Obama's lame way to handle press

Do you know the president has a list of preselected journalists for questions during his press conferences? How lame is that?

The Commander-In-Chief of the world's best military is afraid of screwing up in front of the free press?

Gregg withdraws as commerce secretary nominee

In a surprising development and a blow to the Obama administration, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) has decided not to be part of the President's cabinet due to policy disagreements. I applaud Sen. Gregg's action based on his principles -- in times like this we need more politicians like him!

Of course, the Leftosphere now labels him "right-wing."

Jim Tedisco poised to enter House

New York Assemblyman Jim Tedisco (R) is leading in the polls against opponent Scott Murphy (D) to fill the House seat vacated by Kirsten Gillibrand. Although this doesn't affect much of the House politics, it's still a small victory for Republicans. The election is set for March 31.

For more information and to contribute to his campaign, click here.

Obama's first press conference

The Leftosphere is reignited with pre-presidential passion after President Obama's first press conference where he addressed most of today's economic crisis. Matthew Rothschild of The Progressive says Obama "delivers ideological knockout to GOP":

At his press conference Monday, he shredded Republican arguments against the stimulus package and made the best case by a President in decades for affirmative government intervention in the economy.

“With the private sector so weakened by the recession,” he said, “the federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back into life. It is only government that can break the vicious cycle where lost jobs lead to people spending less money, which leads to even more layoffs.”

Listen to Obama's remarks very carefully. Notice how he portrays the federal government as our savior? Yes, the private sector has weakened, but please don't falsely paint a rosy picture about the federal government's resources -- these resources come from private sectors! Without the private sector and individuals, the federal government is nothing.

Can the government really break the "vicious cycle"? It's doubtful that billions dollars more government spending will help. All that does is further sink America into debt that even our children's grandchildren won't see it paid off.

To me this press conference showed an agitated Obama attempting to rekindle his pre-White House celebrity status, doing what he does best: rhetoric talk.

The stimulus could ruin your health care

Betsy McCaughey of Bloomberg is raising a flag about health provisions in President Obama's stimulus bill:

The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.

So not only does Big Brother want access to all your medical treatment data, but it also wants control over how the doctors perform procedures and diagnosis. The scary thing is that although Tom Daschle no longer gets to be the HHS Secretary, his soul lives in this bloated bill.

Worse yet:

Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)

What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.

The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Again, the ghost of Daschle appears, and he wants the government to be the brains of the health care provider instead of the doctor's. What is government health care like? Just look back to the debacle of Walter Reed Army Medical Center 2007 scandal. (Thankfully, things have improved there after the bad publicity.)

Somebody wake me up, please!

Judith Warner at the NYT needs professional help. And journalistic guidance.

Sen. Arlen Specter, Obama Kool-Aid drinker

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) is one of the few Republicans who voted for the stimulus bill. He takes his case to the American people with an article in the Washington Post. He starts off resonating President Obama's sense of urgency:

I am supporting the economic stimulus package for one simple reason: The country cannot afford not to take action.

This is simply false. I think it's the Obama administration, the Federal government, that cannot afford not to take action to stimulate the government. The bill won't stimulate the economy much, but it sure will expand the government. The Republican Senators who voted along with the Democrats to support this bill are drinking the Obama Kool-Aid.

Our enemies continue terrorism even as Obama ends War on Terror

Even if the Obama administration doesn't agree with Bush's War on Terror, we know what the terrorists think: starting fires in Australia and beheading a Polish geologist.

Do you feel safe?

Lean, mean, talented Obama?

President Obama demands passage of the stimulus package. Now he's on the offensive, pointing fingers at Republicans for the "same old distractions." The leftosphere (the left-leaning blogosphere) is falling in love with Obama all over again because of his partisanship:

I will note that compared with the solid but lacking passion speech that the President gave earlier in the day at the Department of Energy, this speech truly demonstrated the enormous talents of the President. This was the Obama that spoke from the heart, not the cool, calm, collected one we often see and hear. This speech had cadence, it had fire in the belly, it had soul. He spoke to me as an American and as a Democrat. This is the real deal. This is how politics is played. To win by getting things accomplished.

Oh, please: the "enormous talents" of the President?! Since January 20, I haven't really seen much talent from the President except his ability to deliver speeches (but we'd already known that since the campaign).

Does he have a talent for party leadership? Not from what we've seen with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, marching to the beat of her own tune in the House, completely ignoring Obama's message of bipartisanship.

Does he have a talent for reaching across the aisle? Certainly, but the failure of his negotiation skills was exposed when the House Republican members stood united to oppose the stimulus package.

Does he have a talent for picking good cabinet nominees? Look at what happened to Bill Richardson, Timothy Geithner, Tom Daschle, Hilda Solis, and possibly more candidates.

The honeymoon is definitely over.

The action Democrats need, Obama's fear-mongering

That ought to be the title of President Obama's article in the Washington Post. The President laments:

In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis -- the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures; that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.

I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change. They know that we have tried it those ways for too long. And because we have, our health-care costs still rise faster than inflation. Our dependence on foreign oil still threatens our economy and our security. Our children still study in schools that put them at a disadvantage. We've seen the tragic consequences when our bridges crumble and our levees fail.

First of all, nobody is saying that tax cuts is the only solution to this crisis. The opposing Republicans just want more tax cuts -- let it be a significant part of the stimulus. The Democrats just want to spend, spend, spend.

Obama tries to re-ignite the flame of change during his campaign, but you know what? Season's over. Now he's in the White House so he better own up to the mistakes and criticisms. Obama is not delivering a message of change. Here he is delivering a message of fear.

Reid says he has enough votes

These past few days we have seen more hot air come out of the Democratic Senate leadership than me after eating five cans of beans.

Okay, so you've got enough votes, Sen. Reid. So go pass your precious spending bill. Just remember, there will be a reckoning in the 2010 election.

Obama cabinet nominees would've been better off with FairTax

How come nobody is talking about how ridiculously complicated and ineffective the U.S. tax code is in light of the tax troubles from Tom Daschle and Tim Geithner? Oh wait, Ken Hoagland is.

If we had gotten rid of the IRS and implemented the FairTax, then Senators wouldn't bother with vetting nominees on unpaid taxes and these hearings would've been more pleasant. Okay, less of a circus.

Another cabinet nominee in trouble

I'm actually starting to feel a little bad for President Obama. Now his Secretary of Labor nominee Hilda Solis is under scrutiny for possible illegal lobbying actions.

Is Obama's inexperience starting to show its ugly head?

Obama downgraded from Messiah to Hero

Officially, too, from whitehouse.gov.

Strike two: Daschle out

Strike one: Bill Richardson withdrew from Commerce Secratary candidacy.

Strike two: Tom Daschle today withdraws from Health and Human Services Secretary over a $100,000 tax "mistake."

So far President Obama's cabinet nominees and their approval have seen many bumps in the process...

Wealth-envy galore

Wall Street certainly bears the blame for a significant portion of today's economic meltdown, but seriously, they aren't the real problem. Regardless, this has brought about the wrath of anti-capitalists, socialists, and wealth-envy sufferers. Here we have Eugene Robinson clamoring over Sen. Claire McCaskill's (D-MO) rant about overblown executive compensation:

McCaskill introduced a bill to limit compensation at any company receiving bailout money to $400,000 -- the salary of the president of the United States. It's hard to improve on her words: "We should have done it in the first place. But I don't think any of us thought these guys were this stupid. I don't think any of us believed that they would take billions of dollars in bonuses while their institutions were literally days from being wiped out. But they did. And we've learned our lesson."
...
Things have changed. No longer does it seem reasonable -- if it ever did -- that the average CEO makes 344 times as much as the average worker, as estimated last August by the Institute for Policy Studies and the nonprofit group United for a Fair Economy. No longer does it seem acceptable that John Thain, the since-ousted Merrill Lynch chief who ordered those accelerated bonuses that so irked McCaskill, would spend $1.2 million of his fast-sinking firm's money to redecorate his office -- and then, with Merrill's losses being revealed as even greater than feared, request a bonus of up to $10 million for himself.

No longer does it make any sense to reward those who work in the financial industry so lavishly compared to the way we compensate those who, say, build tractors or write software or teach our children. Salaries should be reasonable and bonuses -- much more modest ones -- should be reserved for those who actually, you know, make money. If some of Wall Street's vaunted "talent" balks and flees, terrific. It was "talent" that got us here.

What are these people smoking? So there are several big financial institutions on the brink of failing because of poor management, and the management has changed after receiving bailout funds from the government, and now Sen. McCaskill wants to cap their yearly salary to $400,000? What sane executive would want the job?! Isn't it more important to offer competitive compensation to attract good executives to revive the companies? By introducing such a bill, it seems Sen. McCaskill, with the support of columnists like Robinson, want Wall Street to utterly fail. Maybe they prefer a government-run Wall Street.

Big shot executives like John Thain now have a big stain on their resume. That's part of how capitalism works. The market will decide how much somebody like Thain is worth. Don't bring the government into it.

Obama names GOP senator for Commerce Secretary

After being let down by New Mexico Gov. and former presidential candidate Bill Richardson, President Obama now wants Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) to join his administration as Commerce Secretary. Gregg is a fairly low-profile Senator, but evidently is a well-trusted Republican politician.

By luring away a Republican in the Senate, of course, generates a lot of buzz whether President Obama and the Democrats are playing a political hand to achieve the elusive 60-seat filibuster-proof majority. New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch is a Democrat, and typically the governor appoints a replacement from his own party. However, Gov. Lynch has pledged that another Republican would be named to fill Gregg's seat. Would Lynch mess with the balance of power in appointing a RINO (Republican In Name Only)?

Additionally, is Gregg's appointment as Secretary of Commerce a back-scratching to Senate Republicans regarding the passage of the massive stimulus bill?

Celebrating Blogroll Amnesty Day (BAD)!

Thanks to Jon Swift for bringing Blogroll Amnesty Day to my attention! Today we nanobloggers (yes, smaller than microbloggers) are going to pretend we generate thousands of page views per hour and attract millions of visitors in a day...

Check these out:

• The Asian Conservative - Shares the same cause as this blog except with far greater manpower and experience!
• Back to the Constitution Coalition - These guys have the right idea in mind. We need to pay more attention to the Constitution indeed.
• Engrish Brog - If this blog doesn't have you LOL there's something wrong with you.
  

Let history be a lesson about government's impact on Depression

History is the best teacher, even in Economics. Let's not repeat what we already know.

Republican opposition to stimulus is Democrats own fault

All right, the ordeal about House Republicans' united front against the stimulus bill is getting more interesting now as columnists like E. J. Dionne are lobbying President Obama to abandon his bipartisanship efforts to win opposition support:

That's why last week's unanimous House Republican opposition to the stimulus plan was so important. For the most part, the Republicans escaped attack for rank partisanship. Instead, what should have been hailed as an administration victory was cast in large parts of the media as a kind of defeat: Obama had placed a heavy emphasis on bipartisanship and he failed to achieve it.

Worse from Obama's point of view, Republicans have used the stimulus fight to drive a wedge between the president and his loyal troops in Congress. Some Republicans argued that while the White House was trying to reach out, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her lieutenants were insisting on a "partisan" bill -- even though the measure was largely based on the administration's own proposals.

The truth is that House Republicans appreciated very much the attention given to them by the President. Although their negotiations with the White House failed to produce a stimulus package they could support, they had only good things to say about the President's efforts in reaching across the aisle.

The root of the problem isn't with President Obama. It's with the House Democratic leadership, especially Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She pushed the bill forward without opportunity for more bipartisan debate. The bill is worth $900 billion in taxpayer money! She went to the press to pound on the Republicans' unwillingness to support it. In other words, while the President was working hard as a politician, Pelosi was running wild as a maverick.

That's the problem when a party hasn't been in power for so long and all of a sudden finds itself running multiple branches of government. Everyone is going to have a power and ego trip. If the Democrats are after some Republican votes, then they must resolve some internal issues between Obama-Pelosi-Reid.

For the last time: there is no Obama mandate

Eugene Robinson still thinks Obama has a "mandate" and even compares the electoral situation with Reagan. Obama won with 53% of popular vote against McCain's 46% -- a mere difference of 7%. Electoral votes considered, it was 365 vs. 173.

When Reagan ran for president in 1980 against Jimmy Carter, the E.V. result was 489-49. And in 1984 it was 525-13 (Mondale). Now that smelled more like a mandate!

Wake up, Mr. Robinson. There is no mandate in sight for President Obama.

Nationalized health care snuck into stimulus

The Democrat-owned stimulus package is nothing more than a $900 billion bribe for votes. It's low on tax cuts where money is put into people's pockets and high on large government spending. Paul Krugman of the NYT cannot wait:

The bottom line, then, is that this is no time to let campaign promises of guaranteed health care be quietly forgotten. It is, instead, a time to put the push for universal care front and center. Health care now!

Kimberley Strassel points out in the WSJ:

It began one week after the swearing-in, when Nancy Pelosi whipped through a big expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The Schip bill was Democrats' first stab at stealth expansion, unveiled in 2007, though vetoed by George W. Bush.
...
Under "stimulus," Medicaid is now on offer not to just poor Americans, but Americans who have lost their jobs. And not just Americans who have lost their jobs, but their spouses and their children. And not Americans who recently lost their jobs, but those who lost jobs, say, early last year. And not just Americans who already lost their jobs, but those who will lose their jobs up to 2011. The federal government is graciously footing the whole bill. The legislation also forbids states to apply income tests in most cases.
...
The "stimulus" also hijacks Cobra, a program that lets the unemployed retain access to their former company health benefits -- usually for about 18 months. The new stimulus permits any former employee over the age of 55 to keep using Cobra right up until they qualify for Medicare at age 65. And here's the kicker: Whereas employees were previously responsible for paying their health premiums while on Cobra, now the feds will pay 65%. CBO estimates? Seven million Americans will have the feds mostly pay their insurance bills in 2009.

Thanks to Strassel for shedding light on this. It further illustrates the Democrats' nationalization agenda disguised as a bill to stimulate the economy.

Liberals on the offensive after House passage of stimulus bill

Let the finger pointing begin! Oh where do we start...?

Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones provides a strategy:

(1) Take stock. He certainly isn't going to stop reaching out to Republicans — to ditch the central premise of his campaign after one negative experience would be preposterous. But he can acknowledge that the output is the same. If he doesn't reach out to the Republicans, he will get slammed for being partisan and get zero votes for his priorities. If he does reach out to Republicans, he will get thanked for his efforts and get zero votes for his priorities (as we've seen). Either way, Republicans remain an unhelpful, recalcitrant bunch.

As a conservative, I'm glad the Republicans in Congress are standing firm. Even as a liberal, however, you've got to admit that this is the best way for the opposition party, having no control in the legislature, to play the political ball game -- even Kos acknowledges it. Let the Democrats "own" it. I'm sure it's how the Democrats would've done if they were the minority. Also keep in mind that there were 11 House Democrats who joined the Republicans in voting "no."

(2) Lowball. Next time, instead of reaching out to Republicans with a serious attempt to include their priorities (30 percent of the stimulus in tax cuts), Obama should start lower (10 percent?) and negotiate up. His bipartisan credentials will only be burnished by the fact that he went through the process of wrangling with the opposition and adding pieces it supports bit by bit.

Good idea. Negotiations 101.

(3) Stand strong when necessary. Obama should be less willing to ditch important provisions that Republicans oppose. They'll oppose the final bill regardless. And remember that there are the members of the Democratic caucus that need to be greased, too. MSNBC's First Read wrote today, "We've been hearing chatter from congressional Democrats that they'd like the president to act as concerned about winning their support as he acts when it comes to the Republicans." If Obama cuts too many progressive priorities from a major bill because the Republicans demand it, he will have an even bigger mess to deal with.

Unfortunately, history has shown that tax cuts work better and faster to stimulate the economy. It's evident in JFK, Reagan, and George W. Bush's administrations. Republicans will oppose Democrats' massive spending bills and Obama can stand as strong as he'd like, but history and facts are on the Republicans' side.

(4) Finally, play the PR game. Did Big O forget that he's the guy with the soaring popularity recently elected with a mandate for change? And that Republicans, who have a popularity rating under 30 percent if polling is to be believed, got their tails kicked in November? Make some hay out of this situation in the media. Obama should take to the microphones and explain exactly how far backward he bent over to make this bill one that everyone could get behind. Make the Republicans look bad. Make them think twice about unified opposition next time. So what if it turns into a war of the words — who is the public going to sympathize with, Obama or John Boehner? (Especially considering the public is strongly behind massive stimulus.) Obama doesn't have to create bipartisanship by kowtowing to GOP demands. He can create bipartisanship by making people terrified of opposing him.

Interesting idea, but the honeymoon has ended. After voting for Obama and cheering among millions at his rallies, people are back to reality of facing the prospect of losing their homes and their jobs. Sorry folks, but Mr. President cannot help you pay the bills. He's a popular president, all right, but ultimately he'll be judged by his actions, as with past presidents.

Bye bye, Blago

Unsurprisingly, the Illinois Senate voted to remove Rod Blagojevich from office, 59-0. It's the first time in the state's history that its governor has been impeached.

Lt. Gov. Patrick Quinn is now promoted to Illinois Gov. Quinn.

Hopefully the people of Illinois can put all this negativity behind them now...

So ends the War on Terror?

In the NYT, Roger Cohen thinks the War on Terror has ended with President Obama's interview with Al Arabiya news:

In his first White House televised interview, with the Al Arabiya news network based in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, President Obama buried the lead: The war on terror is over.

Yes, the with-us-or-against-us global struggle — the so-called Long War — in which a freedom-loving West confronts the undifferentiated forces of darkness comprising everything from Al Qaeda to elements of the Palestinian national struggle under the banner of “Islamofascism” has been terminated.

What’s left is what matters: defeating terrorist organizations. That’s not a war. It’s a strategic challenge.

Is it a "strategic challenge" to hunt down the terrorists who killed thousands of innocent people in NYC? That is a disturbing categorization. Most people already agree that the War on Terror isn't a conventional war, but to call it a strategic challenge would be to absurd.

Gore warns of global warming as thousands without power due to ice storm

All bow to the wisdom and power of The Goracle. We're not worthy!

Now can we help those residents without power? Darn that ice.

Economy, preprare to be stimulated... or not

The bad news? The House passed the nearly $900 billion stimulus package.

The good news? Not one Republican voted for it. That ought to send a clear message.

Conservative talk show master Rush Limbaugh offers his version in the WSJ:

Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let's say the vote was 54% to 46%. As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion -- $486 billion -- will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% -- $414 billion -- will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me.

"Then," he writes, "we compare." Sounds fair to me! After all, it is my money which Obama wants to spend. Shouldn't I have some say-so in how it's used?

Dear Mr. Holocaust-Never-Happened...

President Obama's administration is drafting a letter to the madman of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in response to the Iranian president's congratulatory letter upon Obama's inauguration.

Hmmm, I wonder how the letter would start?

Dear Mr. I-Want-Nuclear-Bombs? Dear Mr. Wipe-Israel-Off-the-Map? Dear Mr. Holocaust-Never-Happened?...

More thoughts on Wall Street's spending habits

Citigroup was caught red-handed trying to buy a $50M Dassault Falcon 7X corporate jet and received a call from the White House to cancel that order. After all, it's not the best way to spend billions of bailout money from the government. Columnists on the left are digging in their heels about this. Maureen Dowd at the NYT:

The former masters of the universe don’t seem to fully comprehend that their universe has crumbled and, thanks to them, so has ours. Real people are losing real jobs at Caterpillar, Home Depot and Sprint Nextel; these and other companies announced on Monday that they would cut more than 75,000 jobs in the U.S. and around the world, as consumer confidence and home prices swan-dived.
...
Bartiromo also asked Thain to explain, when jobs and salaries were being cut at his firm, how he could justify spending $1 million to renovate his office. As The Daily Beast and CNBC reported, big-ticket items included curtains for $28,000, a pair of chairs for $87,000, fabric for a “Roman Shade” for $11,000, Regency chairs for $24,000, six wall sconces for $2,700, a $13,000 chandelier in the private dining room and six dining chairs for $37,000, a “custom coffee table” for $16,000, an antique commode “on legs” for $35,000, and a $1,400 “parchment waste can.”

Okay, so maybe it was a poor decision made by Citigroup executives to buy a multimillion dollar jet after the taxpayers have funded the company. Maybe Thain, former CEO of Merrill Lynch, shouldn't have spent so much on an office renovation.

On the other hand, the stimulus package in debate right now is about spending, isn't it? The only difference between that bill and what these CEOs have done is who gets to spend. The Democrats prefers spending by the government, but that's just an illusion because taxpayers foot the government spending. These Wall Street executives are also spending money buying merchandise, hiring contractors, etc. Isn't that stimulating the economy?

House Republicans to vote Nay on stimulus

House Minority Leader John Boehner urges his GOP colleagues to oppose the stimulus bill as it comes to the floor for a vote on Wednesday. This comes even as President Obama took time to meet congressional Republicans to win their support on the $825 billion package.

It's a good sign. The Republicans in Washington are finally fitted with a backbone.

Obama already destroying jobs...

Citigroup, beneficiary of billion dollar government bailout money, is warned by the the Obama administration to "fix" its company plan to buy a $50 million jet from France. So Citigroup abandons the purchase.

So much for creating jobs. Citigroup would've hired pilots and crew members, jet maintenance folks, chefs, etc. to operate the corporate jet.

Thanks a bunch, President. There goes an opportunity to create jobs...

Stimulus package not large enough?!

Maybe columnist Bob Herbert is trying to leave NYT and get a job at the administration:

If anything, the stimulus package is not large enough. Less than 24 hours after Mr. Boehner’s televised exercise in obstructionism, the heavy-equipment company Caterpillar announced that it was cutting 20,000 jobs, Sprint Nextel said it was eliminating 8,000, and Home Depot 7,000.

Calling Rep. Boehner's comments on TV an "exercise in obstructionism" is nonsense. He's done what other Democrats have done in the past coming out swinging against Bush and his policies. Just think about all the public criticism from Democrats about the Iraq war and unfounded accusations against our troops. And what about when Republicans raised a red flag about Fannie and Freddie? The list goes on...

Nobody is disputing the fact that job cuts are painful and detrimental to the middle class. Companies have to downsize in order to adjust to the economic meltdown. Also, consumers have to spend less. The big part of the proposed stimulus package is for the government to spend its way out of the recession. If that doesn't sound like crazy talk, I don't know what does.

Sure, the government can create jobs with infrastructure projects. These workers get paid by the government -- wait, by the taxpayers -- to build bridges, offer government services, etc. Then they get taxed on the income. So really, why not just have these workers pay themselves?

That's why tax cuts make sense. Let workers keep more of their hard-earned dollars. Let them decide how to spend that money, be it savings or buying or starting a new business.

Now do you see the stark contrast in methods? Critics like Herbert think tax cuts only benefit the wealthy, but in reality tax cuts benefit everyone except in different degrees. Allow me to ask this: Have you ever gotten a job from a poor person? I know I haven't.

Herbert, of course, thinks that the government should provide all employment.

America's moral leadership has never faded

People keep talking about America's "moral leadership" in reference to President Obama's executive order to close Gitmo. By shutting down this detention facility outside of the United States, many liberals like Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) are claiming America being moral again:

In a season of transformational changes, these are among the most meaningful, because they send a powerful message that America's struggle against terrorism will once against honor some of the most cherished ideals of our republic: respect for the rule of law, individual rights, and America's moral leadership.

He writes about America as if it's a communist state devoid of laws and human rights. The fact that these suspected terrorists are detained in a comfortable military facility in sunny weather reading their Qurans already shows America's moral leadership. We could've shipped them off to some God-forsaken remote camp where they never see the light of day and wake up every morning wondering if they'd live through the night. That's how some countries treat their enemies, Sen. Kerry.

I have seen televised footages of Gitmo. Barbed wires surrounding the perimeter, of course, and steel cages throughout. Prison guards holding their rifles standing at the gates. I have noticed the prisoners dressed in their own seemingly comfortable attire and not some rag. They walk about, some are kicking a ball, some are just sitting, catching some rays. I dare say that their living condition may even surpass that of some prisons on U.S. soil.

The prisoner abuse uncovered at Abu Ghraib was shameful and tarnished our image. But that was promptly addressed by the Bush administration from the top down. Those who were responsible answered to the law and received punishment. The U.S. did not just let that slide. What greater demonstration of respecting the rule of law and human rights?

America, to me, has never lost its moral leadership. People like Sen. Kerry are focusing on the wrong side of the coin.

Pelosi: stop making babies, help the economy

Can you believe what's coming out of the Democratic leadership's mouth?

Where would Gitmo prisoners go?

Okay, so President Obama has chosen closing Gitmo as a top priority. Any logical leader would actually understand that before such a daunting task should come a plan as to where to put the prisoners. No Congressman except Jack Murtha (D-PA) has publicly voiced accepting them to his state of Pennsylvania (without approval from his constituents, I'm sure), and no U.S. ally has made gestures to keep them. What's going to happen to the detainees?

Republicans hold firm in Obama cabinet confirmations

Although President Obama had named his cabinet fairly quickly, Senate Republicans are performing their due diligence in confirming his picks. That's a good sign and demonstrates the check and balance of our two-party political system. Of course, don't be surprised if the White House starts politicizing the delays, accuse the Republicans of stalling the American government. I hope the Republicans stand firm and vet these nominees thoroughly. The character and experience of the cabinet have a great impact on the course of the nation.

Obama-nomics means thinner wallets

Sorry, but Manisha Thakor and Sharon Kedar have drank the Obama Kool-Aid in their Huffington Post piece. Their list of three top favorite long-term proposals from the Obama campaign:

1. UNIVERSAL MORTGAGE CREDIT that will broaden the financial benefits of homeownership - People often say home ownership is so wonderful because of the "tax benefits." Yet at present the mortgage interest deduction only kicks in if you ITEMIZE your tax return. Alas, 2/3rds of Americans take the standard deduction and thus miss out on this benefit. Team Obama supports a universal mortgage credit available homeowners who do not itemize. If you buy a home you can afford, this means YOU'LL participate in the American Dream not the American Scream.

I get the feeling that people who don't itemize of their tax returns aren't paying much taxes anyways and aren't likely to be homeowners. So good luck with buying a "home you can afford."

2. CREDIT CARD BILL OF RIGHTS that will protect consumers - Team Obama supports such steps as eliminating the universal default clauses (which allow lenders to increase your interest rate if you are late on any of your bills), prohibiting interest charges on late fees, and requiring the prompt crediting of cardholder payments. This means if you use your credit card responsibly, by paying off the balance each month on time and in full - it can once again be YOUR friend and not your foe.

Wonderful -- tip the scale in favor of irresponsible consumers and screw the credit card companies. Even though I have disagreements with some credit card companies' policies, especially those "bait and hook" practices and aggressive marketing to teenagers, I don't want to see them forced by government law. They are in the business of providing credit to those who are worthy and those who should already be paying off monthly balances. It is fair for them to penalize those who misuse and abuse the credit given to them. If such proposed legislation goes through, then it'll actually hurt consumers in receiving credit, especially for those who needs it most.

3. SIMPLIFYNG THE TAX FILING PROCESS so there are fewer headaches in April - Team Obama has also stated an intention to simplify the tax filing process, so that millions of Americans can do their taxes in less than five minutes. By enabling the IRS to use the same information it is already getting from banks and employers, taxpayers would have the option of accessing pre-filled tax forms that they can verify, sign and return. Experts estimate that this proposal will save Americans up to 200 million total hours of work and mental angst. And YOU can use that extra time to set a realistic budget & reassess YOUR asset allocation.

One word: FairTax. It simplifies the tax filing process by eliminating it (and the bloated IRS, too)!

Obama already misplaces priorities

The economy is in shambles. Unemployment rate is rising. Home values are plummeting. Loans are defaulting. Banks are imploding.

And what does President Obama do during his first days in office?

Obama issues an Executive Order to close Guantanamo Bay ("Gitmo") Naval Base and review each of the detainee's case to determine whether prosecution is possible in the U.S. He's also ending waterboarding as an interrogation technique.

Frank Beckmann writes in The Detroit News:

The argument for closing Guantanamo and ending tough interrogation methods has been that the world thinks less of us because of these issues.

But the attacks of 9/11 and earlier -- the bombings of the World Trade Center, African embassies and Marine barracks in Lebanon -- all occurred before Guantanamo became an adjective and when waterboarding became a U.S. practice. The terrorists attacked anyway because of their religious hatred of the West and its way of life.

He hits the nail right on the head. Why does Obama care so much what the world thinks of America? The administration's priority is to protect Americans at home and abroad. By moving to close Gitmo so promptly, he is sending the wrong message to our enemies.

And the new N.Y. Senator is...

Albany is abuzz with Gov. Paterson's pick for New York's senate seat to replace now Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Caroline Kennedy's out of the race. Democrats predict State A.G. Andrew Cuomo.

But looks like Paterson throws a curve ball -- it's Kirsten Gillibrand, considered by many to be a moderate Democrat. She's won elections with the backing of the National Rifle Association and opposition to TARP.

Democratic activists are already protesting the selection and planning to unseat her in the next election.

What the media giveth, the media taketh

There is no doubt that the media's love affair with Obama propelled him to stardom and into the White House, but it's starting to look like a backlash is brewing over his administration's unfair treatment of some media members.

Also, Obama's irritated response to some press members doesn't help.

And so it begins: what the media gives, the media can take away.

Here we go again: prosecute Bush for allowing torture

For some reason liberals cannot live with themselves knowing that they are safe because their President authorized waterboarding (claimed to be a torture method) to get valuable information out of terrorists in preventing attacks. Is it because that president is Bush? Or because they feel guilty about somebody being tortured for them to enjoy normal life?

Paul Campos writes in Rocky Mountain News a confusing piece, touting his support and activism for the Obama campaign, yet admitting:

Still, the whole business has left me rather depressed, because, in the end, I don't really believe in Barack Obama. For one thing, I don't believe in "change" - an empty concept if there ever was one.

Talk about a man of no principle, treating a ballot as if it were just a piece of scrap paper.

Then Campos makes a prediction on which route President Obama would take with regards to Bush's authorization to use torture:

So the Obama administration is faced with a difficult moral choice: It can enforce the law, or it can do the politically expedient thing and ignore the nation's constitutionally binding treaty obligations when those obligations require something as disturbing as prosecuting American war criminals.

Every indication is that Obama will choose the latter course.

He's probably right because ever since the beginning of Obama's political life, he has chosen the path of political expediency. He's in the White House because he's a great politician.

But let's go back to the subject of torture. I've always thought a good test would be to put yourself in such a situation:

Your wife (or loved one) is abducted, and her location and well-being is unknown. Authorities have captured a man who could have information leading to save your wife. The criminal is being a hard-ass and not talking. You could pull his fingernails and waterboard him for a chance to attain information, or you can have your lawyer talk to his lawyer for days and weeks. Time is running out.

Mr. Campos, what would you do?

Geithner taints TurboTax's reputation

Treasury Secretary-designate Tim Geithner is getting grilled by senators about his failure to pay taxes. He's admitted his neglectful wrongdoing, and at the same time caused Intuit, the maker of popular TurboTax software, to come out on the defensive.

Caroline Kennedy halts senate bid

Is she or isn't she? Today we have confirmation that Caroline Kennedy withdraws her bid as a New York Senator. Although there's been reports of various exchanges between her and Gov. Paterson, the NYT claims it's all about her taxes and a household employee:

Problems involving taxes and a household employee surfaced during the vetting of Caroline Kennedy and derailed her candidacy for the Senate, a person close to Gov. David A. Paterson said on Thursday, in an account at odds with Ms. Kennedy’s own description of her reasons for withdrawing.

The account emerged 14 hours after Ms. Kennedy announced that she was taking her name out of contention for the Senate seat vacated by Hillary Rodham Clinton, and as Mr. Paterson appeared to be leaning toward selecting Representative Kirsten E. Gillibrand, an upstate lawmaker in her second term in Congress.

Hard feelings toward Ms. Kennedy were clearly building among the governor’s staff on Thursday, after a dramatic evening in which she was reported to be dropping out, then wavering, then ultimately, shortly after midnight on Thursday, issuing a statement ending her candidacy.

The likely appointment now? State Attorney Andrew Cuomo.

F**K GEORGE banner disgusts vets at inaugural ball concert

What. The. Hell. Whether or not the inappropriate and obscene banner is aimed at outgoing President Bush, this is still a tasteless stunt pulled by the George Clinton band. They ought to be ashamed of themselves and never be invited back to state events in the future!

Inauguration crowd overestimated

Before Inauguration Day, some people predicted a crowd of three million coming to Washington, D.C. for a glimpse of Obama. But after Tuesday, it's clear that the number is lower than that. The National Park Service has yet to provide the official estimate, but others are saying around two million or less. That's still not shabby, considering millions more watched the event online -- Obama is already being labeled the first president to embrace technology.

Speaking of which... whatever happened to his BlackBerry?

The start of socialism

Be scared. Be very scared. Dick Morris predicts the Obama presidency's long-term effect to America, and this in particular troubles me:

Will he raise taxes? Why should he? With a congressional mandate to run the deficit up as high as need be, there is no reason to raise taxes now and risk aggravating the depression. Instead, Obama will follow the opposite of the Reagan strategy. Reagan cut taxes and increased the deficit so that liberals could not increase spending. Obama will raise spending and increase the deficit so that conservatives cannot cut taxes. And, when the economy is restored, he will raise taxes with impunity, since the only people who will have to pay them would be rich Republicans.

Morris makes a good point. Our children and children's children will be burdened with what the Obama administration has planned to "rescue" the economy. He concludes with:

So Obama's name will be mud by 2012 and probably by 2010 as well. And the Republican Party will make big gains and regain much of its lost power.

But it will be too late to reverse the socialism of much of the economy, the demographic change in the electorate, the rationing of healthcare by the government, the surge of unionization and the crippling of talk radio.

Is reality starting to set in after the joyous Inauguration Day?

Move into the White House, continue the Bush bashing

Thanks to Erick Erickson over at RedState for catching this.

Campaign's over. You won. Move into the White House. Update the Website. Stop with the tasteless Bush bashing already.

An inauguration, tainted

Everything seemed fine and happy until I noticed this: some people booed Bush when he arrived at the inauguration dais.

These people have absolutely no class. I know Obama would be ashamed to even have such classless supporters.

The inauguration speech

Overall, I think President Obama gave a very good speech after taking the oath. He touched on America's proud history and traditional values. He spoke of faith and religion. He warned America's enemies. He extended a hand to other nations. He highlighted the spirit of Americans.

But he also cautioned about the current economic crisis, ongoing wars, rising health care costs, and global warming threat. What worries me a little is this:

...The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

This sounds to me like more Big Government rhetoric, disguised as a plea to believe in a Big Government that "works." In comparison, here's what Ronald Reagan said in his inaugural speech delivered in 1981, as Larry Kudlow reminds us:

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.

Obama's promise of government responsibility and accountability definitely deserves applause, especially if he wants to spend our way out of a recession (good luck). When he raised his right hand in front of Chief Justice Roberts and all the world, to take the oath of defending the Constitution, did he realize that the Constitution says nothing about the government's duty to provide jobs at a "decent wage," or affordable health care, or stable income after retirement?

The inauguration was historical and inspiring, and personally, I think that way of all past inauguration ceremonies. The source of this profound awe, however, lies with the U.S. Constitution, and it ought to be the guide to all presidents.

PEBO becomes PBO

Congratulations! The 44th President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, has now officially taken office, oath administered by Chief Justice John Roberts.

God bless America!

Treasury Secretary nominee cannot explain missing taxes (now the economy is really screwed)

Obama would like Timothy Geithner to be the next Treasury Secretary, but how can he be effective if he cannot explain his failure to pay taxes? He does realize that as Treasury Secretary, he'll oversee the IRS? And we're supposed to trust this gentleman to hold our hands through the global economic crisis?

Already giving Obama too much credit

In less than 24 hours, America will have her 44th president in a ceremony marking another peaceful transition of power of a great nation. Out with the Bush eight years. In with the Obama optimistic four years. Like Courtney E. Martin of The American Prospect, I too envision many participating or watching the inauguration will shed tears of joy and let out cheers of encouragement. Martin writes:

While we must resist the temptation to romanticize this moment into ridiculousness, it is legitimately inspiring.
...
It is the beginning of a more engaged, more hopeful citizenry. With leaders that treat us as more than a 300-million-person focus group, we can effectively hold those leaders accountable. We are no longer a manipulated mass, a nation of children embarrassed by our father's simple-mindedness and impulsive rage. We have stepped into our own power through this election process, grown wiser and more informed than any electorate in decades. Like the wide-eyed children who have found a new hero, we will inevitably be disillusioned, but at least we will be passionate. Indifference and apathy have been replaced with investment and the related risks. I'd much rather live in a country in danger of disappointment than in a nation of indifference.

Personally, I think each inauguration is inspiring. Not just from the ceremonial grandeur or the solemnness of it all. Not just from knowing that the person to become president won in the battle of campaigns. Not just from seeing the profound happiness on the family's faces. It's always a great moment, not just for the new president but also America and her children.

I do appreciate Martin's poetic optimism. However, it seems to come at President Bush's -- the previous administration's -- expense. That's not what the inauguration is about. We do look forward to a different and hopefully, a better, future, but that doesn't mean the past was dark and ill-fated. Citizens will hold accountable Bush as much as Obama. President Bush did not manipulate us. Neither is he simple-minded or impulsive. By all accounts, he's a decent man and tried leader of eight years. At least have the decency to acknowledge that, even if it's not the popular thing to do.

After all, President Bush never cared to be popular. He cared mostly to do the right thing.

King Obama, monarch of United Kingdom of America

Even the Brits are noticing the inauguration events are looking more and more like a coronation of a king. Millions of dollars are being spent on Inauguration Day events, and this during a recession. All I can say is that there better not be a crown placed on his head when he's taking the oath of office.

Funny enough, King Obama may face some cold shoulders in his own royal court of Democrats. To his credit, many people think he really means it when he said he wants to change Washington, be bipartisan, reach across the aisle, etc. And yes, his selection of inauguration speakers, cabinet members and inner circle advisors have illustrated that. But the Democrats in Congress seems to be drunk on majority power already, their leaders Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi publicly reminding folks that they don't work for the king. Minority Republicans may end up being Obama's closest allies in his first term. After all, the king needs friends to counter the influence of Reid and Pelosi.

Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard has some fears about Obama -- and rightly so, now that we've come to know PEBO a little better. My greatest fear is that the likes of Reid and Pelosi, with the help of the media which packaged Obama into a pop star, will decide that this president is their puppet and overstep their authorities.

The educated middle class

Inauguration is this Tuesday, and David Frum writes in Newsweek about "How the GOP Can Rise Again" still:

A generation ago, the great majority of the most educated Americans voted Republican. The elder George Bush, for instance, defeated Michael Dukakis among college graduates by 25 points. But that advantage has been eroding, and last year Barack Obama became the first Democrat since Lyndon Johnson to win a majority of American voters with four years of higher education.

This is no small bloc, especially within white America, where Republicans do best. Almost one third of white Americans hold a college degree, up from one fifth in 1990. Republicans cannot win without this growing group.

No disrespect to Mr. Frum, best-selling author and all, but pundits and political analysts have already beaten this horse to death multiple times since November 5, 2008. But to his credit, maybe nobody specifically talked about the "educated middle class." Perhaps this article is submitted to generate pre-launch (going live Inauguration Day) buzz for his "political group blog," NewMajority.com?

Yes, the educated middle class may have abandoned the Republicans in this election, but they were likely indoctrinated, not educated, in liberal American colleges and universities. How can one claim to be educated when supporting Obama's nationalized health care promise, "free" college tuition, and so-called "tax cuts"? Maybe educated in arts and social sciences, but not Economics 101. How can an educated person believe that Big Government should get bigger and spend its way out of an economic crisis? America's budget deficit is almost $2 trillion in fiscal 2009! Still the Democrats want to pass a stimulus bill worth $850 billion.

For the real educated middle class voters, I still think they went Democrat because they're simply pissed at Republicans for being more and more like Democrats every year they are in office. Add to the fact that the media portrayed Obama as The One, one can easily justify in his or her conservative heart that there's nothing wrong with abandoning one's principles -- everyone else has and everyone says it's okay.

I do agree that this bloc of voters is important to the GOP. The tough job, however, is to educate these educated middle class voters on true conservative principles, and hope they educate their children and future generations about them...

Al Qaeda faces Black Death?

Apparently the plague has struck some al Qaeda terrorists in Algeria, North Africa. Let's hope it'll spread among the caves these terrorists hide and train in. Left-wing nuts are probably going to start some conspiracy theory about Bush authorizing CIA in the use of biological warfare against al Qaeda.

Bush was not wrong, writers are just not right

President Bush's farewell address didn't go well with many liberals. What else is new, eh?

Arianna Huffington unloads:

He was wrong about Iraq and Saddam and WMD. He was wrong to take his eye off the ball on Afghanistan. He was wrong about tax cuts being the answer to our economic woes. He was wrong about Wall Street being able to regulate itself. He was wrong about Katrina. He was wrong about torture. He was wrong about extraordinary rendition. He was wrong about warrantless wiretapping. He was wrong about Gitmo. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Calm down, Huffy! The only two things I may even agree with are Afghanistan and Katrina. However, he did own up to them and corrected the wrongs fairly quickly. Everything else -- Iraq, Saddam, WMD, torture, rendition, wiretapping, Gitmo -- well, America is kept safe since 9/11. I have to thank the President for that.

Gerard Baker, calling Bush "the epitome of ineptitude," among many other things:

Around the world the Bush name is synonymous with arrogance, ignorance, reckless insouciance, torture, violence and ineptitude. And those would be from America's friends. He leaves office with his country facing the worst economic crisis since (take your pick) Jimmy Carter or Herbert Hoover left town, two of his predecessors now firmly ensconced in the presidential Hall of Infamy.

Lots of SAT words there. Sure, blame the economy on him, too! Why didn't you write something when Bush's economic policies were making you tons of money in real estate and stocks? Please seek professional help for your Severe BDS...

And the President just can't catch a break, not even on the home front. Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), also the Judiciary Committee chairman, wants to investigate and probe the Bush administration:

First, Congress should continue to pursue its document requests and subpoenas that were stonewalled under President Bush. Doing so will make clear that no executive can forever hide its misdeeds from the public.

Second, Congress should create an independent blue-ribbon panel or similar body to investigate a host of previously unreviewable activities of the Bush administration, including its detention, interrogation and surveillance programs. Only by chronicling and confronting the past in a comprehensive, bipartisan fashion can we reclaim our moral authority and establish a credible path forward to meet the complex challenges of a post-Sept. 11 world.

Third, the new administration should conduct an independent criminal probe into whether any laws were broken in connection with these activities. Just this week, in the pages of this newspaper, a Guantanamo Bay official acknowledged that a suspect there had been "tortured" -- her exact word -- in apparent violation of the law. The law is the law, and, if criminal conduct occurred, those responsible -- particularly those who ordered and approved the violations -- must be held accountable.

I'm sure all in the name of civil liberty and accountability. Looks more like crucifying an outgoing president and his inner circle when Rep. Conyers enjoys the Democrat majorities in the Senate and House, and an incoming Democratic president. How about an investigation into Conyers' babysitter? Good grief. And this guy's the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

But of course, it's all about Bush and not anyone else...

Surprise! Obama on Time's cover...again

I'm thinking that magazines like Time are desperate for sales, but in flooding their magazines time and time (no pun intended) again with Obama on the cover, they are actually devaluating their worth. No more "collectors edition" for sure.

No BDS relief in sight even as Bush nears end of term

You just can't win with these BDS sufferers.

When Bush got elected and re-elected, liberals from near and far came out on the offense to label him as a dumb cowboy-wannabe from Texas who entered the White House thanks to his daddy and also managed to steal the 2004 election.

Now Bush is about to leave Washington and the liberal media still won't let him go in peace.

Journalism maven Helen Thomas writes about more "bizarre Bushisms":

On the Middle East crisis, his double standard was in full display.

Bush said he remained an opponent of an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, which has been invaded by Israel. He found only the firing of rockets by Hamas unacceptable, but expressed no sympathy for the Palestinians who are suffering heavy Israeli bombardment with American-supplied weapons.

Bush told the news conference: "Israel has a right to defend itself." He did not say the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves. He also said the Gazans have to stop smuggling arms. But he said nothing about the tons of arms we have supplied Israel.

As for the global economic meltdown, the president admitted he had to abandon his free-market principles and approve of massive government intervention in the economy. He said this switcheroo was required in order to save the free market system. The logic evoked the Vietnam era when we had to destroy a village in order to save it.

Come on, Helen. Of course the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves, but the fact remains that Hamas provoked Israel by lobbing rockets across the border, striking fear and killing innocent Jews in the border towns. Also, sending bomb-strapped crazies into crowded Israeli markets doesn't sound like a defensive maneuver to me, either. Do you condone the horrible terrorist acts of Hamas?

And about the economy, I'm sure if Bush had stuck to free market principles and let capitalism work its way slowly and painfully into recovery, Thomas and her liberals critics would attack that "Bushism" with no end in sight. Seriously, it's a no-win situation for President Bush. Liberals will always have something to pick on.

Don't even bring up the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Bush's decisiveness and resolve saved thousands more lives around the world. Thomas ought to read the article from The Telegraph's Andrew Robert.

That should provide enough answers to Michael J.W. Stickings' questions about Cheney:

I'm all for liberation, too, but are the people of Iraq truly free? Is there really a vibrant democracy there? And in Afghanistan, what of the ongoing war and instability there? It's not enough just to believe in your own high-falutin' rhetoric of freedom and democracy. It's not enough just to say that there have been such accomplishments, such historic progress. There's the not-so-little matter of the facts on the ground to consider, and the facts don't really back him up, do they? And what Cheney does not consider is not just those facts but that his own policies -- or, rather, Bush's -- have hindered progress in both Iraq and Afghanistan (as well as elsewhere, including in Iran, in North Korea, and with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). Even granting him that going to war in Iraq was the right thing to do -- which, in retrospect, I'm not about to do -- what about what came after the invasion? So too in Afghanistan. What about what came after the overthrow of the Taliban, specifically the immediate turn to Iraq and the failure to go after al Qaeda with full determination? And then, what about the gross mismanagement of the war in Iraq, and how Iraq turned into a cesspool of terrorism and sectarianism?

So give it a rest. Iraq is much, much better without the psychotic tyrant Saddam Hussein. Absorb that fact. Learn to live with it. Bush and Cheney did the right thing.

Imagine what took place in Obama's meetings with columnists

Obama had dinner with several prominent conservative columnists a few days ago, and followed up with a meeting with the liberals (of course he had to). Nobody's leaking details of these events, honoring the off-the-record agreement. Larry Kudlow shares some opinion of PEBO. Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic isn't talking. No juicy stuff (heck, Kudlow can't even remember what food was served)!

My guess is that during the dinner with the "crazy" conservatives, the conversations were about the economy, Washington war stories, and lots of exchanged pleasantries. Congratulations. How's the family? Thank you. What delicious food! Here's a toast to our new President...

And what of the meeting with liberals? I bet they complained about not having dinner -- not even refreshments! Are we not as important as the right-wing nuts?! And after a brief exchange of pleasantries, they probably treated the meeting like a BDS support group, whining and moaning about Bush's stupidity and Cheney's dishonesty, and Palin's family. These liberal columnists probably hinted to PEBO that it was their words and leftist colleagues in the media that helped him to the White House. Take good care of us. Don't let us down. We can't believe you invited Rick Warren...

Best of luck to PEBO. As Kudlow pointed out, there's a lot of things to deal with already...

Global economic downturn hurts Chavez's socialist agenda

Tough guy Hugo Chavez doesn't seem so tough anymore now that the global economic downturn and plunge in oil price is hurting his income, and hence his goal of turning Venezuela into a socialist mecca. After having some fun seizing foreign oil company properties and harassing them with tax officials, he's now soliciting bids for these oil companies to come back to drill.

This guy is a nutcase and has no clue as to how to run a country, even one with such vast oil reserves. His hardline socialism is isolating Venezuela and depriving its people of a better future.

Don't forget the racist Democrats

Ali Frick of ThinkProgress posts an interview with Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA) in which the Congressman is asked to respond to a 2007 statement by talk show host Michael Savage about refugees unable to assimilate. Cao responds appropriately, drawing to his own life experiences as a refugee from Vietnam. Additionally, he hopes "that the GOP will not tolerate those kinds of views and will not take those positions." So far so good.

Then Frick kindly points out anti-immigrant rhetoric doesn't just come from right-wing radio, but also from Washington, and of course, Cao's fellow Republicans:

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN): Part of that is this whole idea of multicultural diversity, which on the face sounds wonderful. … But guess what? Not all cultures are equal.

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA): There is quite a large number of people that are coming across the border that are of Middle Eastern origin as well as Asian origin. A lot of these are single, they have no families. I don’t think they are coming here to cut our grass or work in our chicken plants.

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL): If there are no jobs people will go home. They won’t continue to go here. Now a lot of ‘em wouldn’t go home; you’d have to round them up.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA): We could also electrify this wire [on the border fence] with the kind of current that would not kill somebody, but it would simply be a discouragement for them to be fooling around with it. We do that with livestock all the time.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL): The numbers [of immigrants] cannot be too great, or it takes jobs from Americans and can, in fact, create cultural problems that wouldn’t occur if it was a little slower.

Frick gets an "A" for effort to paint Republicans as bigoted, anti-immigrant fools. But as they say, history is our best teacher, and let's see what we can learn about Democrats, starting with quotes from our soon-to-be vice president, Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE):

• There's less than 1% of the population of Iowa that is African American. There is probably less than 4% or 5% that is, are minorities. What is it in Washington? So look, it goes back to what you start off with, what you're dealing with.
• I mean, you got the first mainstream African American [Barack Obama] who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice looking guy.
• You cannot go into a Dunkin' Donuts or a 7-Eleven unless you have a slight Indian accent.

...or these other fine Democrats:

• Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC) 1993: Everybody likes to go to Geneva. I used to do it for the Law of the Sea conferences and you'd find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they'd just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva.
• Jimmy Carter, former President: I'm not going to use the federal government's authority deliberately to circumvent the natural inclination of people to live in ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods. . . . I have nothing against a community that's made up of people who are Polish or Czechoslovakian or French-Canadian or blacks who are trying to maintain the ethnic purity of their neighborhoods.
• Robert F. Kennedy, former Attorney General: I did not lie awake at night worrying about the problems of Negroes.
• Robert Byrd (D-WV): I am a former Kleagle [recruiter] of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County. . . . The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia. It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state in the union.

Not to mention that every known Congressman who was a KKK member has been a Democrat.

Where's the free in free press?

Can you believe Obama has a list of press members who've been told they will be called upon during a press conference? We know Obama loves the teleprompter, but it's laughable that a U.S. President cannot handle the heat from the press.

Blame goes to the press members, too. Are some of them plain worried about keeping their jobs? So they play it safe by cozying up with PEBO and his team. It's no wonder newspapers are going the way of dinosaurs.

No hearing for you, Mr. Geithner!

Another wrench thrown into the mix of confirmation hearings: Obama's appointment for Treasury Secretary, Tom Geithner, is found to have past tax problems. His public hearing has been postponed to avoid further embarrassment. Although most think it's a minor infraction, some Republicans aren't likely to let this go easily.

Franken trying to force his way into Senate

Exactly what is Franken and his lawyer trying to pull in the pretense of serving the people of Minnesota? As much as Minnesotans deserve two U.S. senators like any other state, they also deserve one that's seated under the rule of law. First and foremost, Minnesota state law disallows issuance of an election certificate until legal matters are resolved. That means Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Secretary of State Mark Ritchie have their hands tied until the court reaches a decision. Is Franken's legal team on crack to claim that federal law supersedes state law? Last I heard America is still a republic union of 50 states, each governed in accordance with its own laws. Maybe Franken should've run in another state where only a rubber stamp is needed on an election certificate.

Schwarzenegger's GOP

While acknowledging bodybuilder-turned-actor-turned-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's political success, Matt Welch of Reason highlights his failures and warns the Republican Party:

Republicans in 2009 are in a mess of their own making. If they interpret the Democrats’ sweeping victory as a clarion call to foray further into religiously inspired, Terry Schiavo–style politics that uses government as a lever to manipulate and control other people’s lives, then they will deserve their exile from power.

But it will take more than just eschewing cultural conservatism and adopting the Democrats’ interventionist economic approach to refresh the Republican brand. There is room right now for an opposition party that emphasizes what the governing party does not: freedom, as both the ultimate goal and the means to achieve it.

If Republicans use government to manipulate and control people's lives, then Democrats also do the same, albeit in a different fashion. Democrats manipulate and control people's lives by burdening them with higher taxes. They fight for the freedom to abort a fetus and pass laws that fund organizations supporting that devious cause. Eventually they also want you to drive "green" vehicles because the planet is warming (never mind the snow storms throughout the country), and again, pass laws for taxpayers to fund themselves out of a regular automobile. Is that not manipulation and control?

Welch thinks the Republicans need to be more like Democrats in order to regain power. That may be the case to spell the GOP's demise. However, it is a fact that many conservative voters chose Obama/Biden simply to send a message to the GOP, and that these voters still understand that the Republicans can still check-balance the Democrats (recall the high-profile Georgia Senate race). Conservatives are wandering the desert in search of a home, and as long as the GOP leaders can prove themselves to return to conservative politics, I don't see a problem for the Republicans in the future.

Another old Obama interview surfaces (yawn)

French newspaper Le Monde surprises everyone by publishing an 1996 interview of Mr. and Mrs. Obama about their marriage.

Yawn. Can we get back to fixing the economy now?

Blagojevich impeached by state house

The Illinois House voted 114-1 to impeach Gov. Blagojevich. Now we wait for the trial in the Illinois Senate to begin on January 26.

No surprise there. Since the scandal broke, there has been strong criticism from state lawmakers to remove Blago from office. And what was the governor doing? Jogging, getting in shape for a good fight. He's already fought the media, the Senate Democrats in Washington, and now his own state legislature. He's one tough Chicago politician for sure...

Obama, best new drug of the century

When these frightful times of financial confusion and credit constipation become too much, I dial up Barack Obama on YouTube to suppress my anxieties. The Voice works like aerosolized Paxil on my limbic system, reducing my blood pressure and lifting my mood.

Ah yes, Jack Shafer heart Obama, calls him "Soother in Chief" in Slate. Too bad listening to Obama during the recession won't nationwide jobless rates or help home sellers or rescue a financial institution.

Hate to break it to you, Jack, but your blood pressure will skyrocket once you see your future tax bill.

America already has superheroes to save her

Gerard Baker of The Times begs a superhero to save America:

But what Mr Obama really needs right now is a television superhero to help him to rescue the US economy. His inauguration as president in 11 days' time will take place in what can be described, without hyperbole, as the worst economic conditions the US has faced in at least 70 years. Data due from the Labor Department this morning is likely to show that the US lost more jobs, net, in 2008 than in any year since the Second World War. Economic activity in 2009 is likely to decline at its fastest since the same historic landmark.

Most alarming, not only is there no obvious end in sight, the evidence suggests that things are getting worse. Despite the bailouts last year, the financial system, crippled by the housing market disaster and folly, remains clogged and more big financial institutions are likely to be in trouble in the next few months.

He's right in calling the American consumer "the hero of the global economy," but the true superhero is good old fashion American capitalism. Unfortunately, Captain Capitalism is losing the battle against his Big Government, Big Spending nemesis, President-elect Barack Obama (now affectionately known as PEBO in the blogosphere). An $800 billion stimulus package. Are you kidding me? Read carefully and it's all about Obama's socializing education and health care. He's found his excuse to spend money, increase taxes, and all that anti-capitalism stuff.

Blago 1, Reid 0

Senate Democrats bows to public and caucus pressure to seat Blagojevich-appointed Roland Burris. Majority Leader Reid comes out looking like a fool.

Finally, a Hollywood actor speaks up and out

Gary Graham is one pissed-off dude (warning -- some strong language). Thanks, Gary!

Making excuses for Democratic scandals

Politicians are politicians, and scandals get uncovered from both parties. That's no excuse for politicians to become corrupt, however. I can't believe Eve Fairbanks on The New Republic would post reasons "Why the Democratic Scandals Don't Matter (Yet)":

- Most of the Democratic scandals have been on the state or local level. That's not to say the figures involved aren't villains, but people are more likely both to assume state politics is dirtier than national politics (which I think is often true) and to attribute state-level corruption to local dissipation rather than the mores of the national party. It's important to remember that the GOP ethics problem of 2005-2006 involved Washington people like Bob Ney and Jack Abramoff, rather than state politicians like Haley Barbour. How many times have we heard that Blagojevich's crimes were "the Chicago way"? This kind of thinking is good for the Democrats.

- The Democratic scandals are not linked (and, to boot, are mostly so bizarre as to seem sui generis). What a great media narrative Abramoff made: A pious religious man makes a bargain with the devil and links up with a greedy Majority Leader. Soon, twelve Washington powerbrokers have been convicted, including a congressman. But where the common themes between the GOP scandals (inappropriate golf junkets, bilking Indian tribes) made them seem all part and parcel of a single corruption syndrome, the Democrats' scandals are not as clearly linked, so are less likely to seem symptomatic. (Spitzer was obsessed with sporting socks while Blagojevich was abnormally engrossed with his Paul Mitchell hairbrush: could there be a party-wide fetish problem?)

- The Democratic scandals do not involve top party leadership. Not yet. Harry Reid, please, please avoid Las Vegas for a little while.

- People do not yet think the Democratic president sucks. Let's face it: The Abramoff stuff (and then, towards the end, Mark Foley) only made a difference because the bloom was already off the GOP rose anyway, thanks to George W. Bush.

Can you believe it? It's like she's gladly making excuses for these Democrats. "The Chicago Way" kind of thinking is good for Democrats? And people don't yet think Obama sucks? Well, isn't Obama a product of the Chicago Way politics? And I know plenty of folks who already think Obama-as-president will suck.

Coulter banned on NBC

According to the Drudge Report, controversial conservative author Ann Coulter is banned from appearing on NBC:

"We are just not interested in anyone so highly critical of President-elect Obama, right now. It's such a downer. It's just not the time, and it's not what our audience wants, either."

That's probably true. Whoever watches NBC probably isn't interested in Coulter's criticism of liberals. But a complete ban based on the reasoning that she's critical of our president-elect? NBC ought to be ashamed! Why didn't they ban those who were highly critical of President Bush? The elite media double standard at its best.

CHANGE in the CIA

President-elect Obama has picked Leon Panetta to head the CIA. And what's the Clinton connection? Panetta was Clinton's chief of staff. Again, we see Clintons Have A New Grip on Everything (CHANGE)...

It looks like Obama wants to keep the CIA close during his term by selecting a politician rather than from someone within the CIA ranks. However, is it a wise decision? How effective can a career politician run the world's top spy agency?

Panetta may have "nothing to do with the last eight years," but his lack of experience in this matter is worrisome.

Obama silence on Gaza war irks many

Oh yes, the silence is deafening. President-elect Obama has remained muted in light of the recent conflict in Gaza between Israel and Hamas. Also not a word from his choice for Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. And same with Joe Biden, his V.P. with mountains of foreign policies experience.

It's starting to make many Obama supporters uncomfortable, like Simon Tisdall of The Guardian, even though he's hit the nail on the head:

Regional critics claim Obama is happy to break his pre-inauguration "no comment" rule on international issues when it suits him. They note his swift condemnation of November's terrorist attacks in Mumbai. Obama has also made frequent policy statements on mitigating the impact of the global credit crunch.

Exactly. Obama the politician at his best. He knows far too well that Israel is doing the right thing, but he's scared to piss off the pro-Palestinian/Hamas liberals (I'm betting the majority of them voted for Obama/Biden). He doesn't even have the guts to follow President Bush in voicing support of Israel, one of America's most staunch allies.

Commerce secretary seat now open

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson announced his withdrawal to be Obama's commerce secretary citing a federal investigation of how some of his political donors won a major state contract.

So there's the Blagojevich mess, and now this embarrassment. It's not even that close to Inauguration Day yet!

Isreal enters Gaza as savior, not invader

The international public opinion is once again condemning Israel's ground invasion into Gaza to root out Hamas and its rocket-lobbing terrorists. President Bush has recognized Hamas' provocation and supports Israel's right to self defense. Europe is divided, with France taking the lead in criticizing Israel.

Hamas' disregard for lives of innocent civilians, on both sides of the border, is again exposed. These terrorists fire rockets into Israeli townships, not military targets. Hamas members store weapons in mosques and people's homes and require people to stay there as human shields. The group encourages mothers to send their sons (and daughters) to be trained as suicide bombers. Its charter calls for the elimination of Israel.

Israel, on the other hand, tries its best in this bloody conflict to comply with humane and international laws. Its air force warns residents of air strikes. If a jet knows Hamas employs human shields, it will abort the missile firing. The IDF sends text messages to Gaza residents warning of imminent ground offensive, at the cost of the element of surprise and thus sacrificing more of its own soldiers.

I cannot help but wonder how many Palestinians actually wish for Israel to overpower Hamas and destroy it. Life in Gaza has been made miserable by this terrorist gang. How does anyone get away with using women and children as human shields? Unfortunately, they cannot voice their opposition to this nonsensical violence or risk death.

We all want peace. But history has taught us that peace often arrives after overwhelming power to destroy the enemy.

Governors, steel industry also seek bailout

Unsurprisingly, more bailout requests.

Governors of five states are asking the federal government to hand out $1 trillion to help the 50 states in education, infrastructure, and welfare. Democratic governors of New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Wisconsin are leading the charge to pick Washington's wallet.

Then we have the steel industry wanting help from Obama's promised stimulus package. He's not even president yet and already there are lobbyists bugging his transition team. Big Steel wants the government to order more steel for infrastructure projects, but somehow I think the government isn't going to get the best price for steel if the bailout happens...

What better way to start off the new year with requests for free money?

Leggo my Blago

Okay, so I'm just trying to come up with a clever title than "Way to go, Blago"...

Evidently Roland Burris (D), Blagojevich's senate appointee, has a history of wrongfully convicting death sentences. Of course, that's not the reason the Democrats are going berserk over the appointment. They're going berserk because they'd warned Blagojevich not to proceed with an appointment. Worse yet, Burris is enjoying the media spotlight and gladly waits to be seated in the Senate amid Majority Leader Harry Reid's threat.

The Democrats have a hot potato in their hands with this one. The appointment is completely legal, and Burris stands to win if this goes to court. The best plan is to negotiate for Burris' promise not to run for re-election in 2010, but who knows, maybe Burris has greater political ambitions. One thing is for certain, Chicago-style politics is as flavorful as its pizza!

Crazy anti-Israel protestors in America

This video isn't shot on the streets of Gaza or an Arab nation. It was in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA, believe it or not. If Islam is a religion of peace, then these protestors aren't demonstrating it...

Mideast peace process is elusive

All eyes are on Israel as its air force continues to selectively strike within Gaza to kill Hamas leaders. Yes, there are civilian casualties, but compared to how Hamas indiscriminately aims its missiles specifically at civilian targets, the IDF is doing its best in preventing collateral damage. Even more worrisome is the fact that Hamas' weaponry has seen significant upgrades recently, including Iranian-made Fajr-3 missiles with greater range. That new firepower threatens Israel's nuclear power plant in Dimona, also a site said to contain the country's nuclear warheads.

There are those like Rosa Brooks of L.A. Times who criticizes Israel for trying to "bomb its way to peace." Never mind that Hamas terrorists started the whole provocation by launching rockets into Israeli towns. Although Brooks acknowledges Israel's right to self-defense and its superior military force, she thinks it's the Israeli politicians playing their game at the expense of rousing more Arab anti-Western sentiments:

Israel has no viable political endgame here: There's just no clear route from bombardment to a sustainable peace. But the damage caused by this new conflagration won't be limited to the Israelis and Palestinians. Israel's military offensive already has sparked outrage and protests throughout the Arab world. The current crisis also may destabilize some of the more moderate Arab governments in the region -- in Egypt, for instance -- where leaders now face popular backlash if they don't repudiate Israel.

And if you think that none of this really matters for us here in the U.S., you're kidding yourself. Arab and Islamic anger over Palestine continues to fuel anti-Western and anti-U.S. terrorism around the globe.

Unfortunately, there is no reasoning with Hamas. Its goal is to annihilate the state of Israel. How can Israel sit at a negotiation table when the other party wishes nothing but its death? Brooks is right in that Israel is in a lose-lose situation, but that doesn't mean it is doing something wrong. Peace in Mideast has been attempted many times but never came to fruition, not because of Israel's unwillingness, but rather because of the Palestinians' undying hostility and self-victimization.

Israel may not be able to bomb its way to peace, but those bombs are a sign that peace can still be achieved, even if through deadly deterrence.

Happy New Year!

Goodbye, 2008. Hello, 2009! Although we enter the new year with a liberal Congress and president, I am still optimistic of our conservative causes in 2009. Thank you for your support!