I Guess She Was Right

This gal proclaimed on election day that Obama was going to pay for her gas and cover her mortgage payments. I've said from the beginning that the Powers-That-Be believe that housing is a human right and that before it's all over the Govt.--probably through Fannie and Freddie--will end up letting those who default stay in their homes. Free housing, owned by the Govt. (Who's going to pay to fix the roof or buy a new water heater when you're squatting in a Fannie-owned house?)

The banks are all halting foreclosure proceedings due to legal technicalities but I wonder if there's not some other reason. After all, if you're not making your mortgage payments, eventually someone will be knocking on the door no matter what's in the fine print.

I guess those continuing to make their mortgage payments--especially those who are under water--are just suckers.

Putin Speaks Out

In the greatest bit of political hypocrisy since Barry "I-inherited-this-Great-Recession-from-Bush" O'Bama told graduates they should "take responsibility . . .for [their] . . . failures", Vlad Putin treats the world to this little humdinger re. the Gaza blockade incident:

"The loss of peaceful civilians has caused a new exacerbation of the situation [in the Middle East]. . . . We are deeply worried by such a crude violation of the universally recognized norms of international law."

How 'bout this, Vlad? --We'll investigate the Israelis concurrently with an investigation of the Russian invasion of Georgia and annexation of South Ossetia. How many peacful civilians were killed in that little excursion?

Picture found here.

"disingenuity"

I made that word up. It's being disingenuous with ingenuity. The White House and our Congress are superstars of disingenuity. Two examples.

"The President will not sign a health care bill that is not budget neutral."

Ingenious. Fool people into thinking that insuring 20 to 30 million people will be "budget neutral" so the bill can be rammed through Congress. We'll all feel better bc. so many more people will be covered and it won't cost a thing.

Disingenuous. Take a government class,voters. The President doesn't get to make that decision! Congress does. What has Congress's record been on limiting the cost of entitlement programs? The bill that's out there now requires 500 billion dollars in Medicare cuts in order to achieve budget neutrality. When was the last time Congress cut Medicare? Let's try maybe, never. Do you trust Congress, Pelosi, & Co. to make those cuts in order to keep the President's budget neutrality promise? It will never happen. Barry O'B can sign all the "budget neutral" bills he wants but the resulting behemoth itself will never be budget neutral.

Second example: "I promise, those who want to keep their health insurance will get to keep it."

Ingenious. Fool people into thinking that they can keep their health insurance no matter what the government does. We'll all feel better bc. so many more people will be covered and our insurance won't change.

Disingenuous. The President and Congress don't get to decide what insurance most people get. For most working American families, the employer provides the health insurance options. For most people, the individual doesn't "decide" and certainly the government doesn't decide. (And you know why? Bc. during World War II the government stuck its nose into the private sector by setting controls on salaries. Companies then began providing pension and health care benefits bc. it was illegal to raise salaries.) The point is, despite what Barry O'B and his Congressional cohorts say, no one in the government can guarantee that you will get to keep your insurance because it's your employer who decides what kind of insurance you get. His promise is hollow, conniving, rhetoric.

The question that needs to be asked is, when faced with a government option that is cheaper (and, therefore, will provide a lower quality of care), do you trust your employer to continue offering you what you have now? Or, do you think your employer--in this climate, in this competitive world economy--will say, "tough tootie, take the government option." Either way, it's your employer--that "evil corporation"--and its shareholders who will decide whether you get to keep what you have. Not Barry O'B. What will be better for the shareholders' bottom line--continuing Cadillac plans or shuffling employees off to the government option?

The mystery remains. . . does Barry O'B really believe what he's saying? Someone that bright has got to know that he's making promises he can't keep. In which case he's both disingenuous and politically ingenious.

Or maybe he's just not that bright.

get out

It’s time to get out of Afghanistan.

Back in my UU days I wrote a piece on the reasons for going into Iraq for round two. Try as I might, I can’t find that bit in my computer files, but from what I remember there were six or eight reasons for invading Iraq. This is what I can remember:

1. Saddam was a tyrant and a threat to Middle East stability. No one on any moral level could possibly defend the system he had created.

2. The American public was behind it.

3. The terrain in Iran was flat—good for us. We would be able to fight on our terms. We were going to win, militarily, without a doubt.

4. Arabs historically have been pathetic warriors. They quit rather that fight.

5. Iraqis were a relatively well-educated population with a history that had included visions of democratic rule.

6. Iraq had oil. Yes, stability in the oil markets was worth fighting for.

7. Fight them over there and we wouldn’t have to fight them here. Or, at least, it would be less likely that we would fight them here.

I can’t remember if those were exactly the same things I listed in those days before Facebook but it’s pretty close. At any rate, let’s apply this list to Afghanistan today.

1. The government in Afghanistan is not a tyranny. Surely it’s corrupt when measured by Western standards, but the Taliban has been overthrown.
2. The American public has turned against involvement in Afghanistan. O’Reilly says 60% are against it but I’m too lazy to fact check that.
3. The terrain in Afghanistan is anything but flat. We can’t roll in the tanks. The mountainous topography favors those who walk it, who grew up in it--not those (Americans) who are interlopers.
4. Afghanis are historically tenacious fighters. Ask the British, ask the Soviets. Does no one read a history book? These guys have been at war for decades if not centuries. It’s what they know. They will never quit.
5. There is little history in Afghanistan of any sort of respect for, desire for, or vision of democratic institutions. It’s a tribal society that rejects central authority. Good citizens put tribal interests above the rule of law. They’re not buying what we’re trying to sell them.
6. They don’t have oil. They have opium and pistachios. We need neither. Grandma will not freeze in the winter when the opium and pistachio supplies are cut off. Afghanistan is missing the key ingredient of democratic governance—a stable, prosperous, educated middle class. And they won't have that ingredient in this lifetime.
   
7. They are not a threat to us. Sure, when we leave, the Taliban will take back over and Al Qaeda will re-establish training camps. That’s what cruise missiles are for. (Do we still have neutron bombs?) And, sure, it will be seen internationally as a defeat for America. That’s why we have aircraft carriers and B-2 bombers. If things get too bad, we can turn Venezuela into a modern-day Granada to re-establish our standing as a superpower.

My Pa spent a Christmas or two of my childhood away from home on a submarine dropping frogmen off on the shores of North Vietnam when he could have been home with his wife and kids. To this day I judge the sacrifice he and his family made with one simple question: for what? It’s clearer to me why it was that Pa missed Christmases in my youth than it is clear to me why we are sending soldiers to die in the mountains of Afghanistan. For what, I ask.

What makes this worse? The Obama government is quite simply incapable of dealing with Afghanistan. They lack the will to succeed. On the stump, O’B called this the just war so that he could be elected. But he was elected by folks who don’t want war. He can’t back down without the demagogues on the right crushing him and he can’t crack down without alienating his base. In the meantime, our soldiers are dying every day as they, their families, and Americans everywhere ask, for what?

We can’t fight this war half-way and expect to succeed. I don't think we even have a vision of success. A request for more troops is not the same as the request by some Ivy League professor for tenure. A tenure request requires months of meetings and “input”. Deliberation. Contemplation. White House politicos sit around holding meetings and deliberating and studying whether or not they think the Karzai government deserves our support—as if war strategy were some sort of trifling academic exercise. All this as American kids are dying. That reality ought not be taken so lightly. What a waste. And for what?

The will is not there to do what it takes to win.

So get out.

There he goes again. . . .

Which is the BS statement in Barry O'B's speech? That part that he wants to work together to come up with a solution? Or that part where he blames the problem on the previous administration and the greedy insurance executives and then calls people who disagree with him liars?

Can't have it both ways, dude. Tho, it's certainly not the first time you've talked out of both sides of your mouth.



Thanks, John.

Break Out the Champagne

"We're losing jobs at half the rate we were at the beginning of this year," says Barry O'B.

Woohoo!

Guess that's why I'll never be Pres. The remark, made at a campaign rally for the Democratic gubernatorial candidate in Virgina, was met with great cheers. He was bragging. Bragging when unemployment continues to increase? I won't be Pres. bc. I could never brag about an increase in unemployment. Even if the rate of increase is slowing.

The campaign never ends.

Solution to the Gitmo Problem

All that rancor between Cheney and Barry O'B last week. It suddenly struck me: let's just re-name it Tuantanamo? Titmo.

It worked with Congressional pork which is now "investment" and new taxes which are now called "revenues". Liberals have become "progressives". Global warming is now "climate change"--something that everyone knows we need to work to prevent. Bush's War on Terror has morphed into the "Overseas Contingency Operation". Illegal aliens are now "undocumented" something-or-others.

Think of the wrench this new name would throw into the terrorist recruiters' game plans. It used to be all that the recruiter had to say was, "Hey, Abdullah, do you want to blow up some Americans? They are evil: they pour water up our Muslim brothers' noses. They play loud music to keep them up late at night and lock them in boxes with caterpillars. It all happens at Gitmo. Let's blow up some Americans and they will close Gitmo and our Muslim brothers will stop being tortured." The Abdullahs of the world evidently have been jumping all over that.

But if Guantanamo were re-named Tuantanamo, when the terrorist recruiters mention these abominations, the Abdullahs of the world will reply, "Get out of here: there is no Gitmo any more. There's been change in Washington. Gitmo has been closed."

Replies the recruiter, "Don't believe those American dogs! Titmo is the same thing as Gitmo, they just changed the name! Don't you see? They're still the same Muslim-torturing, Kuran-debasing, Bush-Cheney respecting, Infidels that they've always been."

"Go find some other sucker, Mr. Terrorist Recruiter, the Americans are nice now. There has been Change. I feel the Change and I feel better. I'm down with the new administration."

If we re-named it we wouldn't have to move anyone anywhere. We wouldn't have to spend $80 million to tear down the facility that cost $200 million to build.

And besides, Titmo sounds much nicer than Gitmo. It's softer, warmer. It makes you want to hug it, snuggle it, cuddle and nuzzle it. Who would ever have a problem with spending time in Titmo?

An Apple a Year

How would you like a diet that only required you to eat one less apple per year?

At his cabinet meeting the other day, Barry O'B made a grand production out of asking his bureau chiefs to find a way to cut $100 million with an "m" in wasteful government spending. Thought at the time that surely he meant $100 billion with a "b", but it slipped from my mind.

Today's lead editorial in IBD shocked me back to life. Remember, this guy sent a budget to Congress that totals $3.6 trillion with a "t". That's a proposed budget for one year.

Here's a blurb from IBD:

To get a real sense of just how little is being asked of his Cabinet, consider:

• If Obama were your dietician, you'd only have to give up an apple a year to abide by his diet plan.

• If he wanted you to cut your gasoline consumption, you'd have to drive just one-third of a mile less in a year.

• And if he wanted you to waste less water, you'd only have to reduce the time you spend in the shower on one day of the year by 30 seconds.

We forget how big a billion is, can't comprehend the size of a trillion. A hundred million is actually quite a lot of money to most of us. But it's really nothing on a relative scale.

There just isn't enough money to do what he and the Dems in Congress want to do. You could and take all we've got and that still wouldn't be enough.

Read the whole editorial here.

Barry O'B Bows to the King

Ironic that as a nation we have had to bow to the Arabs economically since 1973 but only now does our President actually do it in person. GW was just as bad, by the way, when he kissed the King and held his hand.

We will continue bowing metaphorically until this country puts the bureaucrats, the Greenies, the NIMBYs, and the scaredy-cat hippies in their place and starts building more nuclear power plants. We'll be bowing until we start drilling in Alaska and off our own shores and until we embrace coal for electricity and natural gas for our truck fleet.

It's sad--sad that we're bowing and sad that this government can pass an emergency "stimulus" package in a matter of days, if not hours, but seems to be powerless to do anything effective to remove this Arab yoke from our neck.

Sad, too, that Barry O'B's spin doctors deny that he bowed. No, that's more pathetic than sad. We're back to arguing about what the meaning of "is" is.

[How PC of Wikipedia to change the name of the "Arab Oil Embargo" to the "1973 Oil Crisis".]

Can you afford $48,000 more?

IBD reports that Barry O'B's budget would put every American family $48,000 deeper in debt.

In the next five years alone, Obama's budget adds $5.7 trillion to the U.S. debt. That's $48,000 per household. Put in perspective, servicing that debt each year will cost as much as the annual defense budget by the end of the decade.

So we'll be spending as much on debt service as on defense? Ouch. (My prediction is that we'll be spending more bc. the Dems will cut defense as soon as they get the opportunity.)

It's beyond words. . . .

I swiped the picture from here.

So Are French Fries

The Sunday morning chat shows were full of powerful Dems this morning raving about Barry O’B’s approval ratings--NY Sen. Schumer, VA Gov. and DNC Chairman Kaine, Meet the Press host David Gregory. It’s true: the President is very popular. But ya know what?

So are french fries.

Just because something's popular doesn't mean it's good for you.

Don't get me wrong, it's good, it's refreshing to have a popular figure in the White House once again. But being popular doesn't create one new job or save one single "victim" of "predatory" lending. So while I would still say that the President is a pretty good guy, the debt that he and the Congress are running up and the energy, health care, and tax policies that he bandies about are, in the long run, about as helpful for our economy as french fries are for our arteries.

Ahh, but it makes for good politics.

New Word for Webster's

Every year the good folks at Webster's pick new words to go in their dictionary. Surely this year they will pick as a new word "TheDeficitIInherited". It's a very popular word these days. Especially with our new Chief Executive. Has anyone else noticed this? Every time He says "deficit", He follows with "that I inherited".

It's smart. Blame it on Bush. After all, if it's a deficit that "I inherited", then it's not my fault. And, too,"TheDeficitIInherited" has surely been heavily focus-group-tested so it's surely a safe bet.

The question is, will Barry O'B get away with it? Who knows? FDR beat Herbert Hoover in one election and Hoover's ghost in three more even when unemployment was 16.9% in 1936 and 14.6% in 1940. And once again, anyone who can beat Billary is a force to be reckoned with.

Some would say, what's to get away with, He did inherit it? I would say, yes He inherited a mess. But

So often times it happens that we live our lives in chains/
And we never even know we have the key.

The chains are a debt so large it can't be paid back. Spending more will not free us from those chains. In fact, the key to unlocking those chains is to spend less.

For some, "TheDeficitIInherited" will always remain a problem that's not this President's fault because, for some, Barry O'B can do no wrong.

The question is when, or will, the rest of the folks realize the "TheDeficitIInherited" has morphed into "ADefictIMayBeResponsibleFor". Time will tell.

The Obameter

At PolitiFact.com one can track Barry O'B's campaign promises on the Obameter. Courtesy of the St. Pete Times.

Right now they claim he's kept 11 promises, broken two, compromised on three, and has 20 in the works. He's yet to take action on 474. (And here I thought Bill Clinton would go down in history at the great promiser-in-chief with those never-ending laundry lists of promised pork in his State of the Union speeches). The Obameter needs to be updated bc. that behemoth pork package that Barry signed this morn reportedly "fulfills or makes progress" on 50 more promises.

It'll be fun to watch how this goes. Grab your wallets.

Go here to buy the poster.

GE: The Dems' Haliburton?

Pres. Obama put Jeff Immelt, CEO of GE, on his Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

We'll all but skip over the fact that by the only measure that matters to his bosses, the shareholders of GE, Immelt is a complete failure as a businessman. GE stock is at a 14 year low. As a stock broker would say, "$10,000 invested in GE stock in 1985 would now be worth . . . . . . $10,000." Tah dah! Shoulda bought a GE washing machine instead, at least then you'd have something clean you cloths with.

The way I see this is that it's payoff for MSNBC and NBC news--GE owned businesses--being in the tank for candidate Obama throughout the campaign. And now it's time to shovel the dollars into govt support for GE products.

Prediction: this advisory board will recommend that we build nuclear plants to create jobs. Guess who's big in the nuclear business? GE. (Pres. Barry will suddenly turn pro-nuke on the advice of this commission. I'm not complaining here. Nuclear is the way to go and it makes no difference how we get there.) Guess who makes all those florescent light bulbs that, thanks to the "stimulus" bill, we will be paying former auto workers to install in govt buildings? GE. Guess who makes bajillions from making windmills and "smart grid", whatever that is? Again, GE.

Guess whose Ecomagination (and here) initiative will start getting millions of dollars in taxpayer dollars to research green technology? GE's. Just you wait and see.

Personally, no problem here with much of this. It's a rough game and as the Pres. says, he won. And so has GE. They bet on the right horse.

Don't tell me, tho, that this is change. It's the same old thing. GE is a special interest just like any other and they have a right to make a buck as does anyone else. Gettin' your guy in office is simply good business. Use that jackass Kieth Olbermann to do it. Jam that "stimulus" package through and let's start opening all those presents under the tree.

What cracks me up, tho, is the hypocrisy, intended or unintended. I 'spect very few of the people who were whining about Haliburton owning the executive branch for eight years will have much to say about this. They either can't see or won't see or simply refuse to mention that this is no different: it's just a different company.

I guess, tho, it's OK for Big Business to own the White House as long as they use it to save the planet. Instead of using it to free 24 million Iraqis.

A Friend from Across the Pond

At least one Brit still looks to the U.S. for inspiration. Says Iain Martin at the Telegraph:

America is proving the regenerative power of democracy. Do not listen to those who say that great country is finished - it is still the global centre of gravity. Yes, we tuned in in our millions to watch the rather sinister opening ceremony of the Olympics in China. But if you want something life affirming rooted in a belief in human dignity, give me America and an event such as the inauguration every time.

And here I thought everyone around the world despised us. Isn't "regenerative" the perfect word?

Barry's Bonanza

IBD does a great job here of listing all the promises that Barry's website makes to the American electorate.

Whew, it's exhilarating! And I mean that in the most sarcastic way.

I like the one about doing my taxes in five minutes, tho, I'm sure that will not apply to the 60% or so of us who actually pay income taxes. After all, how long should it take for the 40% of you who pay no income tax to fill out an application to stake a claim on a portion of my earnings. Yes, yes, we're among that five percent (shame on us) who won't be getting a tax cut.

Another fave of mine "makes" employees provide seven paid sick days a year. Isn't that how the Big Three auto workers have gotten themselves into trouble--by paying people not to work?

He's also going to "finish the fight" against al-Qaida. Do you think al-Qaida will agree to that? Maybe they'll sign a peace treaty on a carrier parked in the Persian Gulf.

"Slash earmarks"!?!?! That makes me laugh out loud. Literally. There's not a snowball's chance in hell that a bill, any bill, will make it off Capitaol Hill without being laden with pork. Congress is incapable of that.

It's quite a bonanza, Barry.

Grab your wallets, folks.

Jesse

This is the image that will always remain with me.

Granted, I can't stand the son-of-a-bitch. He's a corrupt, race-baiting hack.

At the same time, what an historic occasion. I generally assume noble intentions even with corrupt, race-baiting hacks, and though I may dislike Jesse Jackson, I can only imagine what Barry's election means to a man who has fought his whole life to see this day. How many times people must have said to him, "Not in your life time, Jesse"? Heck, how many times do you think he said that himself?

I got Jesse's picture here from the UK's Daily Mail. They ask whether Jesse's tears are from joy or from frustration that it was Barry who had accomplished what Jesse had not. Who cares? The point is, what a moment it was.

It's a New Day. The page has turned. My last hope for a McC victory was hope for the Bradley effect. It's sad to have hoped for something so distasteful. But it never happened.

History will judge whether Barry will be a good president or not. But the significance of what he accomplished is much larger than any one election or any one presidency. Good for America.

The Don Says It's McC

Donald Trump endorses McCain. I have mixed feelings on The Don, but definitely respect his business acumen. From an interview on the Greta show last night, here seems to be his bottom line:

VAN SUSTEREN: Are you endorsing him because you've known him for a long time, or is it--tell me the difference between Senator Obama and Senator McCain in your eyes.

TRUMP: Well, I can tell you one of the differences is that Senator Obama wants to raise taxes beyond belief, and senator McCain doesn't. And in a fragile economy like we're in right now, you cannot go around raising corporate taxes and lots of other taxes. You just can't do it. Then you really will see the great depression.

I couldn't agree more. This is the only issue as far as I'm concerned. I guess taxing the rich would be more "fair" (I mean that most sarcastically), but what will be the price to make people feel good--to make it "fair"? Misery for the working Joe. A depression not seen since the Thirties.

All those Baby Boomers getting ready to retire will sell. They'll get out of both the stock market and the real estate market. And they'll never get back in, thus prolonging the misery. Too many entrepreneurs with the capital to invest simply won't, thus killing job growth for a prolonged period. It won't be pretty. For anybody.

Fear the change.

Obama Shows Class

Barry told the press today to back off. Very classy. This from Christina Bellantoni at the Washington Times:

[Obama] issued a strong statement to "back off" reports of Bristol Palin's pregnancy, telling reporters families — and especially children — are off limits in this presidential campaign.
Mr. Obama, campaigning here, also noted that his own mother was 18 when she gave birth to him.
"People's families are off limits," he said. "People's children are especially off limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as a governor or her potential performance as a vice president. "
"I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories," he added. "That shouldn't be a topic in our politics."
He vehemently pushed back against an unnamed McCain aide suggesting his campaign had any ties to the blogs that were spreading rumors before the news broke, saying he was "offended" by that and if any of his staff was involved in spreading the issue, "they'd be fired."
"We don't go after people's families. Our people are not involved in any way," he said

The hope here is that the country can move on from here without, as they say, further comment. I'd much rather hear debate on the future of Social Security and Medicare.

Time for a Field Trip

Now that Gov. Palin's the pick, how about a field trip to ANWR?

The Gov. could be the official docent. Even more impressive would be to have union member husband Todd be the guide since he has actually worked on the north slope.

McC can then learn for himself that drilling up there can be done and can be done right.

The important thing is to make a huge production of it. Take the press. Invite Brokaw, Williams, & Couric. "You went with Barry to Berlin, you should come with me. Let me give you the home town tour of ANWR from one who knows it." Invite O'Reilly, Rush, Matthews, and that guy on CNN. Invite Oprah and the girls from The View. Fill up that huge Straight Talk Express plane with a bunch of pressies and crank up the "North To Alaska".

To make it really good, invite Barry to come along. Invite him to do so from the stage at the GOP national convention. A bipartisan, patriotic, post-partisan thing to do.

The important thing is to take advantage of this issue.

No, the important thing is to start drilling up there.