Oregon...beautiful scenery, dimwitted voters

President Barack Obama has agreed to go along with the compromise plan to extend the Bush era tax rates for two more years. Note there is no tax cut in anyone’s future, save for the piddling 2% reduction in the Social Security taxes; simply a continuation of the rates that already exist. But from the whining and sobbing of the Obama base on the far left, it is pretty clear where Mr. Obama’s tax policy will go when this extension runs out.

Mr. Obama will surely press to raise the tax rates on the evil rich in another politically motivated economic decision. Of course, the intention will be to increase revenues to the federal treasury which he will then re-deploy to purchase democrat votes. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Mr Obama and his democrat allies in congress will raise the tax rates and sit back and expect more revenue to flow into the Treasury.

Raising taxes results in more revenue to the treasury only if all other conditions remain the same. This is the static model that democrats always use. However, in the real world, the dynamic model, every economic decision results in changed conditions, sometimes a multitude of changes. Even tiny changes in the price of anything will result in changes in demand.

Even though democrats do not believe it, people’s behavior will change if the price of living here (taxes) goes up. They can chose to move to another jurisdiction, or they can chose to do less business if doing more results in government confiscation. Or if they are truly evil rich, they will hire smart tax attorneys and keep a couple of congressmen on retainer to ensure favorable treatment. Whatever they do, their behavior will be different than it would have been before the change in economic conditions.

Where’s the evidence on the dynamic model of the market? A glance at what has happened in the People’s Republic of Oregon this year is illustrative. The voters, ever advancing the concept of social justice, voted to raise taxes on rich Oregonians in 2009. Naturally, they expected that existing tax revenues of $180 million would go through the roof when the 38,000 “rich” people of Oregon began paying their taxes at the new rates.

What actually happened in Oregon should provide a guide to greedy democrats seeking to gather other people’s money to spend on their next vote buying campaign. Tax revenues in Oregon fell by $50 million in one year! The supposed 38,000 rich Oregonians turned out to be only 28,000. I wonder what happened to the other 10,000 rich people? They either left the state or hired a good lawyer or politician to take care of their problem. Or perhaps they simply chose to do less business and earn less money.

And how is Oregon doing in the economic recovery, now that Mr Obama and his administration have brought us all back from the precipice? Oregon is lagging just a little bit. It does not have the highest unemployment rate in the nation, but it does have the second-highest unemployment rate in the entire United States, at 12.4 percent. Only Michigan, another state owned and operated by the democrat party and labor unions, has a higher rate of unemployment.

There are none so blind as those who just refuse to see, and who continue to make economic decisions for political reasons.

Stay in your lane, Governor

Governor Not So Bright

While brutal winter weather has brought holiday transportation to a standstill in Great Britain, and massive snowfalls are pummeling the west coast, outgoing California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is lobbying for a job in the Obama Administration to work on Global Warming, oh...excuse me, Climate Change.

In Great Britain, millions of travelers have been stranded in a “third-world” travel nightmare in airports and train stations all over the nation. The London Mail reports, “Heathrow, the country’s major international airport, is still effectively closed two days after the last heavy snowfall. Substantial parts of our national rail network are still struggling with deep snow, and there are abandoned cars to be seen on hard shoulders all over the country. More snow is expected today, especially in the north.”

Snowfall in Great Britain is a rare thing, and no figures are published for average snowfall. Snow does fall intermittently in northern and eastern areas, Wales and higher elevations, especially in the mountains of Scotland. Snow rarely lasts more than a week before melting.

Northern Ireland has experienced record low temperatures this week. One gent, quoted in the Mail said, “I can't remember a time when so much snow has lain so thickly on the ground, and we haven't even reached Christmas. And this is the third tough winter in a row. Is it really true that no one saw this coming?

Meanwhile, back in the states, Governor Schwarzenegger’s own state is being inundated with unusual winter precipitation whether it is heavy rain in the central valley or foot upon foot of snow in the mountains.

And yet California’s formerly republican governor, the husband of Kennedy niece Maria Schriver, is hoping to find employment by carrying the global warming, er climate change water for the Obama Administration.

While seeming to ignore the recent stories proliferating in the news confirming that global warming is a contrived hoax and that record cold temperature are being experienced all over the world, the governator continues to carry the torch for the environmental left. “I'm a big believer in environmental issues," Schwarzenegger said, who added that he wanted a post where he could use his "celebrity power … knowledge and experience" to impact public policy. "I've traveled the world. … I'm very familiar with the world."

Familiarity with the world is a good thing, governor. A measurable IQ would be pretty handy as well. Maybe you should get back to something you do well.

Mr Obama and his pal Russian President Medvedev

The Obama Administration, with the assistance of its Senate allies, is attempting another all-too-familiar scheme to ram a piece of questionable legislation through the Congress before the end of the so-called Lame Duck Session, this time with major foreign policy implications.

Sen. Reid (Democrat-Nevada) is urging senators to accept Mr Obama’s START Treaty, signed by the president and Russian President Medvedev last April. The treaty requires the approval of the senate, by a two thirds majority, before it can become law.

Republican senators have voiced objections to the treaty, claiming that ambiguous language in the treaty raises questions about the treaty’s possible limitation of U.S. missile defense. The preamble of the treaty contains language that republican senators believe could allow the Russians to withdraw from the treaty if they choose to do so. How interesting that we would involve ourselves in a treaty, which has the effect of federal law on our government, with a nation that can unilaterally decide to ignore it if they feel like doing so.

To clarify the situation, Republican senators have asked, repeatedly, for records of the treaty’s negotiations so as to decisively establish the meaning of the treaty’s language. Such requests for the negotiating record have been provided by republican administrations in 1972 for Nixon’s Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and in 1987 by the Reagan Administration for its Intermediate Range Nuclear Force (INF) Treaty.
But, apparently, asking for the START negotiating record is something akin to asking for other closely held state secrets, like President Obama’s birth certificate or his collegiate academic performance. Instead, after only five days of discussion in the senate, and without having clarified the treaty’s language, Senator Dick Durban, number two ranking democrat, has urged that the treaty be brought to a vote. What is the rush, Senator Durban?

While the urgency of completing this treaty, which could have far-reaching effects on the capability of the United States to defend itself from missiles targeting U.S. cities is high on the list of democrat priorities, they did suspend debate on the measure to consider another bill of equal consequence, to them, the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” legislation that would permit homosexuals to serve openly in the U.S. military.

Democrats, and some republicans, seem inclined to accept the word of the Russians. They were also inclined to accept the word of the communist government of the U.S.S.R that preceded the current crowd in the Kremlin. They are inclined today to accept the terms of this treaty despite the evidence of Soviet-era duplicity and outright violation of previous treaties (Reagan withdrew from SALT II in 1986 after it became clear that the Soviets were ignoring the treaty). Committing the United States to an international treaty is serious business, and democrats and republicans should keep in mind that the Russians, like the Soviets before them, will always act in their own interest and never, ever in our interest.

They would be wise to consider the counsel of General George Washington to the Continental Congress on a very different matter of national interest, when he said, “It is a maxim founded on the universal experience of mankind, that no nation is to be trusted farther than it is bound by its own interest; and no prudent statesman or politician will venture to depart from it.” The Russians will always be bound by their own interests, and we should be prudent enough not to venture far from our own. Mr Obama’s treaty with the Russians has the potential to portend great danger to the United States and we should take the time necessary to understand it fully, and amend it if necessary, before making it U.S. law.

Seen on Breitbart's Big Government Blog.....

Referenceing the recent flood of classified documents from "secure" government archives to Wiki Leaks website, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is quoted as saying:

“If we want to keep our nation’s secrets ‘SECRET,’ store them where President Obama stores his college transcripts and birth certificate.”

Good point, seems nothing is more secure than Mr Obama's CV.


Columnist Thomas Sowell, commenting on President Obama leaving office after one term: “…he may also leave the voters wiser, though sadder, after they learn from painful experience that you can't judge politicians by their rhetoric, or ignore their past because of your hopes for the future.

The Religion of Peace

Who says that terrorism, or even the threat of it, is not effective. The radical fundamental Islamists of the world need only express dissatisfaction to send the “leaders” of the west stumbling over each other to get in front of the camera to condemn whatever offense irritated the Islamists this time, hoping to avoid the wrath of the world’s terrorists.

When Baptist minister Terry Jones, Dove World Outreach Center, Gainesville, FL threatened to burn Korans in public on 11 Sept, American politicians came out of the woodwork to condemn the idea of burning the muslim holy book. President Obama himself has weighed in on this “crisis,” saying, "I just hope he understands that what he's proposing to do is completely contrary to our values," Obama said in an ABC interview. He called the plan a "recruitment bonanza for Al Qaeda." Mr. Obama did not elaborate on what might we might do to reduce Al Qaeda recruitment, but it’s good to know that he at least considers increasing recruitment a bad thing. President Obama earlier called the plan a "stunt" and urged the pastor to abandon it.

Other American leaders, from Secretary of State (for now) Hillary Clinton to Defense Secretary Gates to General David Petraeus have rushed to the microphones to condemned Reverend Jones’ threatened Koran burning. Presidential Press Secretary, the hapless dimwit Robert Gibbs, called Reverend Jones’ plan a “monumentally terrible idea.”

While American leaders hustle to the microphones to attempt to mollify the “Muslim World,” Old friend Imam Rauf is still planning to erect his 9/11 Victory Mosque near the site of the former World Trade Center. Responding to public outrage and demands that he move the planned mosque (though not abandon it), he has essentially threatened that attempts to move the mosque away from the Ground Zero site will incite Muslim violence against the United States. "The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack," he said. “If you don't do this right, anger will explode in the Muslim world," Imam Rauf predicted that the reaction could be more furious than the eruption of violence following the 2005 publication of Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, Fox News reported.

There you have it. If they don’t get their way, they will riot, burn cars, behead journalists, stone women, detonate bombs in crowded places, hijack airplanes, bomb airplanes, fly airplanes into buildings, attack Olympic athletes. You can fill in the blank with whatever form or radical Muslim violence most fits your taste.

Until today, while dealing with violent Muslim “religious” fundamentalists has been difficult and sometimes deadly, we have been dealing with a group that is confined to the use of conventional weapons. They do not even have access to aircraft that they have not first hijacked. But the whole game will change the instant Iran becomes a nuclear power.

While we can wince and feel uneasy about the horrific violence perpetrated by Muslims all over the world in the name of the Religion of Peace, we have been relatively safe from, if offended by, that violence. But what happens when the Iranians, and by extension their allies in the “Muslim World” have nuclear weapons, what will the reaction of American politicians be when they are offended by some Baptist minister? Will we see our President further pressuring Israel to greater and greater concessions to the Palestinians? Will we see him agreeing to a “limited establishment of Shari’a Law in Dearborn, Michigan, to satisfy the demands of the “Muslim World”?

The Muslim World understands one thing: strength. They understood that when King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, Los Reyes Catolicos, crushed the Caliphate of Cordova in January, 1492 and cast the Moors from Spain. They understood that when Israeli tanks rolled up to the Suez Canal in June, 1967, and they understood it when U.S. armed forces streamed into Baghdad in 2003. But what the Muslim World understands better than anything else is weakness. Every time they threaten violence and see western leaders cower before their threats, they are convinced they have a winning hand. That, more than anything else, serves to increase al-Qaeda recruitment.

Human Rights and the United States

The Obama Administration, through its diplomatic surrogates in the Clinton State Department, has recently released a report to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights as part of that organization’s Universal Periodic Review. In that report, the Obama Administration pats itself on the back for restoring American virtue, badly stained by the Bush Administration. The report admits flaws in the human rights record of the United States, like the fact that one of its constituent states, Arizona, actually writes laws intended to protect itself from unlawful invasion by illegal democrat voters from Mexico. The report also admits that the United States actually detains illegal combatants captured on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan in the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Good lord, where will it stop?

What the State Department report does not mention is why a great nation like the United States would even consider contributing any information, let alone a report, to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. While the Commission’s name intones a concern for Human Rights around the world, the actions of the Commission’s member states indicates something quite different. Interestingly, the U.S. State Department also publishes “Country Reports,” (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/) outlining the conditions that may be expected in various nations of the world, even those who make up the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. A quick trip through the pages of the State Department’s Country Reports on some of the nations on the UN Commission members makes for interesting reading.

The African nation of Angola, a member of the UN Human Rights Commission, is a nation governed by the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) since 1979, and is characterized by a “tight, centralized control” by that government. The State Department report indicates that while there are no reports of politically motivated killings, police use of excessive force resulted in at least two deaths in 2009 and as many as 23 in 2008, along with reports of routine police torture and killing of prisoners in custody. Other highlights mentioned in the State Department’s Country Reports on UN Commission members include:

Burkina-Faso: Corrupt security forces, which “continued to abuse prisoners with impunity, including frequent threats, beatings and torture to extract confessions.” Prison condition in the country were “harsh and life-threatening.”

China: “severe cultural and religious repression of ethnic minorities” is commonplace, and “extra-judicial killings, executions without due process, torture, forced confessions and forced labor are routine.

Saudi Arabia: ruled by Islamic Shari’a Law and characterized by "routine disappearances, torture and physical abuse, there is no freedom of speech, assembly, association, movement, or religion" in this nation that condones violence against women and children.

With a membership like the nations listed above, among many others, what possible motivation could the Obama Administration have for condescending to even submit a report on human rights in the United States? Why would that thought even occur to any American, let alone someone living in the White House?

The answer is that the Obama Administration has long held and often expressed the belief that the United States of America is a deeply flawed nation in need of “change” that only a person of Mr Obama's towering intellect and goodness can affect. Mr Obama does not believe in American exceptionalism and sees our country as equivalent to the likes of Burkina-Faso or China or Lybia. In short, Mr Obama and his administration hold a deep loathing of America and a contempt for the American people.

It would have been nice to know how Mr Obama regarded this country before the presidential election of 2008. And we might have known these unpleasant facts if there had been a working, honest press at work in the country instead of a deeply corrupt, derelict media devoted to the election of a man who was completely unqualified and ill-equipped to govern a great nation.

Stay on Vacation, Mr President

A lot of commentary has been written and spoken regarding President Obama’s work ethic. As this is being written, Mr Obama is engaged in yet another vacation, this one to that enclave of the fabulously wealthy on Martha’s Vineyard. When the president is not on vacation, he still finds the time to play golf, a lot of golf.

Meanwhile, the economy is in the tank and there is now discussion that we may be headed, if not already in, a full scale economic depression. All of the Keynesian attempts to revive the economy have had much the same effect as similar attempts by Franklin Roosevelt to revive the economy in the depression of the 1930’s. Mr Obama’s attempt to rescue the economy by pumping taxpayer money into the hands of blue state governors, labor union bosses, and “green industries” have done little to revive the economy, but have assured that all that money will never be used by the private sector in any actual attempt to grow the economy.

In normal times, a prudent commentator might ardently desire that our Vacationer-in-Chief eschew the beaches and golf courses of the land and get back to the work of reviving the economy, providing incentives for business to invest and grow, ensuring that any American who wants to work has the opportunity to do so. But with this president, perhaps the best thing we can hope for is that he remain on vacation and keep his hands off the helm of the ship of state.

Mr Obama is so completely ideological in everything he does that there is no hope that any solution he might offer to the current economic woes would be anything that would actually work. Anything he would do would be more of the same punishment for the evil rich (with whom he seems comfortable vacationing), hamstringing the malevolent corporations, redistributing the ill-gotten wealth of Americans guilty of all manner of crimes against “social justice," and paying off his loyal supporters in the the labor unions and plaitniff's bar. Unfortunately, any economic growth in the future can only come from those sources Mr Obama spends so much of his time criticizing, and worse.

I think the best thing for the country is that our president STAY on vacation. Better yet, take Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi with him. On the house. Let them go to Spain of France and book 50-60 high class rooms with a view, and send the bill to the American taxpayers. Even if they all enjoy an open bar and room service for every meal, it would be far cheaper to pick up that tab than to pay for the crushing debt they are hanging around our necks, and the necks of future generations yet unborn, when they are at work in Washington.

So go ahead and make your tee times Mr President, and have as much fun as you can while it lasts. Just keep your hands off the steering wheel, please.

Kerry's Yacht, undergoing maintenace in Rhode Island

Just how does a kept man go about getting a little pocket change to spend? It must be just a little damaging to the ego to have to always go to the little lady to ask for spending money. So, when Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts) had to choose a location to moor his new yacht, did he go to his wife Teresa, heir to the Heinz Catsup fortune, and make a deal? Did he propose that if he could save a few bucks on the taxes owed on the 76 foot luxury sloop, that perhaps Teresa would let him have a couple of bucks to keep for himself?


Senator Kerry chose to store his new yacht in the state of Rhode Island, close to his home in Boston, but light years away in terms of tax liability. While the Commonwealth of Massachusetts charges a sales tax of 6.25% on the purchase of a yacht, the State of Rhode Island charges nothing. By mooring the vessel in Rhode Island, Senator Kerry saved his wife a quick $437,500 in sales tax. But that seems like a lot of money to let the Senator have for play money. Perhaps Teresa was more comfortable allowing the Senator to keep the $70,000 in annual excise taxes that would have been charged by Massachusetts if the yacht was berthed there. That’s a little more like it, don’t you think?


The senior senator from the Bay State, the former presidential candidate in 2004, is normally a strong adherent to the redistribution of wealth mantra advocated by his party and particularly by President Barack Obama. The choice to berth his yacht in Rhode Island reveals that perhaps Senator Kerry just wants to redistribute everyone else’s wealth, but retain Teresa’s for his own use, at least that part of Teresa's wealth to which she allows him access.


A spokesman for the Senator denied that taxes had anything to do with the Senator’s decision to berth his yacht in Rhode Island. Kerry toadie David Wade said Friday the boat is being kept at Newport Shipyard not to evade taxes, but "for long-term maintenance, upkeep and charter purposes." Of course, Mr Wade, that is clear for all to see. They do much better long-term maintenance in Rhode Island.


The question for Senator Kerry, and for the rest of the ruling class thieves and plunderers in Washington DC, is just how stupid do they think we are? The answer seems to be very, very stupid. Its hard to find fault with that opinion. After all, what evidence do they have to the contrary? We did almost elect Senator Kerry to the highest office in the land. And we actually did elect an incredibly inexperienced and unqualified first-term senator from Illinios to the same office. But those mistakes are in the past, and the tribulations of the last few years have taught us a great deal about our current leaders. Perhaps, when Americans go to the polls this November, we will show Senator Kerry and his fellow travelers exactly how stupid we are.

One Step Closer to the Public Option

An interesting news story in the New York Times last week points out the next step in the Obama Administration’s campaign to run American health insurance companies out of business and replace them with a government-run “Public Option.” The story, written by Robert Pear appeared on July 15th under the headline “Health Plans Must Provide Some Tests at No Cost.”

The news story indicated that the White House “issued new rules” that direct health insurance companies to provide many screening tests, blood pressure testing, diabetes screening, cholesterol screening, cancer screening, vaccinations, and prenatal care to customers at no cost. Under the new White House rules, insurance companies will be required to provide these services at no cost, with no co-payment, and no change in deductables.

The White House’s issuing “new rules” by which private businesses are now required to conduct their business raises the question (In my mind, if not in the New York Times’) of the president’s constitutional authority to perform such an action. A careful reading of Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States does not contain any language that could be construed as giving the president the authority to direct the actions of private businesses. Even those who contend that Article I, section 8, the so-called “Commerce Clause,” gives the government the authority to regulate interstate commerce must acknowledge that as a power of the legislative branch, not the executive. But this president has not let the question of constitutional authority bother him in any of the other issues he has dealt with in the last nineteen months, why should health insurance companies be different?

On the face of it, the White House action may appear to be welcome news for the oppressed health care consumer. But what are the real effects of these “new rules?” While health insurance company customers may not be required to pay for these free services, they will see the cost of these services reflected in higher premiums for their policies. The story in the New York Times indicated that the White House estimates consumers could expect to see increases of about one and a half percent to their premiums. The White House’s record of cost estimates for its pet projects has not been particularly accurate, not to say misleading or fraudulent.

But when the price for a scare resource or service is artificially driven to zero, a prudent student of economics can quickly predict what will happen to the demand for that scarce resource. Demand will skyrocket. People will have no reason to think twice about ordering this or that test or screening, and the insurance companies will be forced to spread the cost over all their customers in the form of increased premiums. But if the government can tell the insurance companies what services to provide for free, what is to stop them from telling companies what they may charge for their insurance premiums? One has to suppose that at least one of the 243 new bureaucracies created by the Obama Care bill will concern itself with approving or rejecting insurance premium increases.

This is just the first instance of “new rules” emanating from the White House. A month from now, they can require that health insurance companies pay for out-patient surgery, X-rays, MRIs, and any other service they can imagine. One can only imagine if the White House will determine that heart transplant surgery should be free of charge in future editions of White House “rules.”

With the government on the one hand requiring that companies provide certain services, and on the other hand controlling the price those companies can charge for the services, the companies will find themselves in a rapidly closing vice that will squeeze them out of business. And where will we turn when all the health insurance companies are put out of business?

The need for a “Public Option” will become clear. Insurance companies will no longer be able to provide the necessary services, so the government will have to step in to rescue us with the public option. Despite frequent denials by the president throughout the entire legislative process leading up to the passage of Obama Care, wasn’t that the objective of the Obama Administration all along?

Presidential Popularity

President Barrack Obama has reached a new low in popularity with the American people, according to an ABC News/Washington Post survey taken in early July. In the poll, 60% of voters polled expressed a lack of faith that the President was making the correct decisions for the nation. Voters voiced disapproval of the Obama agenda on nearly every issue put to them by the poll.

They disapproved of Mr Obama’s handling of the economy by a 54-43% margin. Similar numbers were true for Mr. Obama’s handling of Health Care (50-54%), the budget deficit (56-40%), and financial regulatory reform (50-44%). Only in one area did the voters polled support the president’s actions by a majority. They approved of his handling of the President’s position as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces by a margin of 55-44%, apparently in response to his firing General McCrystal, the former commander of forces in Afghanistan.

President Obama’s overall popularity has dropped to 50% of voter approval, which reflects a continuing decline since his popularity peaked in April, 2009, several months after his inauguration. His approval at that time was a stratospheric 69%, but has fallen every month since that time.

Mr Obama’s popularity remains considerably higher than his predecessor in the White House at the end of his second term. George Bush was hovering in the 30% approval level when he left office. But there is a remarkable difference in the approval ratings for the two presidents. President Bush finished his second term at the 30% approval level after nearly eight years of unrelenting criticism from a merciless adversarial press. Mr Obama, on the other hand, has fallen to his current level of popularity despite the shameless, adoring coverage of the mainstream media since arriving at the White House.

After a short respite following the terror attack of September 11, 2001, the media returned to the incessant drumbeat of criticism of Mr. Bush on his Iraq policy, attempted reform of Social Security, tax cuts for the “wealthy,” and even included fraudulent attacks on Mr Bush’s National Guard service by CBS anchor Dan Rather just prior to the 2004 Presidential Election. Coverage of the war in Iraq included regular mention of the number of Americans killed and injured in an effort to diminish popular support. Their attacks on Mr Bush included continued references to a faltering economy during the entire Bush presidency, despite the fact that the nation enjoyed an economic boom for much of Bush’s terms, including the addition of 2.7 million jobs directly attributed to the Bush tax cuts.

News conferences with Mr Bush featured barbed questions from hostile reporters. ABC News “reporter” Terry Moran has said of the White House Press Room, “In that room, one of the things a questioner has to do is create a moment, a confrontation with the President,” Moran explained. “The point is to get them to answer questions, not just stand up there and use all the majesty of the Presidency to amplify his image.”

And yet majesty was all many reporters could see when referring to Mr Obama. The same Terry Moran from ABC News, who favored confrontation with Mr Bush, gushed his adoration for the newly inaugurated President Obama, saying “Barack Obama is the first President since George Washington to be taking a step down into the Oval Office.” Evan Thomas, of soon-to-be bankrupt Newsweek, was similarly impressed, and said, “In a way, Obama is standing above the country, above the world. He's sort of God." ABC News assumed a non-confrontational approach with respect to the new president, when reporter Bill Weir had the following comment on Mr Obama’s inauguration, "Never have so many people shivered so long with such joy. From above, even the seagulls must have been awed by the blanket of humanity." I am sure they were awed, if not by the majesty of President Obama, then by the utter lack of integrity of the mainstream media.

George Bush endured two complete terms of constant adversarial press coverage, to which he refused to respond. He believed that responding to those shameless attacks was beneath the dignity of the office he held. Mr Obama, on the other hand, has enjoyed the fawning support of a corrupt media while instituting policies that expand government power while recklessly spending money he does not have. His popular support is falling with every move he makes. Even the desperate support from a derelict and incompetent media are not enough to prop up the failing second term of the Carter Administration. The question is: How long will Mr Obama's popularity remain at 50% approval if his dupes and toadies in the media actually begin to do their jobs?

Dirt as a Political Strategy

A news story appearing in the Washington Post on July 7 provides searing insight into the character of the Democrat Party. The story, written by staff reporter Philip Rucker appears under the headline, “Democrats digging harder than ever for dirt on Republicans.” The story goes on to indicate that democrat opposition researchers are moving faster and more aggressively to unearth unflattering details about the lives of their Republican opponents in the upcoming congressional elections. They are looking for issues such as unpaid taxes and connections to financial firms that have benefitted from government bailouts.

(See Mr Rucker’s story at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/06/AR2010070605271.html)

Leaving aside the obvious hypocrisy of Democrat operatives finding fault with tax cheats and politicians associated with bailed out financial firms (Treasury Secretary Tim Geitner, call your office), this story illustrates the lack of philosophical depth in the Democrat Party. Of course, opposition research is not a new phenomenon and both sides do it. But for a major Washington newspaper to run a story on the extent of the Democrat search for dirt illustrates that they cannot run on the issues.

A major political party seeking to gain the favor of the American electorate should be able to boldly proclaim its fundamental principles and defend them in debate. The articulation and defense of its principles should be the primary effort of a party to seek electoral approbation. And yet the Democrat party, apparently unwilling to proclaim its support for income redistribution and an increasing takeover of the private sector, seems to be focusing on finding dirt on their Republican opponents.

They cannot, at least with straight faces and supported by facts, claim that their economic recovery plan is working. Unemployment continues to hover at or near 10%. Housing demand continues to drop. Construction has come to a halt. The outlook for economic recovery is dim, unless you are employed in a government job and a member of the union. In the area of Homeland Security, Democrats are actively supporting open borders and amnesty to illegal aliens now in the country. After all, it’s unrealistic to try to deport 12 million people, unless they were potential Republican voters.

In foreign affairs, Iran continues to develop the nuclear weapon that will plunge the Middle East into war as sure as tomorrow’s sunrise, with no realistic response from the Democrat President or Congress. Instead, the Iranian leaders laugh at and ridicule the weak American President. Meanwhile, Mr Obama has castigated our Israeli allies for building settlements in their own country while providing aid and comfort to Hamas terrorists. On a more personal level, American voters may not approve of our President bowing and scraping before unfriendly dictators as a viable foreign policy. With a completely ineffective foreign policy failing as surely as their domestic policies, it is little wonder that Democrat opposition researchers are working overtime.

With a paucity of issues on which they can campaign, digging dirt on their opposition is the only effective strategy remaining to a truly bankrupt political party. That bankruptcy was evident in the eulogies for the late Senator Robert Byrd, where democrat luminaries like Bill Clinton attempted to make excuses for Senator Byrd’s long and intimate association with a violent, racist organization like the Ku Klux Klan. What they do not yet recognize is that they have gone too far for dirt on their opponents to suffice. They have lurched too far to the left for the American people to be impressed by the exposure of tax cheats and cozy financial arrangements. Their ideas are as bankrupt as their behavior has always been.

A New Sherrif in Town?

The upcoming congressional elections illustrate the wisdom of the founding fathers, the giants who wrote and ratified the Constitution of the United States in 1787-88. They were able to foresee the potential for abuse of power by the political factions that would exist in the future. They provided a vehicle for the people of the republic to assert their sovereignty over the government by establishing the terms of the senators and congressmen, in which the entire House of Representative and one third of the Senate will have to stand for election every two years. In their wisdom, the Founders established a system that would never go more than two years without an opportunity for the people to make substantial changes to the political class.

This year, the prospect for significant change is looming over the political class in Washington D.C. One of the most significant aspects of the prospective conservative ascendancy in this fall’s mid-term elections is that with a Republican majority in either the House of Representatives or the Senate, leadership of committees in those bodies will also be in Republican hands. The new committee chairmen would then have the power to set agendas and schedule hearings.

Congressional committees, chaired by Republicans, could then take it upon themselves to inquire into some of the murky issues and outright corruption the current Obama lap-dog congress condones. Congress is supposed to be, after all, a separate and distinct branch of the government with the function of legislating the nation’s business, with the secondary role of acting as a check on the power of the other branches. Instead, this highly partisan democrat majority congress acts as the president’s rubber stamp, approving sweeping legislation without ever reading it.

But what if there was a congress in session that actually performed its Constitutional function of writing laws, appropriating funds, and providing oversight of the other branches of government such as the burgeoning, unelected, federal administrative bureaucracy? Would such a congress have any interest in executive branch shakedowns of oil companies that put $20 billion in the president’s hands to disperse as he sees fit? Would it have any interest in the government’s ownership of automobile companies? Or would it have any interest in influencing the foreign policy of an administration whose chief executive bows in the presence of foreign dictators and who attempts to appease our enemies while chiding our closest allies?

With the politically motivated Obama Administration lurching from crisis to crisis and failing to govern effectively in the areas that are most crucial to the American people, like growing the economy instead of growing government unions, a curious adversarial congress could provide the check on further depredations of the nation’s economic health. Such a congress might actually read the legislation before they enact it. They might be really concerned with the crushing burden of debt their actions impose on future generations.

But the most important result of the potential new conservative majorities will be the exposure of the widespread corruption of this administration. With Republican chairmen in place in the House of Representative and the Senate, some committee might choose to get to the bottom of the White House’s clumsy attempt to get Congressman Joe Sestak to drop out of the Pennsylvania senatorial race against the hapless Arlan Spectre. Though that action is a felony, but has been overlooked by any of the congressional “watchdogs.” Like the derelict and negligent mainstream media, the current congress has chosen to look the other way rather than inquire into the seedier side of the Obama Administration. We can only imagine the enthusiasm with which the current congress would be investigating these issues if the George Bush White House was responsible. After the November elections, there may be a new Sherriff in town, if they have the intestinal fortitude to do their jobs.

Dereliction of Duty

A recent statement by ABC News reporter and host George Stephanopoulos illustrates in a sentence the extent of liberal bias in the American media. Mr Stephanopoulos was interviewing James O’Keefe, the independent filmmaker who exposed the corruption of the ACORN organization in 2009. During the course of the June 1st interview, Mr Stephanopoulos, apparently with a straight face, said to Mr O’Keefe, “Some of your critics say that you’re more of a political activist than a journalist.”

(http://www.mrc.org/notablequotables/nq/2010/20100611043920.aspx)

The incident is reported in the “Notable Quotables” section of the Media Research Center’s website in a segment titled “Pot, Meet Kettle,” is laughable on its face. Mr Stephanopoulos, who now poses as a “journalist” as the ABC network’s Chief Political Correspondent, was the Senior Political Advisor to the Clinton campaign in 1992 and later became the chief spokesman for the Clinton Administration. Mr Stephanopoulos made a seamless move from the Clinton White House to become a political “journalist” at ABC. No one thought to inquire whether Mr Stephanopoulos’ obvious political biases would be a factor in his performance as a “journalist” at the time.

The reason, of course, is that a liberal political bias is the norm in the American media. It is what is expected. No one refers to Mr Stephanopoulos as “Liberal political correspondent George Stephanopoulos. It’s just George Stephanopoulos. In an article on him in Wikipedia, he is described as ”an American television journalist and a former political advisor.” The fact that he is a liberal is not mentioned. It’s just normal. Everyone with a brain is liberal, right?

Interestingly, a similar Wikipedia article on James O’Keefe describes him as “an American conservative activist videographer.” Conservatives always require the modifier so that we all know they are not quite right. The American media is hopelessly biased and totally unable to perform its constitutionally protected function of informing the American people, and keeping the government honest by exposing malfeasance. Their view, of course, is that no malfeasance could be happening in a democrat administration. Only those awful republican felons, who seek to starve old people and deny medical care for the poor require the scrutiny of the “watchdog” press to keep them honest.

Because they are so ideologically identical to the current political administration in Washington, they see no evil in a government that nationalizes the automobile industry, takes over equity positions in financial institutions, grabs control of the entire health care industry, shuts down deep water oil production in response to one accident, and threatens to add crushing tax burdens on job-producing industries in the middle of a deep recession. Not one of them is asking, “Where is the constitutional authority for the president to do this?” They all just assume that Mr Obama is a liberal democrat, he must mean well. How could he do anything wrong?

The problem is that once a government begins to disregard the restraints placed upon it by its constitution, it becomes a law unto itself. There are no restrictions on its actions and it can exert its power where ever it desires. It may now be a benign oppression, a soft tyranny, but it will not always be so if there is no respect for the rule of law. History overflows with examples of governments that have behaved badly when unrestrained by the rule of law. It’s time for the bankrupt, derelict, lapdog media to realize that if the Obama Administration can ignore the U.S. Constitution with regard to the powers entrusted to the Executive Branch by the document, it can also ignore the Amendments to that Constitution, especially the First Amendment.

Tea Party Violence

As the Obama Administration continues to ram its far-left agenda through a rubber-stamp congress, many thousands of patriotic Americans have banded together in a loosely organized group that has become known as the Tea Party movement. The Tea Party movement has continued to grow in an increasingly vocal way. Thousands of concerned Americans, many who have never been politically active are responding to left wing excesses in Washington by joining the Tea Party movement in their local areas.

The Obama Administration, and others on the radical left, have responded to the Tea Party movement in the same way they react to any true conservative movement. They have attacked and denigrated the Tea Party movement; they have attempted to marginalize the Tea Party members as right wing crazies, racists, and bigots; even President Obama himself has used the profane term “Tea Baggers” in public reference Tea Party members.

This kind of response from the radical left is not unusual. Those on the left never argue the merits of their ideas and philosophy; they know they can never win in the arena of ideas, and they never try. Instead they attempt to marginalize their opposition as bumbling (Eisenhower, Ford, George H.W. Bush) or evil (Nixon) or just plain stupid (Reagan, George W. Bush). They have suggested that the Tea Party movement is consumed with anti-government rage that is sure to manifest itself in violence and lawless destruction.

The American media, shamelessly carrying the water for the unqualified President they installed in the White House, have missed the point of the Tea Party movement entirely. The Tea Party is not an anti-government movement, it is an anti-illegitimate government movement. Any government that governs against the will of the people and contrary to the form and structure of the U.S. Constitution can only be regarded as illegitimate.

The American people have watched patiently for the last 80 years as the elected officials in Washington have taken tiny steps away from the U.S. Constitution, beginning with the Roosevelt Administration in the 1930’s. But, like a frog being cooked slowly in warm water, we have acquiesced to the slowly increasing heat. Suddenly, the Obama Administration has begun turning up the heat at a frightening pace and the water is beginning to boil.

But during those 80 years of straying from the Constitution, no previous administration or congress has completely disregarded the document. The Obama Administration and the Reid-Pelosi Congress have done just that. The important question then becomes, “If they do not recognize the restraints placed on government by the Constitution, what limits to their power do they recognize?” If there is no restraint on the powers of the government, we are no longer a government of laws.

Every politician in Washington, DC has taken an oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States. The righteous anger of Americans manifested by the Tea Party movement is a direct result of those politicians ignoring their oaths and operating outside the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution. To trivialize the Tea Party movement is to ignore the facts. The American people will not long tolerate the politicians who have broken faith with generations of Americans who have preserved and defended the Constitution. The Tea Party movement may result in violence of a sort. But the violence the American people will inflict will occur at the ballot box, not in the streets.

GOING OUT OF BUSINESS

The Obama Administration’s Federal Trade Commission is considering potential policy changes that would attempt to “re-invent Journalism,” according to a recently released staff discussion draft memorandum. The idea comes amid on-going headlines concerning the demise of the legacy news industry, with the New York Times forced to lay off reporters, and former industry giants like Newsweek losing millions of dollars each year.

Naturally, the FTC’s proposed solutions are government-based. The memo proposes to grant an anti-trust exemption to publishers, allowing them to collude on prices. So the government solution to a failing business is to sanction monopolies and to raise the price of the product that consumers are refusing to purchase at the current price. Brilliant!

Another idea presented in the FTC memo proposes a tax exemption for media organizations. That sounds like a great idea. Who, save democrats, could possibly be against tax exemptions? But who would get the tax exemptions? Would Fox News qualify? Would The Drudge Report qualify? Both of those news organizations are in great financial shape already, and do not need subsidies. But would they get them if they did need them. Given the level of hostility of the Obama Administration towards conservative media, one might question if some priority would be given to politically correct media outlets in a plan to provide tax exemptions.

Yet another idea proposed by the FTC memo includes actually providing government funding for news outfits, tax credits for hiring reporters, and subsidies of postal rates for publishers. Why don’t we just nationalize the news industry, they already act like paid government stenographers who happily regurgitate every syllable uttered by the Obama Administration without so much as a question.

Why is the government solution always to subsidize failing industries. If there was a market for unsubsidized solar energy, people would buy it because it makes sense. If there was a market for unsubsidized ethanol fuel, the people would readily buy it. If there was a market for left-wing, pro-Obama opinion disguised as news, people would buy it without a government subsidy.

The fact is there is nothing wrong with the news market. The consumers of news are smart enough to know when they are receiving an inferior product and they have voted with their feet. The New York Times and Newsweek and all the other legacy media outlets are failing because they have failed to recognize the salient fact of all business: the customer is always right. They have arrogantly refused to listen to their customers and continued to publish biased opinions disguised as news. They continue to withhold the reportage of events that do not further their agenda. That is certainly their right. They can continue to follow their business plans all the way to bankruptcy. But they have no claim to assistance from the public treasury.

Here’s a thought for failing media giants. Why not actually report the news? Why not send aggressive reporters to the White House (pretend there is a Bush working there), to ask the president why he has refused to act against the Iranian nuclear program, and why he has reneged on a U.S. agreement to install missile defense systems in the Czech Republic and Poland? Maybe they could ask a question about the attempted bribery of Congressman Sestak to drop out of the Pennsylvanian senate race while they were there. They could even pretend they were in favor of enforcing the law and inquire about the failure of the Obama Administration to control the southern border. What about the unfunded Social Security and Medicare liabilities? Is there any curiosity in the media about those issues?

The press has always acted as a check on the ever-expanding reach of the federal government, serving to shine the disinfecting light of day on the shady sides of the government. That is they did until the arrival of the Obama Administration. Now they are content to bask in the reflected glow from Mr Obama and simply cannot bring themselves to criticize him, let alone report the facts. You have to wonder if there will be any “journalists” left when the next republican administration is elected and they will be able to go back to work.

He'll never dance with another

Well, we have gone and done it now. We have incurred the wrath of the well-known political commentator and international affairs expert, Sir Paul McCartney who is slightly put out by growing opposition to President Obama in the United States.

McCartney, the former member of the Beatles and song-writer of some renown has come out in support of the American President while admonishing his opponents. “I’m a big fan. So lay off him, he’s doing great,” said McCartney. He did not elaborate on just what program of the president’s was doing so well.

It could not have been the colossal foreign policy failure to bring the Iranian nuclear program to a halt, or the Obama Administration’s program for ensuring restraint on the part of North Korea, surely. It was not his weak-kneed support of our strongest ally in the Middle East, Israel.

It probably was not the president’s response to the oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico, since there has not been one, yet. Perhaps Mr McCartney was referring to the nationalization of several car companies, or the trillion dollar slush fund appropriated to “save the economy.” Maybe it was the coming Cap and Trade legislation, that will surely hobble the private sector with staggering taxes and skyrocketing expenses.

It probably was not the Obama Administration’s anemic response to the growing invasion of the southern border by illegal aliens flocking into the United States. No, that’s not going all that well, with states like Arizona required to enforce federal law at the border because the Obama Administration will not.

Just what has the president undertaken that is going well? Mr McCartney, do you want to know a secret? Do you promise not to tell? He has done nothing to improve the economy, the border crisis, or any of several international crises. He has demonstrably weakened the nation by withdrawing proposed missile defense systems from the Eastern Europeans, and by telling the world the circumstances in which he would use nuclear weapons, and in which he would not. He has bowed to our adversaries and scolded our allies. He is exactly the kind of politician that European know-nothings applauded prior to the Second World War, the grand appeasers.

Here’s a little advice for Sir Paul: Stay in your lane, try sticking with something you know about. You write silly little love songs, and leave the commentary on American politics to those of us enduring the Obama presidency.

Get to Work, Mr. President

The past 16 months have seen furious activity on the part of the Obama Administration, culminating in the passage of the Health Care Reform Act. The administration promises similar activity on proposed Cap and Trade legislation and Wall Street financial “reform.”

But while we have been almost totally absorbed in the continuing campaign to push the Obama social agenda, we need to ask a simple question. Are these the crucial issues facing the United States that will affect the freedom and prosperity of the American people in this century? Most certainly they are not!

The Health Care reform was passed in spite of the overwhelming opposition of the American people, who are happy with the health care they now receive. Cap and Trade purports to remedy a problem (man-made global warming) that is of questionable scientific merit with a solution that will cripple our struggling economy: raising taxes on all forms of energy consumption. And any financial reform that fails to address the government’s role in the financial failures of the past several years misses the root cause of the problem.

The Obama Administration has chosen to contend relatively insignificant issues while allowing the truly important, really difficult issues to boil on the back burner. We do not elect a president to handle the easy issues, the ones that will gain him votes and ensure his re-election. We elect a president to grapple with the truly weighty issues that require the power and prestige of the President of the United States. He should be handling the issues that could mean the difference between war and peace, and between economic depression or prosperity.

Article 2, section 2 of the Constitution defines the duties of the President of the United States. First among those duties is that of Commander in Chief of the armed forces, the president’s duty to ensure the safety of the American people. Nowhere in that section of the Constitution does it mention that the president has a duty to take over and run failing automobile companies for the benefit of his labor union supporters, reducing risk-taking on Wall Street, or managing the health of the American people.

And while the Obama Administration has been busy attending to the trifling issues it has addressed thus far, it has been essentially silent and inactive in the face of the Iranian nuclear challenge. The resounding silence and failure of leadership from the nation once regarded as the leader of the free world amounts to tacit approval of the Iranian regime’s ascension to nuclear status.

The Obama Administration continues to campaign instead of governing. It has identified its favorite issues and labeled them as “crises” that must be addressed, while the Middle East moves closer and closer to war and calamity. The “crisis” of Americans without health insurance pales in comparison to the question faced by Israeli citizens faced with a nuclear Iran. The failure of the American President to act on that threat will almost surely result in an Israeli response, a response likely to plunge the region into war.

Even if Israel does not strike, can we expect the Saudis to acquiesce to a nuclear Iran just across the Persian Gulf from their oil fields? What would be the result be of a nuclear armed Saudi Arabia? How difficult would it be for nuclear material to find its way from the Saudis into the hands of radical jihadiis if the Saudi Arabia had a bomb? Meanwhile, the Obama Administration concerns itself with the health insurance “crisis.”

Domestically, the Obama Administration has taken a similar stance with regard to the truly weighty issues of the day. With Social Security and Medicare facing unfunded liabilities in the coming decades in the range of hundreds of billions of dollars, the Obama Administration has done nothing to improve the situation. Instead, it has rammed a new entitlement (Health Care Reform) through Congress that is certain to increase the unfunded liabilities despite administration rhetoric to the contrary. They could have recommended difficult solutions and provided the leadership we desperately need, but instead the Obama Administration has taken the easy route and simply spent more of our money, allowing the nation’s budget deficit to explode into regions we may never be able to repay.

Along the southern border of the United States, millions of illegal immigrants flood across the largely untended border bringing with them crime, drugs and the violent influence of the Mexican drug cartels. Americans living in the border states do so in fear of this invasion-in-progress. Islamic terror groups are using the President’s acquiescence to infiltrate the country, according to a recent Department of Homeland Security memo. Meanwhile, the President and his Secretary of Homeland Security, have chastised the State of Arizona for passing a law that encourages the enforcement of federal immigration law, a law Mr. Obama is charged with enforcing by Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution. Again, he dithers while real crises boil around him.

We live in an increasingly hostile world and face many difficult problems in both international and domestic affairs. We need a president who is willing to take on the truly meaningful issues and provide the leadership required to deal with them. We need a statesman for the job of the most powerful man in the world, not a perennial Chicago politician who can’t stop campaigning for an office he has already won. Mr. President, there is a lot to do. Get to work.

Why not show us the proof?

Much has been said and written recently regarding the birthplace of President Barrack Obama. Some have contended that the president was not born in the United States, and as such was not eligible to hold the office of President of the United States. Supporters of the president contend that such an accusation is the work of desperate political opponents who simply cannot accept a black man in the White House.

The root of the question is derived from the qualifications to hold the office of the President of the United States. The Constitution of the United States presents only three qualifications to hold the office. Article II, section 1 states that, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible for the office of President.” The same article also requires an eligible candidate have attained 35 years of age and have been a resident of the United States for 14 years. Mr Obama’s newly graying temples attest to an adequate number of years under his belt, and it’s pretty clear that he has met the residency requirement.

Many conservatives, who are opposed to the Obama Administration and its agenda, have expressed the notion that Mr Obama has not proven his citizenship by providing a clear birth certificate identifying the location of his birth. These opponents contend that Mr Obama’s election is fraudulent if he is not a natural born citizen of the country, and therefore is ineligible to hold the office. These conservatives have been mocked and derided by the once-objective American media as marginal actors; they are called “Birthers”, and referred to as kooks who have no claim to rational thought whose opinions should be regarded as such.

I must admit to holding an opinion similar to the mainstream media when the idea of Mr Obama’s Constitutional qualifications was first presented. Of course, I thought, he is a citizen. How could he have possibly gotten this far in politics and not be a citizen? At some point in his political career, someone would surely have made certain that this man was at least qualified for the position, wouldn’t they?

While not generally susceptible to the opinions of the media, I found it so improbable to contemplate Mr Obama’s potential constitutional ineligibility that I found myself in league with the media and regarding the “Birthers” as slightly off balance. I thought they were desperately grasping at a straw that could not possibly be true.

But a singular question keeps asserting itself to my consciousness over and over again. “If he is an American citizen, and he does have a valid birth certificate to prove it, why have we not seen it yet?

If it was me living in the White House and questions came up regarding my bona fides to hold that office, I would lose no time at all producing that document and instantly closing off that route of criticism. If the question is that easy to answer, and if a valid birth certificate does exists, unlike the very phoney birth certificate pictured above, what possible reason would Mr Obama have to withhold it from the press and public?

At this writing, it has been nearly 16 months since the inauguration of Mr Obama. And every day that goes by without the production of a valid birth certificate tends to validate the arguments of the loony Birthers. If production of the birth certificate would effectively end that criticism and validate his eligibility while thereby permanently discrediting his political opposition, why would Mr Obama refuse to release it?

The more important question is: where is the once-curious American media? If there was a question of George Bush’s constitutional eligibility, would there be an instant’s hesitation before the watchdog media would bite down upon that tasty morsel? Is that not the job of the “objective” media, to actively vet the candidates for high office in their quest to serve the people’s “right to know?”

Foreign Policy Strategy: Bow Deeply

President Obama, flushed with victory after ramming his Heath Care takeover through Congress in the face of overwhelming popular opposition, has traveled to Prague in the Czech Republic to sign a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. The new treaty will replace the 1991 START I agreement.

But on the eve of the historic signing, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has announced that Russia reserves the right to withdraw from the treaty if future development of a U.S. missile defense system threatens to minimize Russian nuclear capability to destroy the United States.

That’s an interesting development. The Russians have agreed to abide by the new treaty until such time as they decide not to abide by it anymore. I guess that is an improvement over the methods of the old Soviet Union, which made many treaties with the United States and simply disregarded them, either in whole or in part.

And what is the response of the Obama Administration to the novel Russian approach to treaties? No worries, everything is just fine. Mr Obama has told the New York Times that he “sees the U.S. leading by example in an effort to reduce nuclear proliferation and eventually make them obsolete.”

That’s probably just what the Russians will do, too. They will look at Mr Obama unilaterally reducing the U.S. nuclear arsenal while refusing to improve and modernize it and decide to follow suit. Right. Or is Mr. Obama living in a fantasy land where idealistic notions of nuclear disarmament take the place of serious National Security Policy?

Actually, what they will do is what they, and all other nations have always done: they will act in their own self-interest. They will not follow suit and unilaterally reduce their own nuclear stockpiles. When they stop laughing at the ridiculous attempt to induce nuclear disarmament through U.S. good behavior, they will understand they are dealing with a weak and irrational idealist who is not grounded in reality. Wolves in the wild are quick to sense weakness in their prey. The Russians, to say nothing of the lesser belligerents of the world (North Korea, Iran, the Palestinians, Venezuela and radical muslim jihadiis worldwide) will take immediate advantage of this clear demonstration of weakness on the part of the U.S. president.

But what is much worse will be the result of the Russian statement threatening withdrawal from the treaty if U.S. missile defense reaches maturity. While most U.S. presidents in the past, even democrat presidents, would realize the Russian attempt to intimidate for what it is, Mr. Obama, with his delusional world-view is apt to cave to the Russian threat, and unilaterally halt further development of the American missile defense system. He will do this expecting the Russians to follow suit.

Once again, when the laughter in the Kremlin ceases, the Russians will once again press their advantage over the hopelessly ignorant and inept U.S. president to gain further concessions. The sad thing is that they will keep receiving concessions from this president, because that is the only thing he knows: concessions to the strong. One wonders if Mr Obama will bow in the presence of Russian President Dmitri Medvedev when the meet for the signing ceremony, as he has to other heads of state.

Mr Obama is in the process of demonstrating his unbelievable incompetence in international affairs to a more striking extent than he has done in domestic policy failures. The danger is that when his policies fail miserably at home, there is only bone-crushing national debt, deep recession and never-ending unemployment to contend with. Failure to protect the American people from the truly dangerous wolves that lurk out in the wide world could easily lead to the destruction of the United States and the end of the Republic.

We simply cannot afford to indulge this president’s fantasies about international power politics. The world is too dangerous a place for the practice of childish foreign policy.

Health Care crosses the finish line

He finally did it. Mr Obama has achieved his career ambition of passing the first installment of the U.S. Government takeover of the entire American economy. In an effort that began with the nationalization of General Motors and Chrysler and the bailouts of financial institutions that should have been allowed to fail, Mr. Obama can now claim to have his hands on another huge sector of the world's dominant economy: the one sixth of the economy that comprises the health care industry.

While democrats guzzle champagne and munch brie in celebration of their victory “for American families,” we now have to brace ourselves for the imposition of this massive extra-constitutional usurpation of power by the federal government. Thousands of new IRS agents will be hired to enforce the new “Health Care” legislation. They will be thousands of additional agents who will have more authority to intrude into our lives than ever before. Would any of those new agents be democrats? And would any of those new agents have a political impetus to the performance of their duties?

We can be sure that would never happen. No presidential administration would ever take advantage of government power to advance a political agenda, would it? Except maybe the Roosevelt Administration when it tried to pack the Supreme Court in the 1930’s. Oh, and also the Nixon Administration’s extra-legal activities during Watergate era? An enemies list? Does Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck have anything to fear from those new IRS agents? Hardly, the chances of a president abusing his authority for political purposes are too insignificant to consider. Or are they?That sort of thing just doesn’t happen here, does it?

But even if they do not abuse their new-found power, and manage their new duties with fairness and justice paramount in their thinking, what is the probability that the administration of health care in this country will improve as a result of Mr Obama’s victory? Perhaps we could look at the performance of some other federal programs and shed some light on that probability.

What about that old Department of Energy? A quick peek at the DoE reveals an agency that was established by the failing Carter Administration in 1977 to end U.S. dependence on foreign petroleum products following the mid-east oil embargo of earlier in that decade. At its inception, in August 1977, US oil imports totaled 2.4billion barrels per year. Now, 33 years later, the Department of Energy will spend $29 billion this year while not producing a single drop of oil. And for that $29 billion, the nation will still import 3.5 billion barrels of oil, an increase of 45% over the 1977 figure. Hmmm, that’s not working so well.

Well, maybe the War on Poverty is doing better. The program, begun by President Johnson in 1964, had resulted in a poverty rate of 11.1% after its first ten years. Now, 45 years later and after continuing to transfer trillions of US dollars from producers to the indigent, the poverty rate has fallen to 12.6%. Wait a second! We have spent trillions of dollars in the War on Poverty and have more of it now than we did in 1964. We’re losing the War on Poverty. Any good democrat should be calling for the government to cut and run from this war, like they do for all other wars.

Then there is the Postal Service and AMTRAK and Fannie Mae and Ginnie Mac, all of which continue to consume taxpayer money at enormous rates while providing marginal service to the American people.

Even a democrat should be able to look at history and determine that government solutions to social problems do not ever solve the problems they are intended to address. They do, however, inspire the mindless support of millions of beneficiaries of government largess, which is the real motive for Obama Care. The reality is that we have just bought a huge new federal Health Care beaurocracy that, like the energy produced by the Department of Energy, will produce zero health care but will cost trillions of dollars that we do not have.

The trouble is they are quickly killing the golden goose. As Lady Margaret Thatcher once brilliantly uttered, “The trouble with socialism is that pretty soon you run out of other people’s money.”

Campaigners unable to govern

It was hard to find fault with the political instincts of the Obama Campaign during its successful run for the Presidency in 2008. But it seems that actually governing is a bit more difficult than campaigning. Mr. Obama, and those around him in the White House have bungled their first year in office in a manner that may prevent them from ever being effective while they occupy the highest office in the land.

In their headlong lurch to hobble the nation with government health care, the president and his advisors have completely disregarded the one issue of the American people actually want action on, the economy. Instead they have embarked on a single-minded (some might say simple-minded) attempt to force Obama Care through Congress despite the overwhelming opposition of the American people.

Now, one year into the Obama Administration, the economy is terrible, the housing market has crashed, unemployment has reached 10% and the people are becoming enraged at the arrogance of Mr. Obama and his crew. The democrat party is in disarray with many members resigning rather than running for re-election, with those who remain in fear for their electoral chances because of the reckless pursuit of the dream of a (democrat) government takeover of the health care system.

We should be grateful for the incredible ineptitude demonstrated by Mr Obama and his administration in the past year. With a little patience and planning they could have simply run their signature piece of legislation through congress and become law.

The Obama Administration could have started slowly, modestly affecting the change they had promised during the campaign instead of breathlessly leaping off the cliff in an all-or-nothing bid to fundamentally change the American government. They could have acknowledged the crashing economy as the preeminent issue before the American people and taken steps to resurrect it.

What if the Obama crew looked to history and discovered that Presidents Kennedy, Reagan, and George W. Bush had had rousing success in reviving slumping economies through tax cuts. What if the Obama crew had agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts, reduce capital gains taxes to a piddling 10%, and to reduce the corporate income tax to a more reasonable 20% when they first arrived in the White House?

President Obama would have been free to travel the world, bowing and apologizing to any and all the world’s dictators; he could go on taxpayer sponsored dates with his wife to catch a Broadway show; he could go golfing in Hawaii while the incredible American economic engine began to roar once again. He could have sat on the sidelines as businesses felt free to expand, investors flocked back into the market, and the American people went happily back to work.

Then, after a year or so of economic progress and falling unemployment, Mr Obama and his crew would be rightly enjoying the political good will of people happy with their condition and largely indifferent to the usual malfeasance taking place in Washington. In such a condition, Mr Obama could have then introduced his hideous attempt to grab control of the health care system, and with it control of every aspect of our lives. He would have the good will of the people, the willing support of huge majorities in both the House and Senate, and of course the slavish support of the sock puppets in the derelict media. As a result, we would have been looking the other way, as most American were during the Clinton Administration, and would have been saddled with a European-styled Socialist economy for ever.

Then, with his health care takeover safely put to bed, and the American people still hard at work reviving the economy, Mr Obama would have been free to continue his plan to fundamentally change America. Instead, with the economy still in the tank the American people are paying rapt attention to every syllable uttered from Washington. Our attention is focused like a laser on every attempt to substitute government welfare for a little bit more of our freedom.

Mr Obama may yet succeed in ramming this terrible legislation through Congress. But instead of a racing across the finish line like a champion marathon runner breaking the tape with arms outstretched, Mr Obama is more like Jed Clampett coaxing his old jalopy up hill, lurching, sputtering, backfiring, and belching smoke. He may yet make it, but the results will not be pretty.

More importantly, the Obama Administration faces the certainty of landslide electoral defeats in the November congressional election. He will no longer enjoy the overwhelming majorities he now has (and with which he has accomplished nothing). He will have made himself a lame duck in his first year in office.
The Obama Administration is illustrating the difference between campaigning and actually governing.

Go For it Mr. President

President Obama was almost a comedic figure in his attempt to subjugate the Republican delegation to his so-called Health Care Summit on February 25th. The dog and pony show was obviously an attempt to embarrass the Republicans and reinforce Mr Obama’s claim that they are the “Party of No.”

Instead of actually listening to the substantive ideas the Republican delegation, presented in a thoughtful and respectful manner, the President continued to claim that we must act with haste to pass the hideous Senate Health Care Bill. The President, who in normal times would be exceedingly aware of the poll numbers on his favorite issues, continued to call for passage of the Health Care Power Grab despite the overwhelming opposition of the American people. That opposition has been expressed in virtually every poll taken recently.

One little fact that seems to have been neglected by the entire corps of media stenographers slavishly supporting (covering) the Obama Administration is that while Republicans do indeed oppose the ridiculous attempt to take control of the American Health Care system, their numbers are far too small to actually pose any meaningful opposition, let alone actually hold up passage of the measure. The only reason the President has not already signed a Health Care Takeover Bill is that there is not sufficient Democrat support to pass the bill in either chamber of the Congress.

But the President revealed his real objective at the end of the day. After sitting there feigning attention and interest in the input of the Republicans, he made a statement that completely exposed his intentions. Mr. Obama said, “We cannot have another year long debate about this. So the question I’m going to ask myself and I ask of all of you is: is there enough serious effort that in a month’s time or a few weeks’ time or six weeks’ time we could actually resolve something?

“And if we can’t then I think we need to go ahead and make some decisions and then that’s what elections are for. We have honest disagreements about the vision for the country and we’ll go ahead and test those out over the next several months until November.”

It was a naked threat to Republicans and Democrats to pass the Health Care “Reform” or else he would have his minion, the hapless, bumbling Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, ram the bill through the Senate using the reconciliation procedure, a strategy that would by-pass the 60 vote requirement currently used in that body.

But, for once in my life, I find myself in violent agreement with a democrat president. If they attempt to pass this bill using the reconciliation procedure, we will find out in November what elections are for. If they try to pass this bill in opposition to the will of the American people, we may see the end of the democrat party as a viable political entity for many years. If that is the case, I say “Go for it Mr. President, go for it all the way.”

Snowstorm Cancels Global Warming Hearing

NEWS FLASH

The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has just cancelled a hearing entitled, "Global Warming Impacts, Including Public Health, in the United States," due to the heavy snowfall in Washington, D.C.

Not laughing anymore

President Barak Obama has enjoyed the fawning attention of an adoring national press corps (not corpse) since being thrust upon the national scene in the 2004 Democrat National Convention. The support for the president continues to this day, despite mounting evidence that his policies are leading the economy of the United States to ruin.

That is as much because the members of the press refuse to accept that they could have been so horribly wrong about the candidate they guided into the White House as it is that they are profoundly ignorant about the subjects they report on.

Still, a story on the Politico website may indicate that the first cracks may have appeared in the castle walls. The Politico story, by Patrick Gavin,
reports that even while unemployment continues to climb, laughter in the White House press briefings is down 50%. The story did not relate who actually keeps such statistics, but reported that the White House press corps averaged 179 bouts of laughter per month during press briefings last summer, but can only muster about 80 such interruptions per month lately. See the Politico story at: http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1002/press_room_laughter_dies_down.html

Admittedly, the Obama White House has suffered some pretty disappointing months since last summer. It has seen its signature Health Care takeover bill utterly rejected by the American people. The rejection was so resounding that the White House could not complete the legislative process on either of the House or Senate bills with overwhelming majorities in both chambers.

The utter failure of the Health Care power grab was complimented by the string of electoral defeats suffered by the democrats in the fall. They lost governor’s seats in Virginia and New Jersey, replacing democrats in both states. However, these losses paled in comparison to the shattering news from the People’s Republic of Massachusetts, where the seat once occupied by the abundant behind of Ted Kennedy was lost to upstart republican state senator Scott Brown.

Add those calamities to staggering increases in federal expeditures, the massive growth of the budget deficits, and the prospect of equally massive tax increases that will be required to fund those deficits, it has not been a banner year for the Obama White House. But is that any reason to alter the hilarity of press briefings? Quoted in Gavin’s story in Politico, Washington Examiner White House correspondent Julie Mason said, “There definitely aren't a lot of laughs around the briefing room these days. Robert's little digs and evasions have lost their power to amuse.”

Of course she was referring to the digs of White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. Mr Gibbs is the former press secretary for the failed presidential bid of Senator John Kerry (D-MA), and the political consultant who has become Mr Obama’s mouthpiece. Unfortunately for Mr Gibbs, even the sycophantic Obama press corps does not seem to be able to crack a smile, given the incredibly inept performance of the hapless Robert Gibbs’ boss in his first year.