." Southern governors such as Sanford, Barbour, and Louisiana's Bobby Jindal headlined the Republican opposition to Obama's stimulus plan, condemning it as a federal intrusion into states' rights and even rejecting some funding. Texas Gov. Perry trumped them all for provocative positioning when he suggested in April that Obama's plans were so onerous they might prompt Texans to consider trying again to secede. Perry no doubt was trying to consolidate conservative support heading into his gubernatorial primary next year, not launch a genuine secessionist movement. But his inflammatory language, which ignited an inevitable cable television and blog conflagration, dramatized the extent to which Southern voices now define a Republican Party explicitly formed in the North as a counterpoint to Southern political influence.

Carrick, like many other Democratic strategists, believes that these ideologically assertive Southern Republicans are hurting the GOP's appeal elsewhere, particularly because cable television has made each party's leaders more visible than a generation ago. "It makes them look... extreme and that they are engaged in partisan political fights that are irrelevant to achieving success," Carrick says. "It is definitely a losing spiral that... is reinforced every day by the 24/7 news cycle."

Like Barbour, South Carolina Gov. Sanford rejects the idea that the South is disproportionately influential within their party. In any case, he says, the arguments that he and other Southerners have raised against Obama offer the party its most promising path back to power. Republican recovery "is probably less about new bells and whistles and more about the core of what made the party great in the first place, which is the angle of limited government," Sanford said. "I believe our political destiny is more closely tied to our roots than in trying to add new features."

A broad range of Republicans supports a return to small-government arguments. Nevertheless, some GOP strategists are gingerly suggesting that staunchly conservative Southerners are putting too much of their own stamp on the party, especially on social issues. GOP consultant Mike DuHaime, political director of McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, said that "everybody in the party is concerned" about the GOP's decline along the coasts and in the Upper Midwest. "It's important that we always keep our base [in the South] as part of our party, but we need to have the ability to disagree on certain issues. That's the only way we are going to expand," he said. Republican pollster Ayres concurs. "The South is an incredibly important part of the Republican coalition, but it's not sufficient to win," he said. "You may very well have standards that are somewhat different for a Republican in the Philadelphia suburbs than you do for a Republican in Alabama."

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, who chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, appears to have taken that thinking to heart, pursuing moderates for 2010 Senate contests in several Democratic-leaning states, including Connecticut, Delaware, and Illinois, where Democratic troubles or departures have brightened GOP prospects. Democrats are also giving Republicans openings in several high-profile gubernatorial races in blue states outside the South, including Illinois, New Jersey, and New York. Those opportunities create some optimism among Republicans that they may have hit bottom in the non-Southern states. Yet, given the extent of the party's decline there, it may be some time before Republicans recover enough strength outside the South to truly threaten the generation-long southward migration in the party's center of gravity.

Meanwhile, demographic trends could create new challenges for Republicans within their Southern stronghold. The Republican position in the Deep South is fortified by a racial paradox: In the states with the highest proportion of black voters (such as Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi), Democrats usually attract the smallest percentage of white voters, partly because African-Americans are seen as dominant in the Democratic Party.

But the growth of other nonwhite populations, such as Hispanics and even Asians, is strengthening Democrats across the region, especially in the outer South, and even in portions of the Deep South such as Georgia. These "new minority" voters functioned like a thumb on the scale last year for Obama in Virginia (where they reached 10 percent of the vote) and North Carolina (where they comprised 6 percent). They were also instrumental in tipping Florida to the Democratic presidential nominee.

"When you add the Democratic vote among African-Americans with that of the new minorities, that means the share of the white vote a Democrat needs to win goes down," notes Merle Black.

Eventually, Hispanic population growth might even threaten the Republican hold on Texas, where whites last year constituted just 63 percent of the vote, the same as in California. Demography alone probably won't flip Texas: To capture it, Democrats will almost certainly need to improve their performance among whites there, too. (Obama won just one-fourth of them, compared with twice that in California.) But at the least, Black notes, the growing nonwhite vote is allowing Texas Democrats to become competitive again in the state that has functioned as the jewel in the crown for Southern Republicans.

Questions about the GOP's regional balance may come to a head when the party picks its next presidential nominee. The 2012 race could pit several strong contenders from the South -- including Sanford, Jindal, and Barbour -- against competitors from other regions, such as Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Carrick predicts that a Southern Republican nominee in 2012 would "solidify all of the current trends" toward Democrats among young people and socially moderate white-collar suburbanites outside the South. Another Republican Southern nominee, Carrick maintains, "would say that it is a regional party but [also] that the prevailing ideology in the party is too far out to be competitive."

Barbour, not surprisingly, dismisses this analysis. He believes that the next GOP nominee's region is less important than the candidate's skills and whether the country has lost faith in Obama. "Could a guy from Alabama, Louisiana, or Texas get elected president as easily as one from Illinois under those circumstances?" Barbour asked. "I think the answer is yes."

As on so many other fronts, the debate over the party's 2012 nominee shows how the GOP's Southern drift is forcing Republicans to confront variations of the political dilemmas that long confounded the Democrats. From Truman in 1948 until Obama in 2008, the only Democrats who could hold enough of the South to build a majority national coalition and win the White House were Southerners: Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. Republicans now face the mirror-image challenge of recapturing enough territory beyond the South to assemble a winning national coalition. For decades, Democrats ardently debated whether they could elect a president who was not from the South. Before long, Republicans may debate with equal passion whether they can elect another president who is.

That said, we offer the day’s top blogs:

1.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124293579117244481.html

Those Who Make Us Say 'Oh!'
A tribute to America's war heroes, past and present.
PEGGY NOONAN

More than most nations, America has been, from its start, a hero-loving place. Maybe part of the reason is that at our founding we were a Protestant nation and not a Catholic one, and so we made "saints" of civil and political figures. George Washington was our first national hero, known everywhere, famous to children. When he died, we had our first true national mourning, with cities and states re-enacting his funeral. There was the genius cluster that surrounded him, and invented us—Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Hamilton. Through much of the 20th century our famous heroes were in sports (Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, the Babe, Joltin' Joe) the arts (Clark Gable, Robert Frost) business and philanthropy (from Andrew Carnegie to Bill Gates) and religion (Billy Graham). Nobody does fame like America, and they were famous.

The category of military hero—warrior—fell off a bit, in part because of the bad reputation of war. Some emerged of heroic size—Gens. Pershing and Patton, Eisenhower and Marshall. But somewhere in the 1960s I think we decided, or the makers of our culture decided, that to celebrate great warriors was to encourage war. And we always have too much of that. So they made a lot of movies depicting soldiers as victims and officers as brutish. This was especially true in the Vietnam era and the years that followed. Maybe a correction was in order: It's good to remember war is hell. But when we removed the warrior, we removed something intensely human, something ancestral and stirring, something celebrated naturally throughout the long history of man. Also it was ungrateful: They put themselves in harm's way for us.

(NOTE: it is beyond partisanship to note that in recent decades, Democrats have not been strong supporters of our military – in fact, they are often bitter opponents.  Democrats have offered a single strategy for our struggles against out enemies: cut, run, and surrender.
It’s impossible and unwise to believe we can talk our way out of all wars.  A time comes from time to time when our best must shoulder responsibility, strap on a pistol or the cockpit seat of a jet fighter, and begin armed opposition.  Fortunately, America always finds its heroes whether it deserves them or not.  As the years pass, we come to realize that all generations that produce a willingness to stand for this country and for what is right, are “Great Generations”.)

For Memorial Day, then, three warriors, two previously celebrated but not so known now by the young.

Alvin York was born in 1887 into a Tennessee farming family that didn't have much, but nobody else did, so it wasn't so bad. He was the third of 11 children and had an average life for that time and place. Then World War I came. He experienced a crisis of conscience over whether to fight. His mother's Evangelical church tugged him toward more or less pacifist thinking, but he got a draft notice in 1917, joined the Army, went overseas, read and reread his Bible, and concluded that warfare was sometimes justified.

In the battle of the Argonne in October 1918, the allies were attempting to break German lines when York and his men came upon well-hidden machine guns on high ground. As he later put it, "The Germans got us, and they got us right smart . . . and I'm telling you they were shooting straight." American soldiers "just went down like the long grass before the mowing machine at home."
But Cpl. York and his men went behind the German lines, overran a unit, and captured the enemy. Suddenly there was new machine-gun fire from a ridge, and six Americans went down. York was in command, exposed but cool, and he began to shoot. "All I could do was touch the Germans off just as fast as I could. I was sharp shooting. . . . All the time I kept yelling at them to come down. I didn't want to kill any more than I had to." A German officer tried to empty his gun into York while York fired. He failed but York succeeded, the Germans surrendered, and York and his small band marched 132 German prisoners back to the American lines.

His Medal of Honor citation called him fearless, daring and heroic.

Warriors are funny people. They're often naturally peaceable, and often do great good when they return. York went home to Tennessee, married, founded an agricultural institute (it's still operating as an award-winning public high school) and a Bible school. They made a movie about him in 1941, the great Howard Hawks film "Sergeant York." If you are in Manhattan this week, you may walk down York Avenue on the Upper East Side. It was named for him. He died in Nashville in 1964 at 77.

Once, 25 years ago, my father (U.S. Army, replacement troops, Italy, 1945) visited Washington, a town he'd never been to. There was a lot to see: the White House, the Lincoln Memorial. But he just wanted to see one thing, Audie Murphy's grave.

Audie Leon Murphy was born in 1924 or 1926 (more on that in a moment) the sixth of 12 children of a Texas sharecropper. It was all hardscrabble for him: father left, mother died, no education, working in the fields from adolescence on. He was good with a hunting rifle: he said that when he wasn't, his family didn't eat, so yeah, he had to be good. He tried to join the Army after Pearl Harbor, was turned away as underage, came back the next year claiming to be 18 (he was probably 16) and went on to a busy war, seeing action as an infantryman in Sicily, Salerno and Anzio. Then came southern France, where the Germans made the mistake of shooting Audie Murphy's best friend, Lattie Tipton. Murphy wiped out the machine gun crew that did it.

On Jan. 26, 1945, Lt. Murphy was engaged in a battle in which his unit took heavy fire and he was wounded. He ordered his men back. From his Medal of Honor citation: "Behind him . . . one of our tank destroyers received a direct hit and began to burn. Its crew withdrew to the woods. 2d Lt. Murphy continued to direct artillery fire, which killed large numbers of the advancing enemy infantry. With the enemy tanks abreast of his position, 2d Lt. Murphy climbed on the burning tank destroyer, which was in danger of blowing up at any moment, and employed its .50 caliber machine gun against the enemy. He was alone and exposed to German fire from three sides, but his deadly fire killed dozens of Germans and caused their infantry attack to waver. The enemy tanks, losing infantry support, began to fall back."

Murphy returned to Texas a legend. He was also 5-foot-7, having grown two inches while away. He became an actor (44 films, mostly Westerns) and businessman. He died in a plane crash in 1971 and was buried with full honors at Arlington, but he did a warrior-like thing. He asked that the gold leaf normally put on the gravestone of a Medal of Honor recipient not be used. He wanted a plain GI headstone. Some worried this might make his grave harder to find. My father found it, and he was not alone. Audie Murphy's grave is the most visited site at Arlington with the exception of John F. Kennedy's eternal flame.

I thought of these two men the other night after I introduced at a dinner a retired Air Force general named Chuck Boyd. He runs Business Executives for National Security, a group whose members devote time and treasure to helping the government work through various 21st-century challenges. I mentioned that Chuck had been shot down over Vietnam on his 105th mission in April 1966 and was a POW for 2,488 days. He's the only former POW of the era to go on to become a four-star general.
When I said "2,488 days," a number of people in the audience went "Oh!" I heard it up on the podium.

They didn't know because he doesn't talk about it, and when asked to, he treats it like nothing, a long night at a bad inn. Warriors always do that. They all deserve the "Oh!"

2.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-dems-propose-sweeping-changes-to-drilling-program-2009-05-22.html

House Dems propose huge changes to drilling program 
Jim Snyder

Under a House Democrat-crafted bill described as a “sweeping” reform of federal drilling rules, oil and natural-gas companies would pay more to drill on federal lands and have less time to access the resources.

The measure, crafted by House Natural Resources Democratic staff, raises the royalty fees oil and gas companies pay to drill on federal lands for the first time since the 1980s. It also shortens the duration of federal leases to access those federal resources from 10 years to five.

The proposed changes are likely to draw vocal complaints from oil and gas companies that have already been lobbying against proposals by the Obama administration to rescind $30 billion in tax breaks over 10 years.

“Sweeping reform is not an overstatement,” one energy lobbyist who had reviewed the bill said. “This will get a lot of attention, real quick.”

Some observers said the changes are more in line with what companies would pay private landholders to access their land.

(NOTE: as gas prices at the pumpside begin creeping up again, it’s appropriate to note George Bush instigated the retreat of prices by cancelling the federal ban on off shore drilling.  That act signaled an American commitment to do all it can to become energy independent.  Sadly, the Obama administration cancelled the Bush action, and, predictably, prices head up again.  Keep in mind just who caused this rise – and remind others.)

Currently, oil and gas companies pay royalties of 12.5 percent to access federal, onshore resources. That’s less than the royalties companies pay for accessing resources offshore, even though drilling under water is a much more expensive prospect.

One source said companies pay between 18.75 percent and 25 percent royalties to drill on private land. The Government Accountability Office has noted that the United States takes one of the smallest shares of oil and gas revenues of any oil-producing nation, a summary of the bill noted.

Shortening the duration of leases would also bring the contracts closer to the contracts in private land deals, the source said. Oil and gas companies will likely counter that environmental regulations delay projects for years, requiring more generous lease terms.

Ever since gasoline prices spiked last summer, Democrats have searched for a way to force oil and gas companies to drill on the areas they hold under lease.

The Federal Lands and Resources Energy Development Act of 2009 also would reorganize the mineral leasing office within the Interior Department. The Minerals Management Service came under fire a year ago after an inspector general’s report said a Colorado office suffered from a "culture of substance abuse and promiscuity." The office handled revenues from oil and gas leases.

The bill instead would establish an Office of Federal Energy and Minerals Leasing, combining oil and gas, wind, wave and solar programs now managed by MMS and the Bureau of Land Management. It would also end the royalty-in-kind payment system, in which a company can give the government the resource instead of a cash payment.

It would also for the first time impose a royalty payment on uranium mining operations. Revenues from uranium drilling would go to clean up abandoned, non-Superfund uranium mines and mill tailings sites on federal lands.

3.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=13289661&content_dir=ua_congressorg
 
OBAMA PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY IN DOUBT
Accused of lying, concealing true citizenship 
 

Obama - Smoking gun finally found? AP- WASHINGTON D.C. - In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama’s qualifications for the presidency, the group “Americans for Freedom of Information” has released copies of President Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College. Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama’s legitimacy and qualification to serve as president. When reached for comment in London, where he has been in meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled but refused comment on the issue. Meanwhile, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs scoffed at the report stating that this was obviously another attempt by a right-wing conservative group to discredit the president and undermine the administration’s efforts to move the country in a new direction.

(NOTE: Meanwhile, we see a new approach…one that makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a rather short and simple one.

Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A: Yes, by his own admission.
Q: What passport did he travel under?
A: There are only three possibilities. 1. He traveled with a U.S. Passport, 2) He traveled with a British passport, or 3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.
Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's "no travel" list in 1981).

Britain's Daily Mail has also carried the story in a front-page article titled, “Obama Eligibility Questioned”, leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama’s first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama’s legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey. This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio’s case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama’s citizenship and/or qualification to serve as president. Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama’s campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder.

Friday's Web

The day’s top political news:

Two Approaches on Gitmo Detainees, No Middle Ground

The headlines will say two big, dueling speeches about the war on terror were delivered in Washington on Thursday, one by President Barack Obama and one by former Vice President Dick Cheney.

Cheney gave a remarkably focused, blistering attack on those who criticize the Bush administration's methods for detaining and interrogating terror suspects. Scathing in terminology, scornful in tone, Cheney took on those critics and gave not an inch of ground to them, questioning both the integrity and wisdom of those, including the current president, who would reverse policies that he said have kept America safe for more than seven years since the 9/11 terror attacks.

Meanwhile, Obama, facing the trickier task of selling a policy to both parties, really gave three speeches wrapped in one.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124295772566745907.html

Pelosi: Nothing more to say on her CIA allegation

It’s a safe bet that staffers and advisers told the Speaker to shut up and let “bad enough” alone.

"I have made the statement that I'm going to make on this," she told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference. "I don't have anything more to say about it. I stand by my comment."

Republicans aren't letting this one slide.  Nor should they.  Pelosi has seriously undercut our intelligence effort in the Global War on Terror.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98BCGD80&show_article=1

PATH TO RADICAL ISLAM BEGAN IN JAILS

Relatives and friends of the other three men charged in the horrific plot to blow up two Bronx synagogues and shoot down an Air National Guard plane said the men never expressed any interest in terrorism. But they all quickly developed a deep interest in Islam in jail.

Authorities say Onta Williams fell in with his three alleged co-conspirators, James Cromitie, 45, David Williams, 28, and 37-year-old Laguerre Payen, at a Newburgh mosque, where they bonded when they discovered they were all ex-cons. Williams' uncle -- who himself once served 10 years on a drug charge -- said he was familiar with prison converts to Islam.

Such results from Islamic efforts in American prisons is one of many reasons for opposing the Obama plan to send terrorists to Jails in this country. 

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05222009/news/regionalnews/path_to_radical_islam_began_in_jails_170478.htm

Opinion:
A serious letter to the President

A real “nuff said” moment.

I learned long ago, “when you have nothing better to add, shut up”. I don’t and so I will.

Buddy

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA:
               
Dear President Obama,

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike
any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive
Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible
signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth
growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus
don't understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming
others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned
yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly
denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America '
crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style
country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with
a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly
capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose
that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in
the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics
against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from
challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider
opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both
omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything
you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs,
Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of
view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will
probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

NOTE: stand by for notification of a new web site soon to open, supporting our “Tell Washington No” campaign.

Buddy

Now the day’s top blogs:

1.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=5B4E15F8-18FE-70B2-A8818586DFA6E1BA

Obama's biggest critic: Krauthammer
Ben Smith

The dinner guest that night at George Will’s house in Chevy Chase was intellectually nimble, personally formidable and completely baffling, recalled columnist Charles Krauthammer — who was getting his first up-close look at President-elect Barack Obama.

"We sat around and said, 'Does anybody really know who he is and what he wants to do, now that we've had this?'" Krauthammer recalled of Obama’s January sit-down with conservative columnists. "And the answer was no. We don't know."

"I didn't understand what he was up to until he just unveiled it openly, boldly, unapologetically and very clearly within two weeks of his Inauguration," Krauthammer told POLITICO in an interview in his corner office off Dupont Circle. "That's what was so stunning."

Since then, Krauthammer has emerged in the Age of Obama as a central conservative voice, the kind of leader of the opposition that that economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman represented for the left during the Bush years: a coherent, sophisticated and implacable critic of the new president.

Obama, he has written in his syndicated Washington Post column, is committed to "radical health care, energy and education reforms," central to a "social democratic agenda" that promises deep — and ominous — transformations to American life. The columnist has offered, in five installments, a "unified theory of Obamaism."

At a moment when the right is decimated and divided, and unsure what to think of the new administration, Krauthammer's confidence is much in demand. His columns circulate widely on conservative e-mail lists and blogs, and even his utterances on Fox News are received as gospel: National Review Online's group blog, The Corner, posts long transcripts of his remarks without comment, under the heading, "Krauthammer's Take."

"He's the most important conservative columnist right now," said Times columnist David Brooks.

Yet even as he lays out the case for Obama’s radicalism, Krauthammer holds another view — respect, even admiration, for the "formidable" new president's raw ability to accomplish his agenda. Right now, says Krauthammer, his side is fighting a losing battle against Obama's attempt to Europeanize the American economy.

Krauthammer has not always spoken for the right or the Republican Party as a whole. He has fought running battles with critics who loathe his defense of torture, and he parted bitterly with old allies among Republican foreign policy realists who tired of his defense of President George W. Bush's intervention in the Middle East.

But the key to Krauthammer’s appeal is the clarity of his opposition to Obama, which began soon after a December 2006 column in which he urged Obama to run for president and guaranteed that he would lose.

The campaign began, and Krauthammer didn't believe the hype. Where others were moved by Obama's mass appeal, Krauthammer found his campaign "cultlike." His broad statements of purpose made him a cipher on the specifics. The famous race speech was, Krauthammer's headline declared, a "brilliant fraud." His friendships with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers showed his "cynicism and ruthlessness."
The Politico 44 Story Widget Requires Adobe Flash Player.

"Obama is a man of first-class intellect and first-class temperament. But his character remains highly suspect," Krauthammer wrote last October, summing up his critique.

Krauthammer, 59, is well-prepared for a term or two in opposition. A Harvard-trained psychiatrist who handed out leaflets for the presidential campaign of Henry "Scoop" Jackson in 1976, he left practice to work for Jimmy Carter and then write speeches for Walter Mondale. But he was impressed with Ronald Reagan's Cold War policies and became one of the key voices of what would become thought of as neoconservative foreign policy.

He has spent the past decade as a reliable, if not automatic, ally of the Bush administration, particularly on matters of foreign policy — though not limited to it. One Krauthammer column provided a road map the administration seemed to follow to the letter on the withdrawal of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. Later, Krauthammer's call on presidential candidates to put Israel under the American nuclear umbrella found its way almost verbatim into speeches by candidate Hillary Clinton.
"He became ground zero among the neo-cons, but he's vastly smarter than most of them," said Time's Joe Klein, an admirer and critic who praised Krauthammer's "writing skills and polemical skills" as "so far above almost anybody writing columns today."
"There's something tragic about him, too," Klein said, referring to Krauthammer's confinement to a wheelchair, the result of a diving accident during his first year of medical school. "His work would have a lot more nuance if he were able to see the situations he's writing about."

"My writing speaks for itself," Krauthammer responded in a curt e-mail.

Krauthammer's politics are, more than anything, shaped by the familiar course of a hawkish former Democrat toward neoconservatism.

"What's important about Charles is that he began life as more of a liberal," said the liberal Post columnist E.J. Dionne, who likes Krauthammer and noted that he writes with a level of restraint absent from the works of conservative firebrands like Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter.

"Charles is not a hater, but he can be an intense disliker," he said.

Krauthammer's formative departure from liberalism came in response to the anti-nuclear movement of the early Reagan years. In 1981, he wrote a scathing attack on the massive nuclear freeze movement, which he now describes as "hysteria." The editorial, New Republic editor Marty Peretz told him at the time, cost the magazine more canceled subscriptions than any before.

By coincidence, Krauthammer shares that formative moment with the president he criticizes. As a student at Columbia University, Obama wrote his senior thesis on nuclear disarmament. His first published prose, in a student magazine, discussed student efforts to prevent nuclear war and criticized the "narrow focus of the freeze movement" as insufficiently radical.

"I don't get caught in enthusiasms," Krauthammer said of the nuclear freeze movement and of Obama's mass appeal.

The columnist says he doesn't hold any personal animus for Obama.

"This is a formidable, impressive, interesting man," said Krauthammer, wearing reading glasses around his neck, a black turtleneck and black jeans. "It's a privilege to live in a time where there's this kind of ferment."

The columnist is less impressed by the current state of the conservative resistance.

"It's completely incoherent, fractured and inconsistent," he said, calling the recent anti-tax tea parties "a perfect example."

"They were ostensibly about taxes. Obama hasn't raised taxes as of now by a penny. So what was all that about? It was a natural pushback by people who have sense of the government expanding rapidly in its size and control," Krauthammer said. "It was simply an inchoate reaction, the sort of thing that happens very early on in a very important and consequential presidency."

Leaving the verdict on the Bush administration to "the next generation's David McCullough," Krauthammer also told POLITICO that he isn't rooting for Obama to fail.

"What I want to say is — I don't want to repeat his name — I don't want Obama to fail," he said, referring to radio host Rush Limbaugh. "I want our country to succeed. And when I criticize him, it's because I think his ideas are misguided."

He does not, however, think Obama can be easily stopped. Krauthammer's view is that American politics — unlike those in Europe — are played out in relative moderation, between the 40-yard lines, as he puts it; he thinks Obama is poised to push those ideological limits.

"He wants to actually stretch that line, which is what I think makes him so interesting, and I've used the word radical," Krauthammer said. "And I think he has the power to bring the public with him in the way that few presidents have."

(NOTE: You will see many Krauthammer columns repeated on this site.  He is among the savviest political observers and commentators.  He often makes comments and observations of the sort that makes the rest of us think “I wish I had said that”.  Not many others have such an ability.)

A White House spokesman declined to comment on Krauthammer's work, and the columnist said he hasn't heard from Obama since the dinner at Will's house, nor has he received any angry calls from the White House about his columns.

"I'm a lost sheep," he said. "That would be a waste of fury."

2.

"Ladies and gentlemen, This is a time for courage.

 "We are gathered here today on the Plains of West Texas in common purpose.  We are here to remind our government that this is our country, We the People are still in charge, and our government is still our servant and not our master.

 "Our Nation’s founding document is The Declaration of Independence.  It tells us that our rights come from God and not from a small group of elite men and women.

"Our Constitution starts with the words “We the People.”  Our Constitution was written for ordinary Americans like you and me.  Our Constitution protects us from our government and from the politicians.

 "Our President has complained that our Constitution gives ordinary people too much protection. He has ridiculed us for the high value we place on our Bibles, our guns, our personal property, and our liberty.  He tells us we do not deserve to keep the money we have earned.  We are told freedom has not worked.  Personal responsibility, free enterprise, and Liberty have not been effective.  Our government will now make more of our decisions for us.  Other than our military, I can think of not one government agency I have ever found to be helpful.

 "And speaking of our military, how about those Navy Seals blowing the heads off those three terrorist pirates?  Don’t you just wish our entire government would function with such efficiency, professionalism, and courage?  We watch in disbelief as our beloved United States is weakened economically, militarily, and morally by a radical President and his eager accomplices.  What has taken generations to build is systematically destroyed and replaced with the same Socialist evil that brought poverty, destruction, and despair to untold hundreds of millions.

 "The problems we face today have occurred because we have not defended our Nation from Socialism.  For too long we have allowed the wrong people to make the worst possible decisions. The Bible warns us of class hatred.  The radical leadership of our government daily fans the evil flames of class envy.  Our European and Canadian friends beg us to not make the same Socialist mistakes they did.  The President of the European Union warned our President that his Socialist economic plans are taking the world down the “road to Hell.” 

"The path to power for Socialists includes taking God and guns from the citizens.  Without spiritual and physical protection, people cannot defend themselves and their liberty.  They soon become slaves.  We are angered that our President apologizes for the exceptionalism and heroism of the United States of America .  We are deeply troubled he told others the United States is not a Christian nation.  We are angered that we have been called cowards and racists because we oppose Socialism.

Socialism is not racial.  Socialism is an equal opportunity destroyer.  We are angered that a recent Department of Homeland Security report has singled out our military men and women who are returning home as being radical threats.  The report also characterizes you and me as right-wing extremists and radicals because we favor smaller government and lower taxes.

"You and I are average citizens who believe just like most of our fellow Americans.  We want our government to leave us alone and to keep its hands off our money, our religion, or guns, our private property, and our lives.  

 We demand that our government stop spending money it does not have.

"Stop confiscating our money and private property.

"Stop printing money.

"Stop subsidizing Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the other failed financial institutions and companies.

"Mr. President, stop appointing tax cheats to positions of power and influence.

"Mr. President, secure our borders.

"Mr. President, do not divert money from our missile defense, F-22 Raptors, and other vital military equipment.  This gives encouragement, aid, and comfort to our enemies.  Protecting us is your number one job. 

"Mr. President, do not give voting rights to millions of illegal aliens and felons.  You have no more right to create new voters for your benefit than you do to use our money to buy the 2010 and 2012 Elections. 

"We gather peacefully here today because there is a growing concern for what our government is doing to us and to our future.  We fear for the very survival of our Republic.  Yet there is much to make us hopeful and to fill our hearts with optimism and courage.  This is still our country!  The Constitution of the Unites States belongs to We the People.  Our Constitution still protects us from our government.
 "Call every possible elected official, including our President, Vice President, and the Speaker of the House.  Demand that they stop stealing our money and giving it to ACORN and their other political supporters in order to buy votes.  

 Call Senators Cornyn and Hutchison, and (your) Representative.  Thank them.  Urge them to do much more.  Remind them now is a time for action and not for campaigning.

Volunteer to work on our 2010 Census.  Confront ACORN.  ; Keep our Census honest.  We must not allow our President to take control of our Census for his political advantage. 

 "We must replace as much of our far left Congress as possible in 2010.  Get involved.  Do not let ACORN control our 2010 Election.

(NOTE:  Stand by for our announcement of a new project designed to use the Internet and email to accomplish that very goal.  “Tell Washington no”   BUT it will require participation by every decent American.  The heavy lifting is not required, personal involvement and commitment is.)

 "Talk with someone every day who does not understand our nation’s history and our great heritage.  Tell them why the United States is a good and prosperous nation.  It still remains that brightly lit city on the hill.  It still is the best hope for all mankind.

"Talk with all of the young people you can find.  They are our future.  Many do not understand what they have and that their future is being destroyed.

"Encourage your elected State officials to pass legislation that will protect us from our Federal government.  Governor Rick Perry and others are doing that right now for Texas.  Thank them and pray for them. 

 "This is a time for strong peaceful action.  Let us pray that We the People can quickly return our government to its Constitutional responsibilities.  Our President and Congress were elected to be our servants and not our masters. 

 "May God help our President and Congress to quickly realize the error of their ways and stop their reckless and unwarranted spending, cut our taxes, and reduce the size of our Federal bureaucracy.  If they do not, may God grant us the courage and determination to vote them out of power next year. 

 "May God richly bless and protect each of you, and our Constitution, as together we pursue Liberty !"

Delivered at the Lubbock , Texas , TEA Party

by Dr. Donald May

Tax Day, 15 April 2009

3.

Barry Honey, Where Has All the Love Gone?
Kyle-Anne Shiver

Now I must admit, my dear Mr. President, I didn't really believe that the moment you were elected the seas would start receding or the planet would miraculously heal or that every American would suddenly be cured of whatever ailed him, or even that kumbayah would become the national anthem. 

Barry Honey, you rode the love-train to victory. I was a skeptic, but as an American citizen, and especially as a mother, I certainly did hope that at least some of that overflowing sentimentalism was genuine.  I have truly tried to give you the benefit of the doubt with regard to your intentions, hoping they were indeed fraught with goodwill.

But your non-scripted moments have been the nightmare of good mothers everywhere, and if you were my son, I would be having conversations with you in the proverbial woodshed.

Appearing on a late night comedy show as the President of the United States is enough impropriety in and of itself, but mocking those less naturally endowed than you at the same time, went so far over the ledge of decency that I was ashamed for you, ashamed for the parenting you received and equally ashamed of the idiots who laughed at such a malicious attempt at humor.  Self-deprecation at the expense of others is just about the nastiest bully tactic in the world, but surely something that ought to be fully renounced prior to the third grade.

And I've a bit of shocking news for you, Honey. 

Your bowling doesn't even come close to any Special Olympian's I've ever seen.

We know you're not a bowler; you can put that campaign pretense to bed.

Of course, you were so new to the job when you appeared with Leno that most Americans gave you a generous pass with your bully-jab at Special Olympians, but you're more than 3 months into it now, and even if you weren't taught better by your own mother, you've enough knowledgeable staff to fill you in on public propriety.  Your excuses for vicious, below-the-belt humor are now dead in the water.  

As your mommy may have told you at least once or twice, it's not nice to laugh at hateful jokes.

A good man stands up for what's right; it's a leader's job to lead the way. 

Your behavior at the White House Correspondents' Dinner was enough to send artic chills down the spine of every decent mother on the planet. 

(NOTE: These Washington events, along with the annual Gridiron Club Dinner have long been great events that were great to attend by those lucky enough to be invited.  I have attended such dinners and was amazed – Vegas could  not compete.  However, a new brand is on the White House, and the stark difference in decorum and decency is very much in play.  It says much about the current governance from Capitol Hill and from the White House.)

When Ms. Sykes told the so-called joke -- which has now been heard around the world -- hoping that Rush Limbaugh's "kidneys fail," we could expect as much from her.  She has made her fortune on gutter humor; there isn't much room to go lower.  But your own uproarious laughter at such malignant humor shames not only you, your mother, your grandmother, your wife and your mother in-law, it shames the entire citizenry of the United States of America.

Any well-read citizen knows full-well why Ms. Sykes took aim at Rush Limbaugh.  Ms. Sykes, a recently out-of-the-closet lesbian who "married" her partner in 2008, just before the citizens of California overwhelmingly rejected gay "marriage" at the ballot box disparages Rush Limbaugh for the same obvious reason that Hilton Perez maliciously spurns Miss California.  Anyone with a single grain of common sense gets that. 

Gay rights activists have come fully out of the closet as hate-filled heterophobes with seemingly nothing better to do than besmirch the reputations of all gay people everywhere.   Running around, as they have unceasingly in California, threatening people for exercising their free-speech right to disagree on public policy, impugning reputations, and using defamatory obscenities comes very close to the same degree of "love" as Bull Connor on a rampage with his fire hoses.

Ms. Sykes has the distinction of being a thrice specially protected species at this moment:  she's a she; she's black; she's a lesbian. 

We get that.

What we do not understand, however, is why our President, the one who ran an unceasing love-train campaign for the Office, does not have the common decency to at least not laugh at death-wish, gutter humor.

As I listened to Ms. Sykes' false premise for using her infamously lethal tongue against Rush Limbaugh, that she considers him on equal footing with the 9/11 terrorists, I could not help but be reminded of your own singling Rush out as a target.  When you told Republicans who refused to go along with your faux stimulus bill that they couldn't get anything done by "just listening to Rush Limbaugh," I thought you were kidding around, had forgotten what office you were in or hadn't realized that the mikes were hot.

When your DHS released the document insisting that pro-lifers, 2nd Amendment supporters and even returning Vets should be considered as potential enemies of the U.S., however, your malicious intent should have been crystal clear.  When you bow and scrape to evil leaders, plotting our death and destruction, we should know better than to give you the benefit of doubt. 

Your laughter at death-wish humor in a forum seen round the world has now made it impossible for any citizen to mistake your bad manners for mere ignorance. 

We now fully understand that your unscripted moments, your DHS strong-arm tactics and your apologies for America on foreign soil represent the real you.

And there ain't no real love anywhere in the mix. 

Making the rounds with an adorable puppy, we now understand, is as fake as your bowling pretense.

Until our next chat, Barry Honey, I remain your increasingly dissident constituent, without the slightest remaining shred of faith in you as a man of goodwill.

Kyle-Anne Shiver is a frequent contributor to American Thinker.  She welcomes your comments at kyleanneshiver.com.

 
 
 

 

Thursday's Web

The day’s top political news:

Jobless Claims in U.S. Decreased 12,000 to 631,000 (

Bob Willis and Shobhana Chandra

More Americans than forecast filed claims for unemployment insurance last week, and the total number of workers receiving benefits rose to a record, signs the job market continues to weaken even as the economic slump eases.

Initial jobless claims fell by 12,000 to 631,000 in the week ended May 16, from a revised 643,000 the prior week that was higher than initially estimated, the Labor Department said today in Washington. The total number of people collecting benefits rose to 6.66 million, a record reading for a 16th straight week, and a sign companies are still not hiring.

Job losses are likely to continue after Chrysler LLC filed for bankruptcy and General Motors Corp. may follow suit and terminate 1,100 U.S. dealers. The auto slump threatens to slow any recovery from the deepest recession in half a century and keep pushing unemployment higher.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a56LXUHX28Ig&refer=home

Barack Obama: U.S. 'lost way' fighting terror

President Barack Obama says the U.S. lost its way in fighting terrorism over the last eight years by failing to trust its institutions and values.

Liberals such as Obama have little credibility in discussing war strategy – Democrat strategy in war remains the same: cut, run and surrender to our enemies.  We are seeing that way of thinking in play from Obama.

Cheney says: “When President Obama makes wise decisions, he deserves our support. And when he mischaracterizes the national security decisions we made in the Bush years, he deserves an answer.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22804.html#ixzz0G9KRrXP6&A

Tracking Stimulus Spending May Not Be as Easy as Promised

Shortly after the economic stimulus bill was signed, Vice President Biden was talking up the administration's Web site to track the spending, Recovery.gov, when he accidentally directed people to Recovery.org.

As slip-ups go, this one had an upside: Unlike the government site, the privately run Recovery.org is actually providing detailed information about how the $787 billion in stimulus money is being spent.

President Obama vowed unprecedented transparency, a big part of which, he said, would be allowing taxpayers to track money to the street level on Recovery.gov. But three months after the bill was signed, Recovery.gov offers little beyond news releases, general breakdowns of spending, and acronym-laden spreadsheets and timelines.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/20/AR2009052003535.html

Opinion:
Specter joins Pelosi and Carter in dumping on the nation’s intel efforts

Senator Arlen Specter – this week a Democrat – has again proven he’s not the brightest bulb in the chandelier.  This time on the issue of the CIA.

Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D Cal) provided the world with a spectacle of a public figure committing political suicide on live TV.   Pelosi, caught in having changed her story on what she knew about water boarding, and when did she know  it.  The number of times Pelosi changed her story, exceeds honest error.

There are serious calls for Pelosi to step down as Speaker.  CIA Director, Leon Panetta, an Obama political appointee – quickly rode to the defense of the CIA – and denounced Pelosi’s accusations.  Panetta could not have taken such action without permission from Obama.

Pelosi seems headed for a spot under the Obama bus.  Obama is quick to shed anyone among his allies who becomes a political embarrassment.

Pelosi is just such an embarrassment.  In effect, she has been caught lying, and she has tried to blame the CIA – accusing the agency of having lied to Congress.

Arlen Specter has disgraced himself by switching parties because he was headed to being rejected by Pennsylvania Republican voters. His welcome to his new party has been tepid to say the least, and, of course, he has been a subject of derision by Republicans and many others.

Not one to leave “bad enough alone” Specter chooses to enter the CIA controversy – and he does so in defense of Pelosi and her failed demonstration of personal integrity.  Specter has climbed aboard the sinking ship that is Nancy Pelosi, and his support is not likely to help the Speaker at all – quite the contrary.

Not only do most Americans not likely care what Specter has to say, but they resent his saying it.  Not since the Carter-Frank Church conspiracy has our nation’s intelligence operation been such a target of attack.  Carter and Church gutted the CIA and it has yet to recover.  A lack of on the ground intel in the Middle East has played a major role in problems we have had there – waging the Global War on Terror.

Here’s the Specter story:

http://drudgereport.com/

Specter defends Pelosi, questions CIA's honesty 
Reid Wilson 

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) took the opportunity Wednesday to defend House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who has come under fire in recent weeks over a controversy surrounding when she was told of the use of enhanced interrogation techniques being used by the CIA.

"The CIA has a very bad record when it comes to — I was about to say 'candid'; that's too mild — to honesty," Specter, a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a lunch address to the American Law Institute. He cited misleading information about the agency's involvement in mining harbors in Nicaragua and the Iran-Contra affair.

"Director [Leon] Panetta says the agency does not make it a habit to misinform Congress. I believe that is true. It is not the policy of the Central Intelligence Agency to misinform Congress," Specter said. "But that doesn't mean that they're all giving out the information."

Because of leaks that have come from Congress, Specter said, he understands the agency's hesitancy to disclose all its information.

"The current controversy involving Speaker Pelosi and the CIA is very unfortunate, in my opinion, because it politicizes the issue and it takes away attention from ... how does the Congress get accurate information from the CIA?" Specter said. "For political gain, people are making headlines."

Specter and Pelosi have worked together on health and human services legislation, and the senator characterized the Speaker as "reliable and very able." He said he agrees with mounting calls that notes about the meetings should be publicly disclosed.

"Speaker Pelosi wants the notes disclosed. I think they ought to be, in the interest of transparency," Specter said. "The Speaker's entitled to have as much light shed on this as possible, and so [is] the public. The public is entitled to know what went on there."

The new Democrat also said Wednesday that he will ask the eventual nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter what sort of cases he or she would allow to be heard.

"You can't ask the nominee how the nominee is going to decide a case. We all know that. But I think it's a fair question to say, 'What cases will you hear? What cases will you take?' " Specter said.

Four of the nine Supreme Court justices must agree to grant a writ of certiorari to hear a case. Specter said he was troubled by the current court's refusal to hear several cases dealing with executive authority, which he worried has been expanded too greatly since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Specter, who served as the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee during confirmation hearings for Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito, has been relegated to the most junior perch on the committee after switching to the Democratic Party.
But as a centrist Democrat, Specter will remain one of the key votes in the Senate as interest groups on both sides pressure him to support or oppose the eventual nominee. Specter has said he will remain an independent voice in the Senate, and in announcing his party switch affirmed that he still will oppose Dawn Johnsen's nomination to head the Office of Legal Counsel.

Only one other Democrat — Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.) — has taken the same position opposing Johnsen.

Specter has been involved in every Supreme Court nomination fight since being elected to the Senate in 1980. His questioning of Robert Bork is credited with helping take down President Reagan's nominee in 1987, and he played a key role in questioning Anita Hill during Justice Clarence Thomas's confirmation hearings in 1991.

Specter said aggressive questioning at confirmation hearings, which did not become standard procedure until the 1950s, is warranted.

"I'd let the process take its course. I don't think we have strayed too far. But then I participated in the Bork hearings," Specter said. "There are many in the Senate who take the position that there's not a whole lot of deference given to the president."

Since Bork's nomination collapsed, court nominations have become flashpoints between conservatives and liberals, with groups instantly mobilizing when a vacancy comes about.

"When the hearings are politicized, the whole process is political," Specter said. He said nominees, who routinely meet with key senators before their confirmation hearings, campaign aggressively to win their seats on the court.

Nuff said – the GOP is well-rid of Specter.

Buddy

The day’s top blogs

1.

 
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/who_are_you_calling_a_lemming.html

Who Are You Calling a Lemming?
Jim H. Ainsworth

Ever put your finger on a big tent? It leaks. Tent poles sag on soggy ground; rain and snow can make the roof sag and collapse. I have tried all types of stress reduction techniques since the daily barrage of Obama photo-ops began.  Nothing works.  There is no escaping the media worship.

Must I now endure lectures about the end of the Republican Party and how we can stop it from happening?  (Or why we can't.) The last straw hit the pile with the Sunday edition of the Dallas Morning News.  Columnist Steve Blow decided to join the fray with a condescending column addressed primarily to Conservatives in the Republican Party.  As support for his prescribed medicine, he mentions the cover of that icon of unbiased media, Time magazine, showing the elephant as an endangered species.  Then there was a fundraising letter he received from the elephant party "without a single positive proposal, just a lot of caterwauling about Obama?"  Caterwauling?  Poor Obama.

And then there was this. "Republicans seem more intent on suicide than rebirth. Rush Limbaugh and his ilk are leading their lemmings off a cliff."  That got the blood pressure up.  Lemmings?  Rebirth? 
 
Memo to Blow:  Conservatives are not lemmings.  On the contrary.  We are people with strong belief systems established through study of history, economics and most importantly, personal experience. 
 
Our most profound belief is in individual freedom -- no herd mentality or blind loyalty here.  As for rebirth, no thanks.  We were born in 1789 with the Constitution and reborn in 1791 with the Bill of Rights. 

(NOTE: Research shows talk radio does not lead conservative opinion – rather it reflects conservative opinion.  Which is one reason conservative talk radio has prospered while no liberal talk radio has survived in the marketplace of ideas and ideals.)

A lot of commentators of Rush's ilk were once liberals.  Life experiences brought them around. 
 
When we listen to Rush and his ilk, we do it because we like hearing voices of reason and we like the truth, an increasingly rare commodity and almost impossible to find in mainstream media outlets.  We also hear a lot of reasoned debates with the real lemmings.  Neither Rush, Medved, Hannity, Levin, Hewett, Prager, etc... see their listeners as lemmings nor themselves heading for a cliff.  Another newsflash-- we often disagree with them.  Here's an idea for Blow.  Pick a subject.  Call one of the ilks and test your knowledge against theirs on the air.  I dare you. 

Or try this.  Get away from that little circle around your desk and try starting a new business.  See how many government agencies block your path, how many rules you have to follow, and how many taxes you have to pay to keep the doors open.  Read a little of the history of capitalism and socialism and all types of collectivism.  See which has worked in the past and which has failed. 
 
Heck, just read the full-page article your paper devoted to extolling the virtues of Karl Marx and Marxism last Sunday.  See any similarities to our current administration?  Better yet, do you see anything in Obama policies that conflicts with Marxism?  If you don't see a mirror image of Obama's America, then you are not paying attention.  Still think it's caterwauling?  Talk about lemmings headed for a cliff.

The problem with Socialists and Statists by any other name is that they believe that self-interest is somehow evil and that government is needed to counteract the natural human tendency to look out for oneself. 
 
Problem is, nobody mentions that bureaucrats and politicians also have self-interests.  Their self-interests are about keeping their taxpayer-funded jobs and accumulating power -- power that corrupts.  Free enterprise self-interest, however, leads to innovation, productivity, prosperity and real jobs-not jobs funded by taxpayer dollars.

Yes, unfettered capitalism sometimes also leads to greed and power, but left alone, free markets find a way to punish greed through competition and something we used to call failure.  Now we call it bailout and rescue and too-big-to-fail.  Corruption used to be punished by something we called courts and jails.  There are more than enough laws and regulations on the books to keep capitalists in line when they become corrupt.  Unfortunately, we have lemmings enforcing them. 

Blow quotes the Dallas County GOP chairman. "You win big races by bringing more voters into the fold, not by chasing them away with purity tests."  Wow.  What a pearl of wisdom.  Did Blow have to prompt him with that brilliance or did he come up with it on his own?  What purity tests?   And where did media get the idea that Conservatives are kicking people out of the big tent?   Everyone is welcome. 

Some are calling Republicans The Party of No.  I think we should stop defending against that talking point and embrace it.  Get a banner and adopt it as a slogan.  The Party of No more bailouts, no more wild spending, no more tax increases, no more government interference with free enterprise.  Those are, by the way, the primary causes of the current financial crisis.  Betcha Blow doesn't know that.

Republicans lose and Democrats laugh when the elephant party forsakes conservative principles to engage in some type of perverse self-flagellation in order to comply with advice primarily given by the other side.  Exactly how does one win over voters who believe in big government?  Pander?  Lie?  Go along?  We win when we stick to principles and stay away from the type of tactics that lost us two elections.  We win by showing voters what has always worked and will work again if we can just get the lemmings out of the way.

By the way, I like to call it a Big Stronghold -- not a Big Tent.  Ever put your finger on a tent?  It leaks.  Tent poles sag on soggy ground; rain and snow can make the roof sag and collapse.  Let the liberals have the Big Tent.  I think I see a leak.  Run for the cliff, lemmings.  The nanny state is calling. 

The Big Stronghold built rock solid in 1789, and supported with walls and extra supports 1791, is not leaking.  Believe in yourself and your own abilities more than the state's?  Come on in.  Anyone is welcome; just don't try to tear it down. 

Meanwhile, we are urging the GOP to adopt the battle cry: "Tell Washington No" -- on t shirts that are issue specific: "Illegal immigration? Tell Washington no" -- "Higher taxes? Tell Washington No" -- etc

Jim H. Ainsworth-former CPA, CFP, CLU, Registered Investment Advisor, Licensed Securities Principal, was twice named one of the most influential accountants in America by Accounting Today magazine.  The author of eight books and hundreds of articles, he learned how the economy works from financial and tax interviews with thousands of clients over almost three decades.  He has also ridden horseback across Texas.  He welcomes comments at jimainsworth.com

2.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124286200693341141.html

Flip-Flops and Governance
Our president isn't quite as advertised.
KARL ROVE

Barack Obama inherited a set of national-security policies that he rejected during the campaign but now embraces as president. This is a stunning and welcome about-face.

For example, President Obama kept George W. Bush's military tribunals for terror detainees after calling them an "enormous failure" and a "legal black hole." His campaign claimed last summer that "court systems . . . are capable of convicting terrorists." Upon entering office, he found out they aren't.

He insisted in an interview with NBC in 2007 that Congress mandate "consequences" for "a failure to meet various benchmarks and milestones" on aid to Iraq. Earlier this month he fought off legislatively mandated benchmarks in the $97 billion funding bill for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. Obama agreed on April 23 to American Civil Liberties Union demands to release investigative photos of detainee abuse. Now's he reversed himself. Pentagon officials apparently convinced him that releasing the photos would increase the risk to U.S. troops and civilian personnel.

Throughout his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama excoriated Mr. Bush's counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq, insisting it could not succeed.

Earlier this year, facing increasing violence in Afghanistan, Mr. Obama rejected warnings of a "quagmire" and ordered more troops to that country. He isn't calling it a "surge" but that's what it is. He is applying in Afghanistan the counterinsurgency strategy Mr. Bush used in Iraq.

As a candidate, Mr. Obama promised to end the Iraq war by withdrawing all troops by March 2009. As president, he set a slower pace of drawdown. He has also said he will leave as many as 50,000 Americans troops there.

These reversals are both praiseworthy and evidence that, when it comes to national security, being briefed on terror threats as president is a lot different than placating MoveOn.org and Code Pink activists as a candidate. The realities of governing trump the realities of campaigning.

We are also seeing Mr. Obama reverse himself on the domestic front, but this time in a manner that will do more harm than good.

(NOTE: an old time Democrat politician once observed: “public opinion will never be able to change as quickly as I can”.  We are seeing Obama prove that adage as he scrambles to escape the burden of liberal insanity he used in the campaign, and get around to doing what is right.)

Mr. Obama campaigned on "responsible fiscal policies," arguing in a speech on the Senate floor in 2006 that the "rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy." In his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, he pledged to "go through the federal budget line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work." Even now, he says he'll "cut the deficit . . . by half by the end of his first term in office" and is "rooting out waste and abuse" in the budget.

However, Mr. Obama's fiscally conservative words are betrayed by his liberal actions. He offers an orgy of spending and a bacchanal of debt. His budget plans a 25% increase in the federal government's share of the GDP, a doubling of the national debt in five years, and a near tripling of it in 10 years.

On health care, Mr. Obama's election ads decried "government-run health care" as "extreme," saying it would lead to "higher costs." Now he is promoting a plan that would result in a de facto government-run health-care system. Even the Washington Post questions it, saying, "It is difficult to imagine . . . benefits from a government-run system."

Making adjustments in office is one thing. Constantly governing in direct opposition to what you said as a candidate is something else. Mr. Obama's flip-flops on national security have been wise; on the domestic front, they have been harmful.

In both cases, though, we have learned something about Mr. Obama. What animated him during the campaign is what historian Forrest McDonald once called "the projection of appealing images." All politicians want to project an appealing image. What Mr. McDonald warned against is focusing on this so much that an appealing image "becomes a self-sustaining end unto itself." Such an approach can work in a campaign, as Mr. Obama discovered. But it can also complicate life once elected, as he is finding out.

Mr. Obama's appealing campaign images turned out to have been fleeting. He ran hard to the left on national security to win the nomination, only to discover the campaign commitments he made were shallow and at odds with America's security interests.

Mr. Obama ran hard to the center on economic issues to win the general election. He has since discovered his campaign commitments were obstacles to ramming through the most ideologically liberal economic agenda since the Great Society.

Mr. Obama either had very little grasp of what governing would involve or, if he did, he used words meant to mislead the public. Neither option is particularly encouraging. America now has a president quite different from the person who advertised himself for the job last year. Over time, those things can catch up to a politician.

Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

3.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/05/20/20090520gitmo-fbi0520-ON.html?source=nletter-

FBI director concerned about Gitmo releases
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - FBI Director Robert Mueller told Congress on Wednesday that bringing Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United States could pose a number of risks, even if they were kept in maximum-security prisons. Responding to FBI concerns, Attorney General Eric Holder said the Obama administration would not put Americans at risk.

Testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, Mueller faced repeated questions about the prospect of transferring to the United States some of the 240 inmates currently held at the naval base in Cuba.
President Barack Obama has ordered the Guantanamo Bay detention center closed by January 2010, but that timetable may be in jeopardy. As Mueller testified, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to block funding for bringing detainees to the U.S., whether freed or imprisoned.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon was preparing to release a long-awaited report detailing the number of Guantanamo detainees who had either returned to the battlefield or were suspected of returning after being released from the prison.

(NOTE: Liberals don’t get it.  Terrorists captured on the battlefield are NOT criminals.  They are our enemies in a brutal and savage war.  To suggest they are due the rights of an American citizen cheapens our citizenship.  But liberals don’t care about such things as patriotism – and even more specifically, Liberals done use common sense.)

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the report, which was completed in late 2008, would mirror data released in January showing that 18 detainees had rejoined the fight. An additional 43 were suspected of returning to battle, the Pentagon said then, although it did not release any evidence or intelligence supporting its data.

The New York Times reported on its Web site Wednesday that an updated, and still-undisclosed Pentagon tally shows 74 detainees have returned to the fight. The newspaper did not break down the number by detainees who were confirmed and suspected of rejoining the battle.

Whitman would not confirm the 74 number Wednesday night, and the updated data was not immediately available.

"Even in our most careful assessments and decisions to transfer or release detainees, we know that some return to the fight," Whitman said.

At the start of Wednesday's hearing, Mueller was asked what concerns the FBI has about the release of Guantanamo detainees.

"The concerns we have about individuals who may support terrorism being in the United States run from concerns about providing financing, radicalizing others," Mueller said, as well as "the potential for individuals undertaking attacks in the United States."

"All of those are relevant concerns," Mueller said.

The FBI chief said he would not discuss specific individuals. He said there were also potential risks to putting detainees in maximum security prisons.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., whose district includes the World Trade Center site, then prodded Mueller to agree that such individuals could be safely kept in maximum security prisons in the United States.
Mueller balked at Nadler's suggestion, noting that in some instances imprisoned gang leaders have run their operations from inside prisons.

"It depends on the circumstances," Mueller said.

Asked about Mueller's comments, Attorney General Eric Holder said the government won't do anything with detainees "that's going to put the American people at risk."

"The concerns that have been expressed by the director, concerns expressed by other people, will all be taken into account," Holder said, adding that the administration is still working on the closure plan and he still believes they can meet the president's deadline in eight months.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs declined to respond directly to Mueller.

"The president hasn't decided where some of the detainees will be transferred. Those are decisions that the task forces are working on and that the president will lay out and discuss tomorrow," Gibbs told reporters.

Republicans have been criticizing Obama on the issue, and even fellow Democrats say they need to see a plan for closing Guantanamo before they can support the White House.

Republicans urged Mueller to take the FBI's concerns to the White House.

"No good purpose is served by allowing known terrorists, who trained at terrorist training camps, to come to the U.S. and live among us," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the senior Republican on the committee. "Guantanamo Bay was never meant to be an Ellis Island."

Mueller was also asked if he had a solution for what to do with the detainees.

"I don't," Mueller answered. "It's a very difficult issue and people are honestly wrestling with what the best resolution is."

 

Wednesday's Web

The day’s top political news:

Obama's new rules will transform US auto fleet

Soccer moms will have to give up hulking SUVs. Carpenters will still haul materials around in pickup trucks, but they will cost more. Nearly everybody else will drive smaller cars, and more of them will run on electricity.

The higher mileage and emissions standards set by the Obama administration on Tuesday, which begin to take effect in 2012 and are to be achieved by 2016, will transform the American car and truck fleet.
The Obama rules will also increase highway deaths.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090519/D989J3F00.html

Reid joins Biden, Pelosi in misstatements

Reid mangled his party's position on the congressional news of the day, that Senate Democrats would join their House counterparts in withholding the money President Barack Obama needs to close the Guantanamo Bay prison until Obama comes up with a plan for relocating its prisoners.

But Reid went further than saying he wanted to see a plan for the money before Congress approves it. "We will never allow terrorists to be released into the United States," he said. No one, of course, was talking about releasing terrorism suspects among the American populace. Imprisoning them, perhaps, but not releasing them.

Reid also badly mangled comments regarding the health of two Democrat associates, Senators Kennedy and Byrd.  Reid erroneously reported Kennedy’s cancer is in remission, and that the 91 year old Byrd would be released from his hospital later in the week.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090519/D989JGJ01.html

Authorities Probe Missing Disc With Clinton Administration Data

Federal authorities are investigating the disappearance of a computer disc from the National Archives containing Social Security numbers and Secret Service procedures from former President Bill Clinton’s administration, congressional officials said.

Among the files on the disc were 100,000 Social Security numbers, including that of one of former Vice President Al Gore’s daughters, contact information for officials who served in the Clinton administration, logs of events and “other highly-sensitive information,” according to a statement from the office of Representative Darrell Issa, the ranking Republican on the House Overnight and Government Reform Committee.

The disc was lost sometime between October 2008 and March 2009 and a criminal probe is underway by the Archives inspector general and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aAINQhUs7Nxc

Opinion:
Democrats work at keeping us blind in the face of brutal enemies

In 1978, President Jimmy Carter partnered with the late Senator Frank Church to gut US intelligence.

Carter also became the first national leader to give his spy a Public Relations guy.  Imagine.  It was bad enough that travelling up the Interstate on the western edge of Washington, signs pointed the way to CIA headquarters.

January 25, 1993 near the entrance of CIA headquarters, two employees were murdered and three others wounded. The perpetrator, Mir Aimal Kasi, shot CIA employees in their cars as they were waiting at a stoplight.

Kasi fled the country but was captured in Pakistan in 1997 and was tried and executed.
The highway signs told this Islamic terrorist where he could find his victims.

America’s intel has never shrugged off the Carter damage.  Carter slashed human intelligence in favor of satellites, wire taps, and other devices.  Unfortunately, not having people on the ground, people who can interact with and understand people on the ground, leaves a huge gap in the intel process.

We have paid a heavy toll for the Carter gutting of the CIA.  Some of that toll came in the loss of not just money but in American lives as well.

Now, Democrats are at it again, attacking our intelligence community.  It doesn’t stop with Nancy Pelosi’s slander either.

Buddy

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/18/intelligence-under-siege/

EDITORIAL: Intelligence under siege

America's spy agencies are being undermined

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's war with the CIA could not come at a worse time for America's beleaguered intelligence agencies. When the United States needs its intelligence arms the most - to combat terrorism, track Iran's nuclear-weapons program and fend off foreign espionage - they are under assault from many quarters.

The release of the "torture memos" was a major blow to intelligence-community morale, and on April 16, President Obama attempted to mitigate the damage by sending the CIA what its critics have disparaged as "the love letter." Mr. Obama praised the professionalism of the agency and noted that "this is a time for reflection, not retribution ... at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past."

Mr. Obama pledged to the CIA that "we will protect all who acted reasonably and relied upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that their actions were lawful" and that "these individuals will not be prosecuted and that the government will stand by them." When White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel later stated that the no-prosecution pledge included those who devised the policies, Mr. Obama clarified the limits of reflection over retribution. "That is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws," he said, generating fears of more disturbing disunity ahead.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has signaled that the Justice Department will cooperate with a suit brought in a Spanish court by four former Guantanamo Bay detainees claiming torture. "This is an administration that is determined to conduct itself by the rule of law," Mr. Holder explained in April, "and to the extent that we receive lawful requests from an appropriately created court, we would obviously respond to it."

Exactly how the United States will cooperate with this Spanish inquest is unclear, but a dangerous precedent could be set that would unleash scores of similar suits by any party in any part of the world that felt it had a grievance against the United States. The idea that foreign courts could render judgment on officially sanctioned actions taken by members of the U.S. intelligence community within U.S. territory is unconscionable. The notion that the Justice Department would be complicit in such proceedings is intolerable.

The covenant among the government, the people and our intelligence and national security professionals must be restored. We ask this select group of specialists to do things that, while legal, must be shielded from public scrutiny lest they be compromised and rendered ineffective. Congress is entrusted with the responsibility of oversight which itself must remain secret. When this critical process is polluted by politics, sensationalism and deceit, the wound must be opened and cleaned. We owe our struggling intelligence services nothing less. 

 The day’s top blogs

1.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05192009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_battle_ahead_169948.htm

THE BATTLE AHEAD

RALPH PETERS  

WITH Afghanistan troubled, Pakistan aflame and Washington impatient, Gen. David Petraeus faces even greater challenges today than he did in his rescue of Iraq. Currently heading the US Central Command, Petraeus is the American soldier responsible for the greater Middle East. It may be the toughest job of our time.

On Saturday, the general answered questions posed by The Post:

Post: With the summer combat season beginning, the Taliban in an aggressive stance and a surge of 21,000 more US troops into Afghanistan, what should the American people expect in the coming months?

Petraeus: Expect tough fighting. As we and our allies launch operations to improve security, the enemy will fight back. When we launched the "surge of offensives" in Iraq, al Qaeda-Iraq elements sought to retain their sanctuaries and safe havens. We experienced tough combat. We'll see the same in Afghanistan. In preparation, and in response to Gen. McKiernan's request for additional forces, we've been deploying "enabler" elements in addition to the ground combat units. This will ensure that our troopers have the support they need -- attack and lift helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles, various intelligence systems, route clearance units, MRAP [mine-resistant ambush-protected] vehicles, EOD [bomb-disposal] elements and logistics units.

Post: As the commander of the US Central Command, you're the big-picture "strategy guy." Could you give readers a clear statement of our mission in Afghanistan?

Petraeus: The mission is to ensure that Afghanistan does not again become a sanctuary for al Qaeda and other transnational extremists. That's what it had become before the operations conducted in the wake of 9/11. Al Qaeda wants to carry out further attacks on the US and our allies, and we need to deny them safe havens in which they can plan and train for such attacks.

Post: Can we get there from here?

Petraeus: We can, but it won't be easy. To accomplish our mission, we and our coalition and Afghan partners need to reverse the decline in security; develop Afghan forces that can shoulder the burden of security in their country over time; help establish governance that wins local support -- which means incorporating some traditional structures, and support the improvement of basic services for the Afghan people. This will be hard, but the mission's critical. As we used to say about Iraq: Hard is not hopeless.

Post: With the Taliban and the Pashtun tribal network in which it's rooted sprawled across the Afghan and Pakistani borders, aren't we reliant on Pakistan for the success of our mission?

Petraeus: Certainly, what happens in Pakistan has a significant effect on what transpires in Afghanistan. That's one reason -- among many -- why we need to help Pakistan. But progress can be achieved in Afghanistan -- even as Pakistani action against the extremists in the rugged border areas develops slowly, due in part to their present focus on the Taliban in Swat.

The Pakistani operation under way is a very significant effort. The Pakistani military has been concentrating a substantial force for this operation -- one they're intent on fighting without our help, reflecting their view that this is their fight and demonstrating that they're not merely pursuing American interests. The magnitude is the result of a unique convergence of public rejection of the Taliban, political unity and military determination.

Post: In Iraq, you worked closely with our new commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stan MacChrystal, our top special operator. How will this team work in Afghanistan?

Petraeus: While careful not to presume Senate confirmation, I'm confident that this US team will work effectively with our NATO and Afghan partners, civilian as well as military. I've known Gen. MacChrystal since we were captains together at Fort Stewart, Ga., in the early 1980s. He later replaced me in two positions at Fort Bragg when we were both brigadier generals, and we worked together during our years in Iraq as well. He's exceptional in every respect, as are the new US ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, and Lt. Gen. Dave Rodriguez, who will be Gen. MacChrystal's US Forces deputy. And I'm privileged to have Ambassador Richard Holbrooke as my "diplomatic wingman." This must be a team effort, and the team's a strong one.

Post: You're famous for "doing your homework," for studying a problem well beyond the daily intelligence reports. What are you reading right now?

Petraeus: "The Pathans," by Olaf Caroe, the classic work on the Pashtu of Afghanistan and Pakistan, for its wonderfully rich history; and "Seven Deadly Scenarios," by Andrew Krepinevich, for its thought-provoking scenarios, many of which are in the CENTCOM area of responsibility.

Post: Gen. Petraeus, thank you for taking the time to speak to our readers -- and Godspeed!

2.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22685.html

Democrats hold fire on gun control
 Last week, 27 Senate Democrats joined Republicans to pass an amendment that allows concealed weapons in national parks.

This week, the Senate could take the first step toward overturning a gun control bill passed by their own Democratic brethren more than a decade ago.

After a soul-searching exile, the Democratic Party that regained control of both Congress and the White House in the past two election cycles is proving in many ways to be a distinctly different breed than the one that last ruled the capital.

Nowhere has that transformation become more evident than on the issue of gun control, which was promoted by Democrats in 1992 to attract suburban voters and abandoned by Democrats in 2008 to gain support among rural voters.

The Senate Veterans Affairs Committee is expected on Thursday to advance the Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act, which is being co-sponsored by Sens. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Richard Burr (R-N.C.).

The legislation would overturn a section of the law that prohibits veterans who are unable to manage their finances from obtaining a firearm. The bill maintains a 1990s gun restriction on veterans found to be a danger to themselves and others.

Asked about the legislation, Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, sighed. “I don’t understand why it’s needed,” Helmke said, adding that there’s an appeals process for veterans who feel they have been unfairly denied guns.

“The Supreme Court has said, yes, there are rights, there are gun rights. The Supreme Court has also said there are responsibilities. This bill goes beyond gun rights and overlooks responsibilities,” he added.

(NOTE: The apparent victory on the gun control issue is a small victory – one that may be lost if liberal Democrats continue their overwhelming domination of Capitol Hill.  But it DOES illustrate the fact that dedicated effort on an issue can provide positive results.  Similar focus is now needed to stop the liberal juggernaut threatening this nation and its future on other issues.)

Several political forces are driving the Democratic gun control conversion.

The most obvious one is that gun control turned out to be a losing issue for dozens of Democrats.

Republicans gained 54 House seats in 1994, in part because of voter backlash at the passing of an assault weapons ban and other gun measures.

A major force behind those victories was the National Rifle Association, an organization that has ebbed from the headlines but still holds considerable political influence.

“The NRA and its allies have succeeded in making the slippery slope argument stick,” said Al Cross, director of the Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues at the University of Kentucky. “Any form of gun control is a step in the direction of outlawing guns. People have heard that for so many years, it’s become a very hard thing for Democrats to go against.”

NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said simply: “Our job is to monitor them and make sure they vote the right way.”

More broadly, allegiance to gun control was constraining the party’s efforts to claw back on top.

Even if the Democrats could win all the House seats in the urban areas and liberal enclaves, it wouldn’t be enough for a majority. The party had to find a way to accommodate conservatives, and it aggressively did so in the past two cycles.

Now, “there are a lot of Democrats, primarily from rural states, for whom the Second Amendment is an article of faith,” Cross said.

Finally, party leaders realized the issue shouldn’t be narrowly viewed as a regional concern — or even a strictly conservative one. Former DNC Chairman Howard Dean is a pro-gun liberal; Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is a pro-gun moderate.

Key states in the presidential contest, such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, are often won or lost on the margins, and the gun issue is powerful enough to make that difference, said John Anzalone, a Democratic political adviser.

For all those reasons, said one Democratic adviser, “an internal détente that has been declared before the pro-gun and pro-gun-control forces within the Democratic caucus.”

The post-exile Democratic pivot was made even easier as gun control and crime dimmed as a concern among voters.

An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll from April reported 53 percent of Americans backed a ban on assault weapons. That’s down from 75 percent in May 1991.

A Gallup Poll from last year shows 49 percent of Americans wanted stricter gun laws, compared with 70 percent in 1993.

When White House adviser David Axelrod was asked on “Face the Nation” in April about a possible assault weapons ban to curb the flow of guns into crime-ridden Mexico, he dodged the political bullet.

The White House would “monitor” the issue, he assured. “If there’s a consensus, we’ll move on it. As you know, we’re faced with an enormous array of challenges, and we need to make some choices as to which to pursue first,” he added.

The Burr bill is a particularly knotty issue for the White House, given its targeted constituency: veterans.

Exit polls from the 2008 elections showed Democrats scored 35 percent support from veterans, up from 31 percent in 2004, according to an ABC News report. Republicans saw their numbers drop to 34 percent last year from 41 percent four years prior.

Anzalone attributes that drop to the Republicans’ own poor political performance, which included voting against some veterans issues, and President George W. Bush’s management of the war in Iraq.

But Democrats were moving proactively, as well. Webb, a decorated Vietnam War veteran and a former Reagan Navy secretary, was elected in 2006 and quickly pushed for expanded veteran benefits.

Capitol Hill Democrats also took up the cause of improving veterans’ treatment at government hospitals after a scandal at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

“Unfortunately for Republicans, there is no longer a monopoly on national security voters for the Republican Party,” said John Ullyot, a Republican strategist who was an aide to former Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner of Virginia.

President Barack Obama now is trying to build on those gains by elevating the sacrifices and service that military families give to the country. First lady Michelle Obama has made honoring military families a central theme of her term.

All that said, Burr is still expecting to run into resistance once the legislation advances from the Senate veterans committee, which is teeming with rural, conservative Democrats and is in the hands of the party’s leadership.

But he seems perfectly happy about stirring the fight between the Democrats’ liberal and conservative wings — and putting Obama in the middle of it.

“I think they were terrified to have guns in the park, but it passed with 67 votes,” Burr said.

“The policy behind this is that veterans are being treated unfairly — that their constitutional rights are being taken away,” he said. “To restore that, I’ll go to whatever means and put it on a must-sign vehicle and let the White House decide whether they want to enact it.”

Read more: "Democrats hold fire on gun control - Jen DiMascio - POLITICO.com" - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22685_Page2.html#ixzz0FxQ092R5&A

3.

The Six Problems With Modern Liberalism
John Hawkins

1) You really didn't learn everything you needed to know in kindergarten: Liberals love to think of themselves as sophisticated, nuanced intellectuals, but the truth is they have a kindergartner’s view of the world. If it has been defined as "nice" to people they like, they're for it. If it has been defined as "mean" to people they like, they’re against it -- and that is about as deep as it gets. Unfortunately, that lack of adult perspective isn't so cute in political leaders who are making life and death decisions that may still have ramifications fifty years from now.

2) "Liberals hate religion because politics is a religion substitute for liberals and they can't stand the competition." -- Ann Coulter: Somewhat ironically, given the hostile relationship that has developed between the Left and Christianity, liberal beliefs have more in common with religious doctrine than a political agenda. There is no significant debate on the Left about the aims of their agenda -- and the only "sins" believers can commit against their religion are no longer being politically useful, deviating from doctrine, or worst of all, cooperating with conservatives in some fashion. No matter how much evidence piles up that big government doesn't work, that welfare destroys families, and that socialism doesn't bring prosperity, it makes no impact on liberals because their dogma is based on faith, not logic.

3) "It is not human nature we should accuse but the despicable conventions that pervert it." -- Denis Diderot: There is no dream more eternal in the liberal heart than completely remaking human nature. If we could all just care about the person across the world as much as we do our families, we could live in a utopia! Unfortunately, in practice, human nature tends to be quite a bit more difficult to subvert than in the liberal imagination. That's why, despite more than 5,000 years of human civilization, very little progress has been made in this area – but, oh, the Left is still trying. One day, if they just spend enough money on the right government programs, all the wars will end and everyone will be living in identical million dollar mansions while we spend our days humming tunes from the latest Woodstock Tribute Album.

4) "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when at first we practice to deceive." -- Sir Walter Scott: Like freaky religious cults, liberals have become adept at hiding their more abhorrent views from the public until it's too late. It’s common to see liberals adamantly deny that they hold a position over and over again only to completely switch sides the moment they have one more vote than they need to pass legislation. Whether it's lying about their opponents or what they believe, honesty is certainly not considered to be the best policy on the Left.

5) "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye." -- Matthew 7:3-5: Despite the fact that liberals love few things better than to cry "hypocrisy," there is a rather bizarre disconnect between what modern liberals seem to believe about themselves and how they behave. Liberals believe that they're compassionate, but only with other people's money. They tie themselves in knots trying to come up with valid reasons why terrorists hate the United States, but they never give a moment's thought to whether the people who dislike them might have a point. They pat themselves on the back for helping minorities, but never stop to consider that liberal policies have done more damage to black Americans in the last fifty years than the KKK could have done in a millennium. Somehow, stunning hypocrisies of this sort, which are too numerous to recount without doing a whole other column, never seem to be bother anyone on the Left.
6) "Trust yourself. You know more than you think you do." -- Benjamin Spock: It's great to have a healthy self-image, but there's not much to be said for thinking you're smarter than the collective wisdom and traditions passed down through human history just because you happen to read the Daily Kos. Unbecoming arrogance of this sort permeates modern liberalism. The most grave of decisions are undertaken by the modern Left without the slightest regard for the potential consequences. Past disasters created by similar bouts of whimsical thinking, of which there are many, are treated as acts of God untethered from mere human decision making and prompt no self reflection whatsoever. That's because to the modern liberal, the real world results of their policies are secondary in importance to the amount of positive self-esteem generated by supporting that policy. 
 
John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Conservative Grapevine, Right Wing News, and Right Wing Video.