Sharp Knife

The Fairness Doctrine by another name.

Can't these Congressional control freaks let people talk without Obama's permission?

"The failure of liberals to master the vibrant medium of talk radio remains puzzling. To reach the radio audience (whether the topic is sports, politics or car repair), a host must have populist instincts and use the robust common voice. Too many Democrats have become arrogant elitists, speaking down in snide, condescending tones toward tradition-minded middle Americans whom they stereotype as rubes and buffoons. But the bottom line is that government surveillance of the ideological content of talk radio is a shocking first step toward totalitarianism."--Camille Paglia

Archbishop Chaput:

"...Tolerance is not a Christian virtue. Charity, justice, mercy, prudence, honesty -- these are Christian virtues. And obviously, in a diverse community, tolerance is an important working principle. But it's never an end itself. In fact, tolerating grave evil within a society is itself a form of serious evil. Likewise, democratic pluralism does not mean that Catholics should be quiet in public about serious moral issues because of some misguided sense of good manners. A healthy democracy requires vigorous moral debate to survive. Real pluralism demands that people of strong beliefs will advance their convictions in the public square -- peacefully, legally and respectfully, but energetically and without embarrassment. Anything less is bad citizenship and a form of theft from the public conversation.

(Via Kathy Shaidle}

Good.

I'm glad this Corrupt Congress has decided to go on a CIA witch-hunt. The sooner this Hangin' Court convenes, the better.

Americans need to know how every major Democrat (including Clinton/Gore) privately signed off on wiretapping, waterboarding and rendition--while publicly bad-mouthing their own country out of pure politics.

These extremists are PROUD to bash America, and they want to make sure that no CIA officer ever defends this country again. They don't think America is worth defending, being the Source of Evil in the Modern World and all.

"Connect the Dots"? You can forget about that, pal.

By the way, here's the Wholly-Owned Saudi Tool that Obama has chosen to give him intelligence briefings:

"Now the United States has brought the Palestinian experience – of humiliation, dislocation, and death – to millions more in Afghanistan and Iraq."

No politicized intelligence there. You'd think an Arabist named Freeman would realize the value of freeing Arab men and women...but it's all "Blame America First". Realists always want their freedom by keeping others enslaved.

You may think you voted for change, but when these people aren't stuck in the Thirties with FDR's New Deal on Steroids and Neville Chamberlain's Appeasement on Roofies, they're acting out all the worst ideas of the Sixties and Seventies. They fancy themselves as the new Frank Church, the pro-Communist senator who gutted and blinded our intelligence agencies one of the last times we were foolish enough to entrust them to Democrats.

These aren't jobs programs for drunken ex-ambassadors; they're our eyes and ears in a dangerous world. Democrats aren't just flirting with disaster; they've got their tongues down her throat and her shirt halfway off.

They won't protect you, and they won't let anybody else protect you either.

WRONG!

"Well you sure...Got That Right!"--Lynryd Skynyrd

Mark Steyn's "Well Hung":

"There is proper conduct that everyone has to follow."

Sorry; I pass on that one. For one thing, there is no "proper conduct" in the wacky world of pseudo human rights in this province. The rules are made up as they go along, so even if you wanted to follow them, you can't.

What's the "proper conduct" for Mr Fulton? Decline to let the pre-op use the ladies' changing room and get a "human rights" complaint? Or let the Big Swinging Dick have the run of the shower and get a whole bunch of other suits from his outraged female members?

What's the "proper conduct" for Dr Stubbs? Decline to perform a labiaplasty on the post-op transsexual because he's no idea what he's getting into (so to speak)? Or perform it and risk a malpractice suit for botching an operation?

What's the "proper conduct" for Gator Ted? Tell the medical marijuana guy to stop smoking pot in his doorway and be hauled before the commissars? Or let the guy go ahead and get sued by the trucker sitting next to him at the bar when he fails his drug test?

There is no "proper conduct", only the whims and caprices of nuisance plaintiffs backed by the Ontario government's social engineers. Bar owners and fitness clubs run up five- and six-figure legal bills. The nuisance plaintiffs get the tab picked up by taxpayers, and thus have no incentive to settle.

...The idea that people should be essentially punished by a system that does not allow them equality with their accuser is a mark of great shame to this province. If there has to be a tribunal, it should be brought within the bounds of normal legal practice and this province's 800-year legal tradition.

Speaking of standing centuries of our legal traditions on their heads, Ali Saleh Kahlah al Bailout is going before Judge Judy rather than a military tribunal. For the People, Mr. McCarthy:

The Supreme Court had granted cert in his case, and the Justice Department was supposed to file its brief by March 23rd. That would have required the Obama administration to announce and explain its position on the authority of the a president to detain enemy combatants captured in the U.S. ["Um...Our position is, you know...whatever Bush said, Your Honor."--Ed.]

By taking this action, Obama is obviously hoping to sidestep Supreme Court review — much as Bush managed to do with Padilla. There's undeniable upside in this. I don't think the Court would have granted cert unless the solid 4-justice liberal bloc was confident that it had Justice Kennedy's vote to invalidate the detention.

But the real problem here is disclosure of intelligence ... Once the executive branch files charges, it loses control over discovery. ... The judge's responsibility is not national security but to provide due process for the accused.

The transfer decision takes the pressure off the Obama administration and probably prevents, for now, the Supreme Court from doing something reckless. But the perils it invites — perils we saw throughout the 1990s — are just getting started.

We'll be lucky if the courts don't name this terrorist Obama's "Terror Czar" and give him reparations with those special Cabinet-level tax-breaks.

We're constantly being told to exchange our ancient and hard-won rights for some puffy, fluffy and shiny new ones--"You don't want that old '63 Corvette convertible, son. Here, take this beautiful new 2009 Yugo Plastico instead. It has a CD player and everything!"

You can't print up millions of new "rights" overnight in the basement as if they were Obama Dollars.

IT AIN’T FUNNY

Preznit Barack Dillinger Obama says he’s going to cut the deficit in half in four years. We know that all of his statements come with an expiration date, but this one expired as the words left his mouth. But let’s pretend just for kicks and grins.

To analogize, let’s say you make $50k a year. You spend $90k a year. And you owe $10 million.

Your yearly deficit then is $40k, the difference between the $50k you earn and the $90k you spend each year.

Now you pledge to cut that deficit in half in four years. So in Year One, you only spend $85k. In Year 2, $80k. In Year 3, $75k and in Year 4, you spend $70k. You’ve still only earned $50k in all these years, but at least you have cut your deficit spending in half, from $40k to $20k. Big deal.

And you still haven’t touched the $10 million you owe, which represents the National Debt. Both the Debt and the yearly deficit are still mounting, and with interest, too!

But it’s worse than that; Obama plans to quadruple (at a minimum) the yearly deficit–and THEN cut it in half. That means IT WILL STILL BE TWICE AS BIG AS IT WAS WHEN HE STARTED!

This is Smoke and Mirrors on Steroids. The whole purpose of this is not to save money, but THE EXACT OPPOSITE; to blunt criticism of the massive, massive spending yet to come, on top of the already massive Bailout and Stimulus Bills.

Their words all come with an Expiration Date. Unfortunately, the National Credit Card doesn’t.

“What’s in your wallet?”

A: “Baby-Face Obama and The Gang who Couldn’t Legislate Straight!”

HOLD ON, HOLDER

I don’t know about you, but when I want to have a thoughtful, adult conversation about a controversial topic, I also like to begin by calling everyone a “coward”. It loosens up the wheels.

And you wonder why…

We’ve already seen how you guys discuss race–No Thanks.

For example, when John McCain said Rep. John Lewis was one of his heroes, Lewis returned the favor by saying McCain was George Wallace. Or when the NAACP ran an outrageous commercial against George W. Bush, blaming him for taking lightly James Byrd’s dragging death. Yet the NAACP wanted to spare the killers and give them sensitivity training…while Gov. Bush was trying to execute them!

Mr. Holder, you had a chance to show bravery on the Race Issue once when Hillary pardoned Puerto Rican bombers and a Jewish embezzler in raw swap for ethnic votes. Instead, you facilitated and defended those race-based pardons.

Even leaving race aside, they should have been opposed on a purely professional level, as they turned the pardon power on its head; those pardons were granted to benefit the pardon-givers, not the prisoners.

You were AWOL, Mr. Braveheart.

DID YOU KNOW

Before he left office, Pres. Bush sneaked in a rule to allow people to defer their taxes for 6 years?!! Oh, wait a minute--that rule is in the new Democrat Stinkulus Bill. Don't worry, though; you can qualify, too...if you're a billionaire like Microsoft founder Paul Allen.

deferral Kinda' makes you wonder what else is in there. Hmmm...here's something;

Rep. Waxman says the law that requires the creation of “electronic health records for each person in the United States by 2014” does not require the creation of electronic health records for each person in the United States by 2014.

When asked whether there was a provision in the bill that allowed Americans to keep their records out of the program, Waxman said, "Yes."...However, Waxman's office did not provide CNSNews.com with the provision in the bill that would allow individuals to exempt themselves from the program. ...Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) told CNSNews.com, when asked about the provision. “I haven’t thought about it.”

He didn't think about it, he just voted for it.

But at least you have the Government's Iron-Clad, Rock-Solid Promise that your medical records will remain private. Except for the five pages of exemptions and exceptions. Including "if the Secretary feels like it, has a bad hair day or we decide we just want the money."

And they say George W. Bush doesn't read.

AN OPEN LETTER FROM RONALD REAGAN TO ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGAR

Ya' know, by rights, California should be the richest state in the Union. Instead, it's now the "Michigan of the West".

It has everything. Talented people. Good weather. Beautiful beaches. Ski mountains. Timber. Minerals like gold and silver. It has every form of energy known to man; oil, geo-thermal, solar, wind, tide, uranium, hydropower and natural gas. Californians should be energy exporters, not energy parasites, like this:

On top of free gas, California lawmakers also get state-issued vehicles, another perk that most states avoid. The fuel card given to lawmakers is supposed to be used "for legislative purposes," but there is no way to check if they use it for public business or private travel.

Lawmakers pull up to the pump, swipe the gas card and never see the bill, which is sent directly to the Senate and Assembly rules committees. The taxpayers take over from there. "I trust them," said Jon Waldie, the Assembly Rules Committee's chief administrative officer.

Is it any wonder the state is broke and so many lawmakers seem indifferent to energy prices?

California has an educated people, but a university system that often wants to suppress knowledge rather than imparting it, to provide indoctrination rather than doctors for the nation.

It has oceans for fishing and more acres of good farmland than most countries have flowerpots. It has the Silicon Valley of Simi up north and the Silicone Hills of Hollywood down south. It grows everthing under the sun, including citrus, almonds, Popeye's spinach and Obama's arugula. But it also grows Avocado Boards:

The obscure, Irvine-based California Avocado Commission spent wildly and with few controls, dropping nearly $2 million on questionable credit card purchases and employee perks; lavish hotel stays replete with booze, body treatments, massages and facials; season tickets to Mighty Ducks and Angels games; remodeling an executive’s home office; and much more over a three-year period, according to a state auditor’s report.

California also has a human agriculture problem, spending 3 billion-dollars it didn't have on human cloning after politicians promised the people Cures through Cannibalism. It was always about ideology and it has produced no cures, only impoverishing the state both morally and financially.

The Governator came to office with a 15 billion-dollar deficit and opposing a car tax. Years later, the deficit has tripled...and he is proposing that same car tax he once opposed! While Governor Schwarzeneggar truly admires Pres. Reagan, he will not emulate him.

So with almost no editing and just a little artistic license, I have arranged a little heart-to-heart from one California governor to another:

Dear Governor Schwarzeneggar,

Now the economic downturn has brought us to the moment of truth we have avoided for too long a time.

It has already been suggested that we meet this situation by simply adding to the taxpayers’ heavy load. That of course is an easy out – for everyone but the taxpayer who already pays too much for government.

I’m inclined to believe the voters didn’t send us here to find easy answers. A tax increase – even under the illusion that it would be a temporary expedient – will not resolve this problem. In the first place, temporary taxes have a way of outliving the problems that caused their birth. Government may protest that it never gets the money it needs, but it always manages to find a need for the money it gets.

Simply meeting this problem by finding additional funds, or passing it on to another level of government, is truly a temporary solution.

When I became governor, I inherited a state government that was in almost the same situation. The state payroll had been growing for a dozen years at a rate of from five to seven thousand new employees each year. State government was spending from a million to a million-and-a-half dollars more each day than it was taking in. The State's great water project was unfinished and under-funded by a half a billion dollars. My predecessor had spent the entire year's budget for Medicaid in the first six months of the fiscal year. And, we learned that the teacher's retirement fund was unfunded—a $4 billion liability hanging over every property owner in the state. I didn't know whether I'd been elected governor or appointed receiver. California was faced with insolvency and on the verge of bankruptcy. We had to increase taxes. Well, this came very hard for me because I felt taxes were already too great a burden. I told the people the increase in my mind was temporary and that, as soon as we could, we'd return their money to them.

I had never in my life thought of seeking or holding public of office and I'm still not quite sure how it all happened. In my own mind, I was a citizen representing my fellow citizens against the institution of government. I turned to the people, not to politicians, for help. Instead of a committee to screen applicants for jobs, I had a citizens' recruiting committee, and I told this committee I wanted an administration made up of men and women who did not want government careers and who'd be the first to tell me if their government job was unnecessary. And I had that happen. [A] young man from the aerospace industry dissolved his department in four months, handed me the key to this office, and told me we'd never needed the department. And to this day, I not only have never missed it—I don't know where it was.

There was a reason for my seeking people who didn't want government careers. Dr. Parkinson summed it all up in his book on bureaucracy. He said, "Government hires a rat-catcher and the first thing you know, he's become a rodent control officer." In those entire eight years, most of us never lost that feeling that we were there representing the people against what Cicero once called the "arrogance of officialdom." We had a kind of watchword we used on each other. "When we begin thinking of government as we instead of they, we've been here too long." Well, I believe that attitude would be beneficial in Washington.

We didn't stop just with getting our administration from the ranks of the people. We also asked for help from expert people in a great many fields, and more than 250 of our citizens volunteered to form into task forces. They went into every department and agency of state government to see how modern business practices could make government more efficient, economical and responsive. They gave an average of 117 days apiece full time, away from their own jobs and careers at no cost to the taxpayers. They made eighteen hundred specific recommendations. We implemented more than sixteen hundred of those recommendations.

This was government-by-the-people, proving that it works when the people work at it. When we ended our eight years, we turned over to the incoming administration a balanced budget, a $500 million surplus, and virtually the same number of employees we'd started with eight years before—even though the increase in population had given some departments a two-thirds increase in work load. The water project was completed with $165 million left over. Our bonds had a triple A rating, the highest credit rating you can get. And the teachers' retirement program was fully funded on a sound actuarial basis. And, we kept our word to the taxpayers—we returned to them in rebates and tax cuts, $5 billion, $761 million.

If you will permit me, I can recount my own experience in California.

When I went to Sacramento eight years ago, I had the belief that government was no deep, dark mystery, that it could be operated efficiently by using the same common sense practiced in our everyday life, in our homes, in business and private affairs.

The "lab test" of my theory – California -- was pretty messed up after eight years of a road show version of the Great Society. Our first and only briefing came from the outgoing director of finance, who said: "We’re spending $1 million more a day than we're taking in. I have a golf date. Good luck!" That was the most cheerful news we were to hear for quite some time.

California state government was increasing by about 5,000 new employees a year. We were the welfare capital of the world with 16 percent of the nation's caseload. Soon, California’s caseload was increasing by 40,000 a month.

We turned to the people themselves for help. Two hundred and fifty experts in the various fields volunteered to serve on task forces at no cost to the taxpayers. They went into every department of state government and came back with 1,800 recommendations on how modern business practices could be used to make government more efficient. We adopted 1,600 of them.

We instituted a policy of "cut, squeeze and trim" and froze the hiring of employees as replacements for retiring employees or others leaving state service.

After a few years of struggling with the professional welfarists, we again turned to the people. First, we obtained another task force and, when the legislature refused to help implement its recommendations, we presented the recommendations to the electorate.

It still took some doing. The legislature insisted our reforms would not work; that the needy would starve in the streets; that the workload would be dumped on the counties; that property taxes would go up and that we'd run up a deficit the first year of $750 million.

That was four years ago. Today, the needy have had an average increase of 43 percent in welfare grants in California, but the taxpayers have saved $2 billion by the caseload not increasing that 40,000 a month. Instead, there are some 400,000 fewer on welfare today than then.

Forty of the state’s 58 counties have reduced property taxes for two years in a row (some for three). That $750-million deficit turned into an $850-million surplus which we returned to the people in a one-time tax rebate. That wasn’t easy. One state senator described that rebate as "an unnecessary expenditure of public funds."

For more than two decades governments -- federal, state, local -- have been increasing in size two-and-a-half times faster than the population increase. In the last 10 years they have increased the cost in payroll seven times as fast as the increase in numbers.

We have just turned over to a new administration in Sacramento a government virtually the same size it was eight years ago. With the state’s growth rate, this means that government absorbed a workload increase, in some departments as much as 66 percent.

We also turned over -- for the first time in almost a quarter of a century -- a balanced budget and a surplus of $500 million. In these eight years just passed, we returned to the people in rebates, tax reductions and bridge toll reductions $5.7 billion. All of this is contrary to the will of those who deplore conservatism and profess to be liberals, yet all of it is pleasing to its citizenry.

Arnold, I don't know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, "We must broaden the base of our party" -- when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?

Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.

Let us also include a permanent limit on the percentage of the people's earnings government can take without their consent.

Let our banner proclaim a genuine tax reform that will begin by simplifying the income tax so that workers can compute their obligation without having to employ legal help.

Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people. Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.

Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.

I can see your world and the promise of a bright future ahead. Yet somehow, you cannot see my world, even with the hindsight of history. Why is that? Come back home, Mr. Governor--and bring those Californians with you, would you? I miss them.

Sincerely,

Former Governor Ronald Reagan, Ranch of the Sky, California

"Don't you know who I am?"--John Kerry, Kerry Pool and Cabana Maintainence, Inc., Brookline, Mass.

John Kerry wasn't just being imperious. When he asked his signature question of various lowly peasants who were impeding him, he was also asking about his own identity. Frankly, he wasn't anymore sure about it than we were.

But how 'bout you? Do you know who you are?

Are you listless and odiferous even though you're recycling more than ever? Do you sometimes cry at old C-SPAN re-runs of Walter Mondale speeches? Do you find yourself yelling at trick-or-treaters because they're not collecting for UNICEF? If so, you may be suffering from Munchausen by Tourette's Proxy of Bell's Palsy in Lou Gehrig's China Syndrome. Or, worse, you may be a Progressive.

As you make your journey of self-discovery on the Interstate of Life, navigating the federally-mandated HOV lanes as you search between the seat cushions for correct change at the Toll-Plaza of the Self-Identified, we've assembled some easy test questions to help you determine if, in fact, you are a Progressive. Or merely someone who should have taken the bus.

You Know You're a Progressive When...

...you've railed against corporate welfare all your life...and think its high time we shoveled billions into car companies, ethanol manufacturers, banks, windmill builders and other 18th-century technologies.

...you can read this statement by Waxman's staff --"the chairman has made it clear that oversight of the Internet is one of his top priorities"--without hearing it in a Russian accent.

...you think greedy corporations and their politician-sponsors should be punished--unless it's Barky Obama and Barney Frank with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, in which case they should be rewarded and fully-funded for their failures.

...you think Americans should be forced to learn a foreign language...not including that impenetrable tongue spoken only on IRS forms.

You Know You're a Progressive When...

...even a flaming liberal such as yourself doesn't like being called a liberal.

...you think Government listening to terrorist's phone calls is "eavesdropping on Americans"...but Government surveillance of talk radio and cataloging every political opinion expressed by Americans is not.

...some days you angrily assert that "Progressive" is short for "passive aggressive". Other days, you just don't care.

....you think Iran has a right to nukes just like any other country...and the US must DISARM NOW!

...you think Big Oil executives are greedy liars and thieves...but Oil Tycoons Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro are philanthropists looking out for the little guy. Gary Coleman.

You Know You're a Progressive When...

...you think illegal aliens have a right to a driver's license...but asking to see that license at the polling place is vicious discrimination.

...you think Castro's police state is excused by Cuban health care...even though its most famous patient was JFK.

...you think the only thing stopping cars from getting a million miles per gallon is that Congress simply hasn't passed a law yet...but you oppose the car that actually does get a million miles per gallon because its nuclear.

...you think sexuality is an endlessly elastic, mutable social construct...except for the LGBT, who were unquestionably "born that way"--even transsexuals! Furthermore, you think trannies come from a bar in Bangkok, not from a plant in Dearborn.

...you think paying taxes patriotic. Also, not paying taxes.

You Know You're a Progressive When...

...you believe dissent is highest form of patriotism. And patriotism must not be questioned. Because questions lead to answers and answers lead to certitude. Certitude becomes the Conventional Wisdom. From which we must dissent. And dissent is the highest form of...

( I heroically dissent from the statement "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism". Laying down one's life for your country is the highest form of patriotism. That's why Spec. Casey Sheehan was awarded medals and Cindy Sheehan was punished with media. And that's why it's called "the Medal of Honor", not "the Medal of Hollywood".)

...you insist that all assumptions must be questioned...except your assumptions. Questioning those will be a hate crime.

...you think there is not enough evidence to say that Jesus was the Son of God...but the evidence that Trig is the son of Bristol Palin? Rock Solid, baby!

...you hate pork producers in Indiana, but love pork producers in DC.

...you think an Obama Stimulus is "timely, targeted and temporary"...but an Obama Promise isn't.

OBAMA'S VERY FOREIGN POLICY

It's been a month now. And now that we've assured every dictator and thug in the world that we mean them no harm, let's see how Obama's foreign policy has unrolled...

*Despite Americans having fought and died in Somalia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan to feed, protect, repatriate and liberate millions of Muslims, Obama went on Saudi TV and told Arabs that any of their grievances with the United States are America's fault.

*Joe Biden tells Europe and Russia the same, promising to hit the Staples(tm) Easy Reset Button.

*Hillary is in Asia, defending her husband's failed North Korea record instead of America, and Blaming Bush(tm) instead of solving the problem. (While Albright clinked champagne flutes with Kim Chi Elvis, Bill Clinton made North Korea the largest recipient of American aid in the world--and they still cheated!!)

*In advance of their scheduled blind date, Obama has signaled Iran that its nuclear program is acceptable--but, hey, he always said "no option is off the table". Evidently, capitulation was one of the options. If Atom Ant were still around, we'd capitulate to him, too.

*Obama has agreed to participate in "Durban II: Get the Jew!", where bullies, tyrants and trans-national elites bash Israel and Western greed...while dining on lobster and champagne high above the slums of Durban!

Anne Bayefsky:

[T]he very objective of Durban II is "to foster the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Program of Action." This is non-negotiable and cannot be changed by U.S. participation, period. In addition, all U.N. states attending these preparatory sessions have already agreed to “reaffirm the Durban Declaration”. Since the U.S. walked out of Durban I in disgust (along with Israel) and rejected the Durban I Declaration, joining negotiations now means agreeing to its provisions for the first time.

It will be painful to watch the administration forced to enroll in U.N. 101. Not only will Obama be buffeted by EU members attempting to save themselves and their pocketbooks, the developing world will be overjoyed at the prospect of debilitating Gulliver. The fact that he is prepared to lie down of his own volition and hand them the strings, just makes the occasion merrier. Obama will also come to know the overarching theme of all U.N. meetings, namely, that saving the credibility of the institution itself is the number one priority. This means that having mounted a global conference, any outcome or deal is better than nothing. Such a mindset leaves the extremists in the driver’s seat. They will eat multilateralists-in-need-of-a-warm-group-hug for breakfast.

All his campaign promises to the contrary, sacrificing Israel for the sake of currying favor with others — demagogues included — is clearly at the top of the new president’s agenda.The speed at which President Obama is selling off American assets is breathtaking. The speed at which he is selling them out is even faster.

Indeed, the Durban Grovel has already begun.

*Obama is also set to meet with terrorist-importer/exporter and President-4-Evah Hugo Chavez.

Michael Rowan:

By accepting the results of sham elections because of fear or cowardice in the face of an oil bully, the U.S. is showing to the world that it does not know or care what democracy is, according to its own Founders. No achievement in prosperity will counterbalance that fatal flaw. While the media (the New York Times is typical) accepts Chavez as a legitimate democrat and while the U.S. government looks the other way, the fundamental raison d'etre of America itself is put at risk. This story is not about Venezuela and Chavez, or Zimbabwe and Mugabe, it has always been about democracy — our democracy. What America is risking here is itself.

*Obama has even managed to insult our oldest ally, once-Great Britain.

He returned a Churchill bust after he realized it wasn't "Ward". Reportedly he's no Churchill fan because the Brits fought his grandfather in the Great Mau-Mau Uprising. But at least they didn't leave Grandpa homeless and penniless.

The Art-Critic-in-Chief has replaced it with a Lincoln bust. As one wag put it, 'We read a book about Lincoln and conclude Lincoln was great. Obama reads a book about Lincoln and concludes he's Lincoln.'

Obama is said to favor Churchill's evil twin, Sir Winston Hussein Mosquehill, famous for these quotations:

"History will be kind to me for Bill Ayers and I intend to write it."

"A lie and Hillary get halfway around the world before the truth and Bill have a chance to get their pants on."

Woman: “Sir, you are drunk.”
Sir Winston: “Madam, you are ugly. But in the morning, I shall be sober.”
Woman: "Do you know of any country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons?"

Nancy Astor: “Sir, if you were my husband, I would give you poison.”
Sir Winston: “If I were your babydaddy, I would take it.”

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for the one I'm about to try out on you."

"From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an Iron Curtain has descended across the Continent...and I can hardly wait to see the dress my wife makes from it."

"You ask, What is our policy? I will say; “It is to spend. To spend on war, to spend on the sea, to spend on the land and on air, to spend on golf carts and mob museums, mouse habitat and community stabilization. And to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark lamentable catalogue of human crime: the Bush administration. That is our policy.” You ask, What is our aim? I can answer with one word: Socialism—socialism at all costs, socialism in spite of all terror, socialism however long and hard the road may be; for without socialism there is no, um, well, socialism."

"We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on spending to the end. We shall spend in France, we shall spend on the seas and the oceans, we shall spend with growing deficits and growing recklessness on global warming, we shall lower sea level and raise the White House thermostat whatever the cost may be. We shall spend on the beaches, we shall spend on the landing grounds, we shall borrow in the fields and tax in the streets, we shall regulate in the hills; we shall never surrender. Unless the UN says so."

It's foreign. It's policy. Must be foreign policy.

AND THE ROAD NOT TAKEN

Obama will sign Porkulus in Denver today. He should go to the Mint, since that's how much this is going to cost. In fact, while he's signing, I'll be thinking of the this:

US Code, Title 18, Uttering counterfeit obligations of the United States:

Whoever manufactures...any... paper, or other thing similar in size and shape to any of the lawful...currency of the United States...with knowledge or reason to believe that such tokens, slugs, disks, devices, papers, or other things are intended to be...fraudulently to procure anything of value, or the use or enjoyment of any property or service from any automatic merchandise vending machine, postage-stamp machine, turnstile, fare box, coinbox telephone, parking meter, or other lawful receptacle, depository, or contrivance designed to receive or to be operated by lawful coins or other currency of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Because as far as I can tell, they're just printing this stuff up in the basement.

The Good News: the Secret Service will already be on site in Denver to arrest all the counterfeiters, and the perpetrators have all conveniently gathered in one spot!

This is Magic Money, Glorified Arcade Tokens of our Affection. Will one dime of this ever be repaid? I doubt it. Not in anything but Wheelbarrow Dollars, anyway. I hope I'm wrong. But I see a Congress and a president poised to spend 10 Trillion dollars just this year alone.

It didn't have to be this way. Real President warned us:

"Before the Great Depression, the idea that the Federal government should balance its budget on a yearly basis was treated as though it were part of the Constitution. The economic crisis, and later World War II, forced the abandonment of this policy. But what may have been necessary in those national emergencies is now a permanent feature of the Federal government.

There is no question that continued Federal budget deficits, fueled by higher spending, are bad for the economy. Unfortunately, our political system makes it extremely difficult to reduce the deficit. The public interest in spending restraint is a generalized one, diffused among the entire citizenry. The special interests favoring spending on any particular program are smaller, but they fight much harder to maintain or increase spending.

...That is why 32 States have applied to the Congress to call a constitutional convention for the purpose of proposing a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget -- only two States short of the number required by Article V of the Constitution.

It is imperative that the Congress consider such an amendment as a major priority for 1988, and I will be a willing partner in that enterprise."--Pres. Reagan, 1987

If we had listened, we'd not be signing Porkulus today, or even feel the need for it.

The Heritage Foundation from a 1997 article on the Balanced Budget Amendment:

Contrary to rhetoric, borrowing is not evil. There have been times in which government borrowing has been in the national interest. Winning World War II, for instance, probably would have been impossible if the government had not been able to tap private credit markets. Similarly, the limited extent to which President Ronald Reagan's restoration of the U.S. military added to the national debt was a small price to pay for the collapse of communism.

Almost all households and businesses go into debt at some point. There is nothing wrong, either morally or financially, with these decisions.

Although deficits and debt are not necessarily bad, politicians certainly have abused the privilege. Like profligate consumers who use credit cards to live beyond their means, many politicians see government borrowing as a way to increase federal spending for programs that are not in the nation's best interests. The difference between the irresponsible consumer and the irresponsible politician is that bad behavior on the part of the consumer leads to a bad credit rating and a sharply reduced ability to borrow money. Politicians escape a similar fate because they can pass the costs of a bill on to the next generation.

By limiting deficits, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and others claim, the balanced budget amendment somehow will make economic downturns more likely. This argument is based on the economic theory known as Keynesianism. According to this theory, which first influenced policymakers in the 1930s and remained popular into the 1970s, politicians can stimulate economic growth by borrowing money and increasing government spending. Critics from the beginning noted that this theory did not make sense, but politicians liked Keynesian economics because it gave them a quasi-respectable rationale for increased spending.

Ultimately, reality proved to be the undoing of Keynesian economic theory. The economic stagnation of the 1970s showed that deficit spending -- especially when combined with rising taxes and inflation -- was not a recipe for growth. Moreover, the success of President Reagan's supply-side tax cuts further undermined the case for Keynesian policies by showing that improved incentives were the key to growth. Nonetheless, there are some who still cling to Keynesian theory.

Yes; the Democrat president, the Democrat House and the Democrat Senate.

We've had deficits before, but never on this scale. We are about to spend sums equal to the wealth of the entire world.

What could possibly go wrong?

VETO THE THOUGHT!

It's Washington's Birthday--the only president who never blamed the previous administration!

Maj. Gen. Henry "Light Horse Harry" Lee:

"In obedience to your will, I rise your humble organ, with the hope of executing a part of the system of public mourning which you have been pleased to adopt, commemorative of the death of the most illustrious and most beloved personage this country has ever produced; and which, while it transmits to posterity your sense of the awful event, faintly represents your knowledge of the consummate excellence you so cordially honour.

The founder of our federate republic — our bulwark in war, our guide in peace, is no more! O that this were but questionable! Hope, the comforter of the wretched, would pour into our agonizing hearts its balmy dew. But, alas! there is no hope for us; our Washington is removed forever!

How, my fellow-citizens, shall I single to your grateful hearts, his pre-eminent worth? Where shall I begin, in opening to your view a character throughout sublime? Shall I speak of his warlike achievements, all springing from obedience to his country’s will, all directed to his country’s good?

Moving in his own orbit, he imparted heat and light to his most distant satellites; and combining the physical and moral force of all within his sphere, with irresistible weight he took his course, commiserating folly, disdaining, vice, dismaying treason, and invigorating despondency; until the auspicious hour arrived, when, united with the intrepid forces of a potent and magnanimous ally, he brought to submission the since conqueror of India; thus finishing his long career of military glory with a luster corresponding to his great name, and, in this his last act of war, affixing the seal of fate to our nation’s birth.

Possessing a clear and penetrating mind, a strong and sound judgment, calmness and temper for deliberation, with invincible firmness and perseverance in resolutions maturely formed; drawing information from all; acting from himself with incorruptible integrity and unvarying patriotism; his own superiority and the public confidence alike marked him as the man designed by Heaven to lead in the great political as well as military events which have distinguished the era of his life.
The finger of an over-ruling Providence, pointing at Washington, was neither mistaken nor unobserved, when, to realize the vast hopes to which or revolution had given birth, a change of political systems became indispensable.

How novel, how grand the spectacle! Independent States stretched over an immense territory, and known only by common difficulty, clinging to their union as the rock of their safety; deciding, by frank comparison of their relative condition, to rear on that rock, under the guidance of reason, a common government, through whose commanding protection, liberty and order, with their long train of blessings, should be safe to themselves, and the sure inheritance of their posterity.

Commencing his administration, what heart is not charmed with the recollection of the pure and wise principles announced by himself, as the basis of his political life? He best understood the indissoluble union between virtue and happiness, between duty and advantage, between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and individual felicity. Watching with an equal and comprehensive eye over this great assemblage of communities and interests, he laid the foundations of our national policy in the unerring, immutable principles of morality, based on religion, exemplifying the preeminence of a free government by all the attributes which win the affections of its citizens, or command the respect of the world.

First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen, he was second to none in the humble and endearing scenes of private life. Pious, just humane, temperate and sincere; uniform, dignified and commanding, his example was as edifying to all around him, as were the effects of that example lasting.

To his equals he was condescending, to his inferiors kind, and to the dear object of his affections exemplary tender. Correct throughout, vice shuddered in his presence, and virtue always felt his fostering hand. The purity of his private character gave effulgence to his public virtues. ...Such was the man for whom our nation mourns."

"

"Posterity will talk of Washington as the founder of a great empire, when my name shall be lost in the vortex of revolution."--Napoleon Bonaparte

"If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world."--King George upon hearing from painter Benjamin West that the victorious General Washington was voluntarily relinquishing power.

There is a goofy poll out today of mostly liberal academics who rate Woodrow Wilson and JFK ahead of Reagan! They also place Lincoln ahead of Washington...funny thing is, Ol' Abe didn't:

"Washington's is the mightiest name of earth — long since mightiest in the cause of civil liberty; still mightiest in moral reformation. On that name no eulogy is expected. It cannot be. To add brightness to the sun, or glory to the name of Washington, is alike impossible. Let none attempt it. In solemn awe pronounce the name, and in its naked deathless splendor leave it shining on."--Abraham Lincoln

A little over the top there, sir. Here's something a bit more balanced; Forrest McDonald's George Washington: Today’s Indispensable Man:

As a soldier he was capable of rashness and poor judgment. He was addicted to gambling, indulged in a good deal of wenching, and was said to be a “most horrid swearer.” He was vain, a bit pretentious, and hot tempered; and though he was a perfect gentleman in public, he was sometimes not in private.

Yet he was respected, admired, even revered by his countrymen, and he was the most trusted man of the age. What is more, and different, he was the most trustworthy man. Why he was so trusted, and came to be so trustworthy—in revolutionary circumstances of a kind that almost invariably breed Caesars, Cromwells, Castros, and Stalins—are questions that must be examined if we are to understand Washington’s true legacy.

We may want a real president again someday, so we'd better remember what they look like.

"As you know, I've never liked big government. And that was one of the reasons I was opposed to the so-called "Fairness Doctrine"... there's no reason to substitute the judgment of Washington bureaucrats for that of professional broadcasters."--Ronald Reagan

To the Senate of the United States:

I am returning herewith without my approval S. 742, the "Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987'', which would codify the so-called "fairness doctrine.'' This doctrine, which has evolved through the decisional process of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), requires Federal officials to supervise the editorial practices of broadcasters in an effort to ensure that they provide coverage of controversial issues and a reasonable opportunity for the airing of contrasting viewpoints on those issues. This type of content-based regulation by the Federal Government is, in my judgment, antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment.

In any other medium besides broadcasting, such Federal policing of the editorial judgment of journalists would be unthinkable. The framers of the First Amendment, confident that public debate would be freer and healthier without the kind of interference represented by the "fairness doctrine'', chose to forbid such regulations in the clearest terms: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.'' More recently, the United States Supreme Court, in striking down a right-of-access statute that applied to newspapers, spoke of the statute's intrusion into the function of the editorial process and concluded that "[i]t has yet to be demonstrated how governmental regulation of this crucial process can be exercised consistent with First Amendment guarantees of a free press as they have evolved to this time.'' Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 258 (1974).

I recognize that 18 years ago the Supreme Court indicated that the fairness doctrine as then applied to a far less technologically advanced broadcast industry did not contravene the First Amendment. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969). The Red Lion decision was based on the theory that usable broadcast frequencies were then so inherently scarce that government regulation of broadcasters was inevitable and the FCC's "fairness doctrine'' seemed to be a reasonable means of promoting diverse and vigorous debate of controversial issues.

The Supreme Court indicated in Red Lion a willingness to reconsider the appropriateness of the fairness doctrine if it reduced rather than enhanced broadcast coverage. In a later case, the Court acknowledged the changes in the technological and economic environment in which broadcasters operate. It may now be fairly concluded that the growth in the number of available media outlets does indeed outweigh whatever justifications may have seemed to exist at the period during which the doctrine was developed. The FCC itself has concluded that the doctrine is an unnecessary and detrimental regulatory mechanism. After a massive study of the effects of its own rule, the FCC found in 1985 that the recent explosion in the number of new information sources such as cable television has clearly made the "fairness doctrine'' unnecessary. Furthermore, the FCC found that the doctrine in fact inhibits broadcasters from presenting controversial issues of public importance, and thus defeats its own purpose.

Quite apart from these technological advances, we must not ignore the obvious intent of the First Amendment, which is to promote vigorous public debate and a diversity of viewpoints in the public forum as a whole, not in any particular medium, let alone in any particular journalistic outlet. History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and competition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee.

S. 742 simply cannot be reconciled with the freedom of speech and the press secured by our Constitution. It is, in my judgment, unconstitutional. Well-intentioned as S. 742 may be, it would be inconsistent with the First Amendment and with the American tradition of independent journalism. Accordingly, I am compelled to disapprove this measure.

Ronald Reagan
The White House,
June 19, 1987.

* This was pre-Rush. But even then, Democrats realized how valuable government control of the airwaves could be in preventing a Rush Limbaugh or a FOX network.

* Here's how a Fairness Regime works; government monitors everything that is said on the airwaves. It classifies every opinion and then demands that television, radio and cable stations give equal time to opposing points of view. Rather than turn over their microphones to anybody with a beef, most stations would choose to avoid any opinion at all. Liberals say they want both sides of the argument--but what they really want is conservatives silenced.

* California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown just said on a talk show "a little state control of speech wouldn't hurt". Of course, this is a guy who thinks his own constitution is unconstitutional. I guess a little state control of the voters is good, too, huh, Jerry?

Moonbeam got to say what he wanted on the radio without any state control. He just wants a "little state control" of your free speech--not his.

*Liberal Camille Paglia gives a stirring defense of free speech versus the doctrine. Yes, Little Johnny, liberals used to believe in free speech.

* Who will run these "Truth Commissions"-- unionized federal employees? Please. David Axelrod and his friends? Right. Liberals: if you put politicians in charge of issuing speech permits, someday Karl Rove will get a turn, too.

*9 out of 10 journalists are liberal. But liberals want 10 out of 10. They can't stand the fact that one or two broadcasters have escaped the plantation; they want their runaway slaves returned at once.

*As a conservative, I've lived with liberal media bias my whole life. In fact, in this last election, the press rented cheerleader dresses and waved pom-poms--except Matt Lauer, who already owned his. But even on my worst day, it never occurs to me to pass a law to silence opponents in the media. Yet that is the first impulse of liberals.

* The Pom-Pom Press created FOX and Rush Limbaugh by stubbornly refusing to tell it straight or respect the views of millions of Americans. They sent all those viewers and listeners elsewhere by their own condescension and arrogance.

* The whole point of a new Fairness Doctrine is to "Hush Rush". It is a Bill of Attainder, a law pronouncing one person guilty and seizing his property, in this case, Rush's show.

*A real Fairness Doctrine would take away airtime from liberal networks, not conservatives.

* Bill Clinton said we need this because of the "big money" behind "right-wing talk radio". This is the guy who sold pardons, rented the Lincoln bedroom out and leased our secrets to the Chinese. He's taking big money from the very countries his wife will deal with.

Nobody but Bill is taking money. It can't just simply be that we beat them. No, for Liberals, it always has to be some vast right-wing conspiracy--Project much, people?

*If you could "fill the seats" with your twaddle, stations would beat a path to your door. They're not ideologues--they're businessmen trying to make a buck. Your talkers drive listeners away. The more people hear, the less they like it.

*If you have to pass a law to get mandatory listeners, MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE YOUR IDEAS SUCK.

"I have strongly supported the elimination of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine'' as an unconstitutional infringement upon the freedom of the press, and I will continue to resist any legislation that attempts to reverse this Federal Communications Commission action."--Pres. Ronald Reagan

Reagan had his own "Fairness Doctrine", except he called it by another name:

"the First Amendment".

Pastor Hagee's OP ED for the Washington Post:

The Bible commands that "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established," (Romans 13:1). So while I endorsed his opponent in the recent presidential election, I fully support Barack Obama as my new President.

I do not offer my good wishes out of religious conviction or civic spirit alone. Throughout the campaign, President Obama conducted himself with civility and grace. All campaigns are filled with scurrilous attacks, and some of President Obama's supporters engaged in such attacks - including many aimed against me personally. Yet not once did I doubt Mr. Obama's wish for a higher standard for political discourse.

I am astonished by those who wonder if evangelical Christians, a majority of whom did not vote for Mr. Obama, want to see our 44th President succeed. Of course we do. We are in the midst of an historic economic crisis and still fighting two foreign wars. We want President Obama to lead this country towards greater peace and prosperity. We not only embrace our new President, we pray fervently for his success.

When it comes to our ally Israel, one of my chief concerns, I was encouraged by the very important statements that President Obama made on the campaign trail. Candidate Obama said that "Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable." He pledged that "as president I will never compromise when it comes to Israel's security." He has refused to negotiate with Hamas until this organization renounces terrorism and recognizes Israel's right to exist.

When it comes to Iran, candidate Obama pledged that, "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." He also stated in connection to Iran that "I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel." Even after his election, President Obama has reiterated his belief that a nuclear Iran would be "unacceptable."

Of course, just because someone says the right things does not mean that they will do the right things. Among my prayers for our new president will be that he keeps these important campaign promises. If he does, he will find great support and appreciation from me and the millions of evangelical Christians who share my passion for Israel.

In acknowledging these areas of agreement, including many not mentioned here, we neither deny nor forget the many areas of disagreement that remain. When it comes to foreign policy, I strongly disagree with President Obama when it comes to speaking to Iran without preconditions.

On social issues, we have many obvious areas of disagreement, including the President's recent decision to lift the ban on federal funding for international organizations promoting or performing abortion. In the coming years, President Obama will no doubt pursue policies with which we disagree, and we will make our dissent known. I'm sure the president would expect nothing less. But we must always dissent with civility and respect - the same civility and respect that he has thus far shown to us. If we feel compelled to oppose our new president's policies, we must always be a loyal opposition.

The Bible tells Christians that they are to pray "for all who are in authority that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life," (I Timothy 2:1-2).

President Obama, Godspeed and may God's blessings be upon you, your family, and this nation. May the Lord grant you success in your mission to help America and the world lead a quiet and peaceable life.

Pastor John Hagee is the Senior Pastor at the San Antonio based Cornerstone Church and the Chairman of Christians United for Israel.

I feel compelled to oppose our new president's policies, and I am a loyal opposition.

We cannot pray for his success on his own terms any more than our Founders prayed for King George's success. Pray he succeeds by God's measure of success.

For example, God is already using this to get His word printed in the Washington Post. But He's been doing real "Hope" and "Change" for a long, long time.

ARE WE REALLY GOING TO HAVE FEDERAL OPINION-HALL MONITORS FROM THE MINISTRY OF SPEECH RATIONING?
Steynagain:

The battles hard won two and three centuries ago are having to be re-fought in some of the oldest settled democracies on the planet.

There are stages to the enervation of free peoples. America, which held out against the trend, is now at Stage One: The benign paternalist state promises to make all those worries about mortgages, debt, health care go away. Canada is at Stage Two: When the populace has agreed to become wards of the state, it's a mere difference of degree to start regulating their thoughts.

Eventually, despite the smiley-face banalities, the tyranny becomes more naked. Undercover constables dine at curry restaurants on Friday nights to monitor racist remarks by customers. A Telegraph columnist is taken to a police station and questioned over a joke at a rally. A Dutch Member of Parliament is banned from entering the country. [...]

And then comes Stage Three, when the enforcers no longer need even to keep up the pretense...

Doug Ross has this from Politico:

Today, radio host Mario Solis Marich asked former President Bill Clinton if it was time for "some type of enforced media accountability."

"Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side," Clinton said, "because essentially there's always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows and let face it, you know, Rush Limbaugh is fairly entertaining even when he is saying things that I think are ridiculous...."

Clinton said that there needs to be either "more balance in the programs or have some opportunity for people to offer countervailing opinions."

You mean opportunities besides ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, Pacifica Radio, Air America, Ed Schulz, The NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, TIME, Newsweek, Rolling Stone, etc., etc., etc.?

"enforced media accountability"? They really seem to be getting serious about the Censorship Doctrine. As per Alinsky, Obama has identified Rush as the enemy and the minions are falling in line.

These people are control freaks. They already control every network but FOX--but they just can't stand it that one network escaped from the Liberal Plantation! Obama has this bizarre FOX-fetish and Rush-fixation. Can't anybody say anything without your permission, you freaks?

Liberals already have a radio network: its called "NPR". I'll say it again: if government could do fairness, then taxpayer-funded NPR would be the fairest of all. Instead, it's a reliable Democrat house organ. You want fairness on the radio? Then stop making Republicans pay for NPR.

Maybe you'd have more listeners if your ideas weren't so hinky. If people won't listen to your ideas without you making it mandatory, maybe there's something wrong with those ideas. If you have to try to silence the other guy to win an argument, your ideas are weak.

Can't you people win without cheating for once? And will we ever know?

FIRST THEY COME FOR YOUR HISTORY

Mark Steyn has what is easily the best Punchline of the Day. Go see. It involves Cambridge changing the name of its "Empire Ball" due to the usual PC objections. He adds:

Interesting that "anti-fascism" now means attacking the British Empire, which stood alone against fascism in that critical year between the fall of France and Germany's invasion of Russia.

Steyn continues here:

Re: Cambridge University's de-imperialized "Empire Ball", many many readers write to insist I point out the most obvious fatuity in those "anti-fascist groups"' litany of evil - "the British Empire's association with slavery".

The British Empire's principal association with slavery is that it abolished it. Thanks to William Wilberforce and the brave men of the Royal Navy, an institution that hitherto had been regarded by all cultures around the planet as as permanent a feature of life as the earth and sky was expunged from most of the globe.

Steyn goes on to decry the historical amnesia purposefully infected and inflicted on society by the Left.

I despise the leftist reading of history as one long indictment of our civilization--as if all other societies were Shangri-Las of sweetness and light, overflowing with the sweet wine of human kindness and enlightenment like the Kennedys at last call.

"Anti-fascists"? That sounds about half-right to me.

Besides, if Western Civ is that awful, how did it ever produce our little hothouse university brats?

Chesterton: "The really courageous man is he who defies tyrannies as young as the morning and superstitions fresh as the first flowers."

You better take a look around, kids. While you're busy denouncing the "Empire!" that ended in your great-great-great grandmother's day, you are being assimilated into the Empire of the Caliphate. Your own government is starting to function as a rump Vichy collaborationist state, often more Islamist than the Muslims.

They're Control Freaks, too. You'll fit right in.

JUDGING GREGG

I was glad to see Judd Gregg go to Commerce, just as I was glad to see Bob Gates stay at Defense, where they both might act as moderating influences. But after Gregg accepted the job, Obama cut his legs out from under him by taking away the Census. That changed the terms and conditions of employment and Gregg had no choice but to leave.

The Census doesn't belong to Republicans. If Obama didn't trust Gregg, he shouldn't have taken the Census away--he should have fired Gregg.

The Census doesn't belong to Democrats either. By taking it into the White House, it is not Gregg, but Obama who is proving he wants to manipulate the census for political advantage. If Gregg had stayed, he would have been ratifying Obama's blatantly partisan and frankly un-American power grab.

The Clintons used every office and program of government for personal and political gain. They tried to use "sampling", i.e.; "guessing" during their census count. We've recently seen how Democrats count--no thanks. I had the audacity to hope this administration would be different, but sadly, this is still the Clintons' party.

Gregg was right to first go and he was right to leave. He's got a good record on spending so we need him in the Senate; spending is all they do.

Unlike many, at least the man can count.

UPDATE: One reason it's so hard to get rid of Affirmative Action Discrimination is because legislators have made themselves recipients, crafting race-based districts. It's the classic "politicians choosing the voters, not voters choosing their politicians".

Mr. von Spakovsky explains the Census Game:

"...while the Census Bureau cannot directly gerrymander apportionment through sampling, it can functionally do it indirectly through other means. For example, statistical sampling could be used to determine the populations for state (as opposed to congressional) legislative redistricting as well as for federal funding purposes. This will allow state legislatures controlled by the Democratic party to draw districts based on imagined populations...

My experiences with the career staff at Justice for four years make it almost certain that they will use their enforcement power under the Voting Rights Act to attack any redistricting plans submitted to the Department for preclearance after 2010 drafted by Republican legislatures, and will allow Democratic plans (if approved by the Congressional Black Caucus) to sail through, no matter what the actual facts or the law. In combination with the Census, this will be a powerful weapon to marginalize the Republican party and make sure it never stages a political comeback, no matter how much support it has from the American public.

ps: heh.

OUR MOTTO: "THE ONLY NEWS MANUFACTURER WITH THE GUTS TO ADMIT IT!"
OUR OTHER MOTTO: "WE WERE 'SHOVEL-READY' WHEN 'SHOVEL-READY' WASN'T COOL!"

(Washington, D.C.) Today in Stimulus News;

*In an effort to get Republican votes for the Stimulus Bill, Democrats promised that Dick Cheney could be in charge of confiscating all Americans' medical records for the federal government's library.

*The Stealth Care proposal hidden in the bill would also establish a "Throw Granny From the Gurney" Health Rationing Board. The board would determine if treatment was cost-effective by dividing the patient's expected life-span by the number of dollars the government could expect to squeeze out of them in their sunset years before they keel over.

"We don't sunset government programs. We don't put the government on rationing. And we don't care if government is cost-effective. We'll never pull the plug on government, but we'll do it to you--because we care," said "Kill Granny 'Cos of Fannie" spokesman Kevork Jackian.

*Poor Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office released a clarification today: "Many of my constituents have heard that this bill bans subversive groups from using public facilities built with Stimulus money. But I'm here to reassure them that NAMBLA, the Black Panthers and Young Communists for Jihad will be as welcome as ever. Only dangerous groups like Hillel and Campus Crusade for Christ will be blacklisted."

(The Bill Milhaus Maher Memorial Grotto, Playboy Mansion, Chicago, IL) The Obama Administration announced a major new crackdown on child porn: "We will be taking notorious child porn advocate David Ogden off the streets and putting him where he belongs...behind a desk at the Justice Department," said spokesman William Waynes.

In Business News, TurboTax announced the release of a new product line in response to overwhelming demand. The new software is called "TurboTax for Dummies, Treasury Secretaries, Cabinet Nominees and Other Lobbyists, Ways and Means Chairmen and Those Who Just Wish to Pay Taxes Like Them."

Not to be outdone, H&R Block said the "H" and "R" stood for "House of Representatives".

In Fashion News, First Lady Michelle Obama is appearing on the cover of "Vogue" magazine. And Treasury Secretary Geithner will be appearing on the cover of "Vague".

In Agriculture News, calling them more dangerous than al Qaeda, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. admitted he hates hog farmers. However, Kennedy is still fond of the swinish Hugo Chavez, who supplies brother Joe with enough heating oil to almost compensate for energy lost due to their opposition of the Cape Cod Wind Farm.

Chavez has honored their friendship by adopting the Israel policies of Sirhan Sirhan.

In Pesky Foreigner News, Great Britain has banned Dutch law-maker Geert Wilders for his intemperate remarks about Islam, while welcoming Hamas leaders preaching genocide.

"You can't hold the bloody wogs to the same standards as white peop...nevermind," said Official Cultural Apologizer Sue Aside.

She told reporters that the UK would also be censoring Shakespeare, banning the Beatles, repealing the Magna Carta, scuttling the Fleet, closing the Church, boycotting fish and chips and handing the crown over to Prince Gaydar of Soggy Emiria.

"Let's face it; we're just tired of freedom," said Aside in an aside. "It's too demanding," she said as she donned her burqua. When asked what this meant for the future of Old Bighty, Aside told our reporters that she couldn't answer any more questions without a male relative present.

And finally, in Sports News, the Steroid Controversy continued to swirl as the American Government admitted it was now on steroids and had no plans to quit. ever.

UPDATE: In Entertainment News, our movie critic Sal U. Lloyd reviews the new feel-good hit of the recession, "Housing Miss Henrietta", starring BaRock Hudson Hussein and a cast of insignifigant little people:

This tear-jerker is set in Fort Myers, Florida where people like to live in their cars. The Hussein character comes to town to give people the benefit of His Presence and is shocked when they actually ask him for stuff instead. When Henrietta asks him for a house, he plans to give her the number of the local Housing Authority even though she's already been signed up there for years.

This was unrealistic because everyone knows Obama doesn't even give houses to his own homeless relatives, even though Tony Rezko gave him a house.

Before Obama can help Henrietta by bumping some other poor schlub off the housing authority list, forcing him or her to live in a car just so Obama won't look bad, something wonderful happens; a local Republican woman with Jesus in heart offers Henrietta a free house. I felt the Republican woman character, Mrs. Chene Thompson, was used by the media as a stock character just to make Obama look good; the old "Magic Caucasian" device.

I don't want to spoil the ending, but Henrietta gets the help she needs from Republicans without a government handout, and Obama goes back to Washington to propose a Stimulus law to seize all Republican second homes. I give it 3 & 1/2 Red Stars with Hammer and Sickle.

THE ERROR OF BIG GOVERNMENT IS JUST BEGINNING

In 1992, Bill Clinton ran on getting tough with China, middle-class tax cuts and welfare reform.

He got in bed with the Chinese, and blew off the middle class, but he did finally sign welfare reform, if only to get re-elected. But this Stinkulus Bill guts the only signifigant rollback of the Welfare State in decades.

Your Heritage Foundation:

Under the old AFDC program, states were given more federal funds if their welfare caseloads were increased, and funds were cut whenever the state caseload fell. This structure created a strong incentive for states to swell the welfare rolls.

[T]his perverse financial incentive to increase dependence was eliminated. Each state was given a flat funding level that did not vary whether the state increased or decreased its caseload. In addition, states were given the goal of reducing welfare dependence (or at least of requiring welfare recipients to prepare for employment).

For the first time since 1996, the federal government would begin paying states bonuses to increase their welfare caseloads. ... Under the stimulus bills, the federal government will pay 80 percent of cost for each new family that a state enrolls in welfare; this matching rate is far higher than it was under AFDC....

If the authors of the stimulus bills merely wanted to provide states with more TANF funds in the current recession, they could have increased funding in the existing contingency fund. But they deliberately did not do this. Instead, they completely overturned the fiscal and policy foundations of welfare reform.

While $264 billion in new welfare spending may seem like a lot, it is only the tip of the iceberg. If the stimulus bill is enacted the real long-term increase will be far higher. This is because the stimulus bill pretends that most of its welfare benefit increases will lapse after two years. In fact, both Congress and President Obama intend for most of these increases to become permanent.

You just can't count all the bad policies, pork and payoffs in this legislation.

More from Heritage on infrastructure:

Over the years, lawmakers have repeat­edly supported their errant claim that highway spending is an immediate economic tonic by cit­ing a DOT study. This study supposedly states that every $1 bil­lion spent on highways adds 47,576 new jobs to the economy

The problem: The DOT study made no such claim. It stated that spending $1 billion on high­ways would require 47,576 workers (or more pre­cisely, it would require 26,524 workers, who then spend their income elsewhere, supporting an addi­tional 21,052 workers). But before the government can spend $1 billion hiring road builders and pur­chasing asphalt, it must first tax or borrow $1 bil­lion from other sectors of the economy—which would then lose a similar number of jobs. In other words, highway spending merely transfers jobs and income from one part of the economy to another. As The Heritage Foundation's Ronald Utt has explained, "The only way that $1 billion of new highway spending can create 47,576 new jobs is if the $1 billion appears out of nowhere as if it were manna from heaven."

Also from Heritage, why tax credits aren't really tax cuts, but new spending. And why tax holidays are okay, but permanent rate cuts are much better.

If we had a trillion dollars of tax-rate cuts instead of this Big Government debacle, this recession would be over in a month. But they want to grow the government, not end the recession. Indeed, the longer it goes on, the bigger government gets. Obama and the Democrats have a conflict of interest with the American people and are working at cross purposes to us and our purposes.

NO WONDER HE WENT TO BERLIN

"Our natural, inalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation from government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment."--Ronald Reagan

If this is such a desperate, desperate financial crisis, then why did they load up this Money-Printing Power-Grabbing Bill with non-financial crap like slush funds, gold-plated dog runs, Anti-Christian bigotry and Secret Socialized Medicine?

As Ace says about Global Warming and Al Gore's heated swimming pool, I'll believe it's a crisis when they start treating it like one.

Yes, there is a recession--but we've had them before without the Government Taking Over Everything. The crisis they really wish to avoid is debating these issues in the light of day.

For example, the Slush Fundulus Bill would prohibit the money being spent on a student chapel. And it would also be used to deny Christians equal access.

If moneys were spent on a new auditorium, for example, all groups would have access to use the new facility--except Christians or Jews. They would be told to be silent and go to the back of the bus. But don't worry--if a Muslim Student Association wanted to use it, they would suddenly be declared a cultural organization, not a religious one.

Or did you know that the Government owns your medical records? Not you, or even your doctor? The government will be seizing everyone's medical records under Porkulus I. (That's right--this is just the first one.)

Remember when liberals pretended George Bush was pawing through their library records 'cos it made them feel all warm, victimized, revolutionary and Che-like? Imagine if Dick Cheney pushed through secret provisions to confiscate their medical records.

Yet we have not yet had any public discussion of this matter. The press has not asked Obama a single tough question--on any subject! Nor will they tell the public what's in this Crapulus Stinkulus.

Furthermore, bureaucrats will decide if your life is meaningful enough to receive valuable government property, i.e.; medical care. If you are too old, for example, you will be asked to die, because, hey; the Fatherland Must Be Served! And by "asked" of course, I mean "told".

With expanded birth control funding and expanded infrastructure funding, we will build both the abortuaries and mortuaries to bring death to both the unwanted young and the unwanted old. Our health care will be run by the strong and the healthy for the strong and healthy, and those useless eaters on either end of the margins of life will be discarded for Our Glorious New Fourth Reich.

Achtung, babies! Seig heil, old folks! Your going to love our Big Government Goebbels-Care!

And remember: if we don't act TODAY, RIGHT NOW, the WORLD WILL END!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Q: What's the difference between business and government?

A: In business, there are laws against bait-and-switch tactics, high-pressure sales pitches, misleading claims, Ponzi schemes, invasions of privacy and outright fraud. In government, that's just another day at the dog park. With pay. It's in the Bill--trust me.

IS THOMAS SOWELL

Dr. Sowell is president and probably the only member of "Students Who Entered Columbia University as Marxists and Left as Conservatives". Usually the metamorphosis works in the other direction, but thank God it didn't for Professor Sowell:

Whoever called politics "the art of the possible" must have had a strange idea of what is possible or a strange idea of politics, where the impossible is one of the biggest vote-getters.

People can get the possible on their own. Politicians have to be able to offer the voters something that they cannot get on their own. The impossible fills that bill perfectly.

As a noted economist has pointed out, nothing "could prevent the California electorate from simultaneously demanding low electricity prices and no new generating plants while using ever increasing amounts of electricity."

Of course Californians also got electricity blackouts and, in order to deal with the blackouts, a multi-billion dollar surplus in the state's treasury was turned into a multi-billion dollar deficit, followed by cutbacks in various other government programs, followed by calls for higher taxes.

Ronald Reagan had a vision of America. Barack Obama has a vision of Barack Obama.

Wouldn't it be wonderful to live in a world where there were no prices? There is such a world. It is the world of political rhetoric. No wonder so many people are attracted to that world. It would be a great place to live.

When savvy pols want to hand out goodies, but don't want to take responsibility for raising taxes to pay for them, they can tax people who can't vote— namely the next generation— by getting the money by selling government bonds that future taxpayers will have to redeem.

The most politically painless way to hand out goodies, without taking responsibility for their costs, is to pass a law saying that somebody else must provide those goodies at their expense, while the politicians take credit for generosity and compassion.

While you are enjoying all the goodies that politicians are sending your way, you may notice that your taxes are going up or that the money you earn or the money you have saved won't buy as much as it used to.

Costs that are passed on to businesses can get passed on again to their customers in higher prices. Money that the government prints to spend itself reduces the value of the money in your wallet or in your bank account.

If you are someone looking for a job— maybe a young person entering the labor force or a woman coming back into the labor force after spending a few years taking care of a small child — you may find that there aren't as many jobs available as there used to be before employers had to pay for "social responsibilities," in addition to paying for the value of an employee's work.

Although Sen. Obama has presented himself as the candidate of new things--using the mantra of "change" endlessly--virtually everything he says about domestic policy is straight out of the 1960s and virtually everything he says about foreign policy is straight out of the 1930s.

Protecting criminals, attacking business, increasing government spending, promoting a sense of envy and grievance, raising taxes on people who are productive and subsidizing those who are not--all this is a re-run of the 1960s. We [subsequently] paid a terrible price for such 1960s notions in the years that followed in the form of soaring crime rates, double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment.

Internationally, the approach that Sen. Obama proposes including the media magic of meetings between heads of state was tried during the 1930s. That approach, in the name of peace, is what led to the most catastrophic war in human history.

Everything seems new to those too young to remember the old and too ignorant of history to have heard about it.

When have the Republicans won big? When they stood for something and told the people what that something was. Ronald Reagan was the classic example.

Too many Republicans seem to think that being "inclusive" means selling out your principles to try to attract votes. It never seems to occur to them that you can attract a wider range of voters by explaining your principles in a way that more people understand.

That is precisely what Reagan did and what Gingrich did in 1994. Most Americans' principles are closer to those of the Republicans than to those of the Democrats.

It is the only advantage the Republicans have. The Democrats have the media, the unions, the environmental extremists and the tort lawyers on their side. Why should Republicans throw away their one advantage by becoming imitation Democrats?

I will force myself to stop excerpting there, but that last point is so true.

Conservatives do not now win in the News Media or Hollywood. We cannot win the Spending Spree or the Pigment Pander. We win in one category: our principles are better. Not just better, but right. And not just right, but true.

Strong National Defense. Traditional Values. Free Markets and Opportunity. Limited Government. When we run away from them, we lose. When we run on these principles, we win.

If we won't run on our principles, they will. Barky ran on a platform of tax cuts "for 95%" of all Americans, bashing the Bush deficits, restoring American power and standing, winning the War in Afghanistan and heck, maybe even starting a new one in "Pokkyston". He used a stained-glass cross for a prop, showed up at Rick Warren's church where he promised to care for "the least of these", the helpless, to reduce abortions, and to support *winkwink* traditional marriage. He got Volcker and Buffet's endorsements to mask his socialism.

Yes, it was all as phony as a trillion-dollar bill, but he got away with it 'cos we ran away from our strengths, and not on them. That must change.

JUST PRETEND THEY'RE ILLEGAL ALIENS, LADY

Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius:

Dear Secretary Gates,

I fully support President Obama’s position to shut down the terrorist detention center on Guantanamo Bay. Closing this facility is an important step toward helping America regain its moral stature in the international community.

Closing the terrorist detention center on Guantanamo Bay (GTMO) raises some very complex issues, particularly when it comes to relocating the prisoners to other detention centers. It is my understanding that Fort Leavenworth is being considered as one possible site to relocate the prisoners. As Governor of Kansas, I wanted to communicate with you at the outset of this decision-making process and share with you that I do not support prisoners being moved to the Fort.

C'mon, Guv--these are poor innocent victims of the Bushitler Regime! Where's your compassion?

She goes on to list all the endless problems associated with bringing them to the US--except the problem that really concerns her: her own political future. She actually makes a great and convincing case...for leaving them at Gitmo!

At least Gov. Ritter of Colorado stepped up and is willing to endanger his citizens by bringing vicious terrorists to Colorado. Sebelius just wants all the plaudits that come with the moral preening and posturing, while all the costs are to be borne by other people, states, and especially, other governors.

Willing the ends--but not the means--is the magical thinking of small children, the mentally-deficient and the pathological.

And grandstanding liberals.

THE WHOLE WORLD SHAKES

"And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;--Genesis 35:11

"Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those — one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."--Nancy Pelosi

Spengler:

America was younger then. The Baby Boomers were in their 20s and 30s when Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, and they needed all the capital they would borrow. All the instruments of monetary destruction that rained ruin on American markets in 2008 came into the world as good things. They arrived at a moment when America need more debt.

In the mid-1980s, America was young, and was getting younger. Its ratio of younger (25-50) to older (50-65) workers peaked in the mid-1990s, when it had 1.5 citizens aged 25-50 for every one citizen aged 50-64. Those were heady times. The children of the baby boomers were happy to work for stock options, live on pizza, and spent 20 hours a day in a loft launching an Internet startup. Joining a startup was a rite of passage for bright young college graduates, and the exuberant young people of America momentarily persuaded the world that they had discovered a fountain of youth.

Ten years later, the number of aging workers and young workers is about even. The young programmer who worked for stock options during the 1990s still owns them, and all of them are worthless. He or she is pushing 40, with teenaged children who need money for college.

Youth needs leverage. The Reagan Revolution of the 1980s, which launched the quarter-century expansion of 1983-2007, rested on three kinds of leverage: home mortgages, junk bonds and leveraged buyouts.

America's aging Peter Pans have discovered that happy thoughts and fairy dust no longer entitle them to fly. The young people of America led the world economy during the 1980s and 1990s, but now they are older, struggling to pay down mortgages that might be worth more than their homes, and to put something aside for a retirement that they never may be able to afford.

The world needs more young people to restore "animal spirits" to the market place, and America no longer has enough of them. That is why emerging markets must become more than an outsourcing shop for cheap manufactures, or an oilwell-cum-ethanol plantation. Harnessing the potential productivity of the world's young people is the challenge for next year and the next decade.

"Reading recently, I came across the starkly simple phrase:

"Christianity is about spiritual redemption, not social reform".

Sometimes the debate on these matters has become too polarised and given the impression that the two are quite separate. But most Christians would regard it as their personal Christian duty to help their fellow men and women. They would regard the lives of children as a precious trust. These duties come not from any secular legislation passed by Parliament, but from being a Christian.

But there are a number of people who are not Christians who would also accept those responsibilities. What then are the distinctive marks of Christianity?

They stem not from the social but from the spiritual side of our lives, and personally, I would identify three beliefs in particular:

First, that from the beginning man has been endowed by God with the fundamental right to choose between good and evil. And second, that we were made in God's own image and, therefore, we are expected to use all our own power of thought and judgement in exercising that choice; and further, that if we open our hearts to God, He has promised to work within us. And third, that Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, when faced with His terrible choice and lonely vigil chose to lay down His life that our sins may be forgiven. I remember very well a sermon on an Armistice Sunday when our Preacher said, "No one took away the life of Jesus , He chose to lay it down".

I think back to many discussions in my early life when we all agreed that if you try to take the fruits of Christianity without its roots, the fruits will wither. And they will not come again unless you nurture the roots.

But we must not profess the Christian faith and go to Church simply because we want social reforms and benefits or a better standard of behaviour; but because we accept the sanctity of life, the responsibility that comes with freedom and the supreme sacrifice of Christ expressed so well in the hymn:

"When I survey the wondrous Cross, On which the Prince of glory died, My richest gain I count but loss, And pour contempt on all my pride."

May I also say a few words about my personal belief in the relevance of Christianity to public policy—to the things that are Caesar's?

The Old Testament lays down in Exodus the Ten Commandments as given to Moses , the injunction in Leviticus to love our neighbour as ourselves and generally the importance of observing a strict code of law. The New Testament is a record of the Incarnation, the teachings of Christ and the establishment of the Kingdom of God. Again we have the emphasis on loving our neighbour as ourselves and to "Do-as-you-would-be-done-by".

I believe that by taking together these key elements from the Old and New Testaments, we gain: a view of the universe, a proper attitude to work, and principles to shape economic and social life.

We are told we must work and use our talents to create wealth. "If a man will not work he shall not eat" wrote St. Paul to the Thessalonians. Indeed, abundance rather than poverty has a legitimacy which derives from the very nature of Creation.

Nevertheless, the Tenth Commandment—Thou shalt not covet—recognises that making money and owning things could become selfish activities. But it is not the creation of wealth that is wrong but love of money for its own sake. The spiritual dimension comes in deciding what one does with the wealth. How could we respond to the many calls for help, or invest for the future, or support the wonderful artists and craftsmen whose work also glorifies God, unless we had first worked hard and used our talents to create the necessary wealth? And remember the woman with the alabaster jar of ointment."--Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, May 21, 1988