Liberty Call U.S.
Liberty. Freedom. America 
 Deck Log 2013
 2nd Amendment
 Bilge Water (4)
 Bilge Water (3)
 Bilge Water (2)
 Bilge Water
 Home Port - VA
 Small Arms Lkr (4)
 Small Arms Locker(3)
 Small Arms Locker (2)
 Small Arms Locker
 Shipmates (Links)
 Dec 2012
 Sep 2012
 Aug 2012
 July 2012
 Jun 2012
 May 2012
 Apr 2012
 Mar 2011
 Feb 2011
 Apr 2010
 Mar 2010 (2)
 Mar 2010
 Feb 2010
 Jan 2010
 Dec 2009
 Nov 2009
 Oct 2009
 Sep 2009
Subscribe to Newsletter
Email :

December 30, 2009


What Cheney would do.

Jim Geraghty, NROHe's beyond condemning him; he wants to waterboard him until his lungs qualify for a federal wetland status.


Don't hold your breath.

Kelly Sloan, Grand Junction Free PressIn the wake of the second terrorist attack on U.S. soil in two months (this one thankfully circumvented), one cannot help but hope that President Obama and his coterie of advisors are at least poised on the verge of shedding their junior high school mentality surrounding national security policy, and stand ready to take a more reasoning and mature approach.

[T]he persistently demonstrated attitudes of two of the administration's top officials are any indication, then it would appear that the ideological blinders are difficult to remove. Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano, and Attorney General Eric Holder have been quite consistent in betraying their misunderstanding of both the threat to this nation posed by Islamist terrorism, and their own role in the matter.


Yale wimps.

Robert Shibley, PJM:  Let’s go to the Yale Daily News:

The [Freshman Class Council] has decided to change the design of its shirts after the original design, which was submitted by students and voted on by the freshman class, sparked outcry from members within the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community. …

The original design, which won out over five other entries, displayed an F. Scott Fitzgerald quote in the front — “I think of all Harvard men as sissies” — in bold white letters. The back of the long-sleeved, navy blue T-shirt said “WE AGREE” in capital letters, with “The Game 2009” scrawled in script underneath it.

That’s right — a T-shirt calling Harvard men “sissies” proved too offensive for Yale students and administrators, who seem to have somehow come by the impression that a college football game is an occasion for behavioral civility that the rest of us would reserve for a funeral. One student, who would clearly be beside himself were he to attend a Philadelphia Flyers game, pointed out that the word “sissies” was “offensive” and “demeaning,” and added that he considered the word to be a “thinly veiled anti-gay slur.”


Obama does not want to admit we are at war.

Dick Cheney:  As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low-key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of Sept. 11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war.

He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core Al Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency — social transformation — the restructuring of American society. President Obama’s first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war.


Anti-American idiots encourage our enemies.

Austin Bay,  Big mouths hooked to minds fogged with anti-American cant hindered U.S. defense efforts during the Cold War. Their descendant America haters in the Internet era provide philosophical succor to al-Qaida. The fanatics interpret apologies and guilt-trips as signs of weakness and incipient decay, the bleats of a corrupt culture wallowing in self-doubt. This is not conjecture. Pro-terrorists websites see the defeatist tripe as a divine sign al-Qaida is winning.

For decades, the Blame Amerika Crowd has made a media living alleging attacks on American citizens, U.S. embassies and U.S. territory are somehow, someway provoked by the U.S. The "America Is Guilty" smear would be a laugher except the major TV networks and The New York Times give this baloney headline credence, especially when a Republican is president. Heavens, tenure in entire departments of sociology and literature is predicated on promoting this narrative.

This band of blitherers spouts Marxist Cold War anti-American propaganda revamped for the Global War on Terror. See, the Cold War was America's fault, and great leftist minds of yore told us so. Like today's apologists for "misunderstood" terrorists, the Soviet Union had committed fans. In 1984 (George Orwell was prescient, wasn't he?), John Kenneth Galbraith wrote, "That the Soviet system has made great material progress in recent years is evident both from the statistics and from the general urban scene ..." Don't snicker. Until the Berlin Wall cracked in 1989, a linked clique of "elite intellectuals" made a living spilling similar hooey.

A strong case can be made that perceived American weakness and its usual handmaiden, an apologetic and feckless American foreign policy, encourage our enemies.


A bill to stroke his oversized ego.

Thomas Sowell, Townhall.comIn short, this is not about improving the health of the American people. It is about passing something-- anything-- to keep the Obama administration from ending up with egg on its face by being unable to pass a bill, after so much hype and hoopla. Politically, looking impotent is a formula for disaster at election time. Far better to pass even bad legislation that will not actually go into effect until after the 2012 presidential election, so that the public will not know whether it makes medical care better or worse until it is too late for the voters to hold the administration accountable.

What does calling this medical care legislation "historic" mean? It means that previous administrations gave up the idea when it became clear that the voting public did not want government control of medical care. What is "historic" is that this will be the first administration to show that it doesn't care one bit what the public wants or doesn't want.

In short, this is not about the public's health. It is about Obama's ego and his chance to impose his will and leave a legacy.


December 29, 2009


Think about this.

Henry Payne, NROThe federal government’s first priority is the security of its citizens. Instead, the same Washington that still struggles with airport security will now be taking over our health care system.


I am not reassured, not by the President, not by HLS Sec. Napolitano.

Nico Hines, Times (UK):  President Obama vowed to track down and destroy terror cells all over the world last night as he finally ended his silence over a failed Christmas Day plot to blow up an American passenger jet.

“We will continue to use every element of our national power to disrupt, to dismantle and defeat the violent extremists who threaten us,” Mr Obama said.

“Whether they are from Afghanistan or Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia, or anywhere where they are plotting attacks against the US homeland."

“The American people should be assured that we are doing everything in our power to keep you and your family safe and secure during this busy holiday season,” he said.


Dems never learn the right lesson.

Wesley Pruden, The Washington TimesThe Detroit incident ought to persuade President Obama once and for all that making nice with those who are determined to kill as many of us as they can is a fool's errand. He can go back to Cairo again and again to apologize as eloquently as he can, and when the apologies are over and he bumps the floor with his forehead in bowing to whomever, the Islamic jihadists will still despise us and will continue to plot to destroy us.


December 25, 2009


Merry Christmas!


December 23, 2009


The painful price of Socialism.

Fox News:  The costs of health care reform being pushed through Congress by Democrats will be felt long before the benefits.

Proposed taxes and fees on upper-income earners, insurers, even tanning parlors, take effect quickly. So would Medicare cuts.

Benefits, such as subsidies for lower middle-income households, consumer protections for all, and eliminating the prescription coverage gap for seniors, come gradually.

"There's going to be an expectations gap, no question about that," said Drew Altman, president of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. "People are going to see their premiums and out-of-pocket costs go up before the tangible benefits kick in."

Most of the 30 million uninsured helped by the bill won't get coverage until 2013 at the earliest, well after the next presidential election.


December 22, 2009


Does prostitution contribute to global warming?

Mark Steyn, OC Register:  If you're young and you fall for this, you're a sap. Indeed, you're oozing so much sap the settled scientists should be measuring your tree rings. Remember that story a couple of weeks ago about how Danish prostitutes were offering free sex to Copenhagen delegates for the duration of the conference? I initially assumed it was just an amusing marketing cash-in by savvy Nordic strumpets. But no, the local "sex workers' union" Sexarbejdernes Interesseorganisation was responding to the municipal government's campaign to discourage attendees from partaking of prostitutes. The City of Copenhagen distributed cards to every hotel room showing a lady of the evening at a seedy street corner over the slogan "BE SUSTAINABLE: Don't Buy Sex."

"Be sustainable"? Prostitution happens to be legal in Copenhagen, and the "sex workers" were understandably peeved at being lumped into the same category of planet-wreckers as Big Oil, car manufacturers, travel agents and other notorious pariahs. So Big Sex decided they weren't going to take it lying down. Yet, in an odd way, that municipal postcard gets to the heart of what's going on: Government can – and will – use a "sustainable" environment as a pretext for anything that tickles its fancy. All ambitious projects – Communism, the new Caliphate – have global ambitions, but, when the globe itself is the cover for those ambitions, freeborn citizens should beware. Nico Little, a Canadian leftie at the Rabble Web site, distilled the logic into a single headline:

"Hookers Are Killing Polar Bears And Now You Can't Water Your Lawn."

Write that down. And next time the Prince of Wales, Al Gore, Dr. Pachauri or the delegation from Tuvalu give an "impassioned" speech, keep it handy as a useful précis.


What planet do these guys live on?

Ben Smith, Politico:  There's no point in the White House saying this, so it won't.

But an official predicted to me the other day that Obama's numbers would hit 60 after the health care bill passes, and Chuck Schumer seems to think roughly the same thing: that the public polling on the Democratic reform bill will turn around "soon."

When people see what is in this bill and when people see what it does, they will come around," Schumer said. "The reason people are negative is not the substance of the bill, but the fears that the opponents have laid out. When those fears don't materialize, and people see the good in the bill, the numbers are going to go up."


Politics by bribery -- bribery with our money.

Investor's Business Daily[Sen. Ben] Nelson won a permanent exemption from the state share of Medicaid expansion for Nebraska. Uncle Sam will take the hit for 100% of the Medicaid expansion for Nebraska — forever. The world's greatest deliberative body has now become the most corrupt.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) informed lawmakers Sunday night that this section of the manager's amendment to the Senate's health bill would cost $1.2 billion over 10 years.


An ugly smear from a US Senator.

Investor's Business DailyRhode Island's Sheldon Whitehouse called health care bill foes "birthers," "fanatics" and "people running around in right-wing militia and Aryan support groups."


December 21, 2009


An appalling bill.  Bribes move us closer to Socialist healthcare.

Yuval Levin, NROThe CBO assessment of the bill tells the appalling story. We are going to raise taxes by half a trillion dollars over the next ten years, increase spending by more than a trillion dollars, cut Medicare by $470 billion but use that money to fund a new entitlement rather than to fix Medicare itself, bend the health-care cost curve up rather than down, insert layers of bureaucracy between doctors and patients, and compel and subsidize universal participation in a failed system of health insurance rather than reform or improve it. Indeed, this bill will make it exceedingly difficult to fix our health-insurance financing system in the future, since it sucks dry the potential means of such reform but leaves the fundamental cost problem essentially untouched (and, in some respects, worsened.) After all the back and forth, pulling and tugging, it is hard to see what is left in this bill that any member of Congress, liberal or conservative, would want to support.


Regressive "Change".  Not an improvement.

Robert Costa, NRO:  American government changed last night. “We are now functioning under a parliamentary form of government,” says Sen. Judd Gregg (R., N.H.) in a conversation with NRO. “An ideological supermajority in Congress, along with a government run by community organizers, has taken over.”

“They’ve taken over the student-loan program, they’ve taken over the
automobile system, and now they’re taking over the health-care system. There is no limit to their belief that people should be controlled by smart bureaucrats in Washington,” says Gregg. “They’re putting our country on a path that will reduce the quality of life for the next generation, undermine our nation’s wonderful exceptionalism, and Europeanize our economy to curb its growth.”

Harry Reid’s health-care bill “was
purchased,” says Gregg. “Our system of checks and balances is gone. We now have a government that lurches with great speed even though our system is founded upon incremental change.” And don’t hope that the House stops the runaway train, he says. “I think the House is ideologically even further to the Left than the Senate. There are many people there who are committed to taking us down the road toward nationalization.”

“In the future, discretionary dollars won’t be able to be spent on college or a new house, but on this massive new burden for Americans,” says Gregg. “Eventually, at some point, the pressures on the private sector will tip the scales so that employers offering private insurance send people over to the health-care exchange. It’s all part of their ultimate goal to get a vast amount of people subsidized by the government.”

This is an “unsustainable course for our nation,” says Gregg. “We can’t sustain the debt we’re adding. Soon we’ll reach banana-republic status.”


December 18, 2009


Dems on the precipice, preparing to jump.

Kimberly Strassel, WSJ:  Enacting health-care legislation in the face of overwhelming public disapproval may cost the party its chance of forging a sustainable majority.

Barack Obama emerged from his meeting with Senate Democrats this week to claim Congress was on the "precipice" of something historic. Believe him. The president is demanding his party unilaterally enact one of the most unpopular and complex pieces of social legislation in history. In the process, he may be sacrificing Democrats' chances at creating a sustainable majority.

Slowly, slowly, the Democratic health agenda is turning into a political suicide pact. Congressional members have been dragged along by momentum, by threat, by bribe, but mostly by the White House's siren song that it would be worse to not pass a bill than it would be to pass one. If that ever were true, it is not today.

Public opinion on ObamaCare is at a low ebb. This week's NBC-WSJ poll: A mere 32% of Americans think it a "good" idea. The Washington Post: Only 35% of independents support it—down 10 points in a month. Resurgent Republic recently queried Americans over the age of 55, aka Those Most Likely to Vote In a Midterm Election. Sixty-one percent believe ObamaCare will increase their health costs; 68% believe it will increase the deficit; 76% believe it will raise their taxes.


Ready for some martial law?

EUTimes:  Kremlin position papers presented to Prime Minister Putin today on his upcoming meeting with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen state that the European-US military alliance has authorized an ‘emergency request’ from President Obama to utilize American and Canadian NATO troops to put down what is expected to be a “rebellion” after the expected January, 2010 ‘declaration of bankruptcy’ by the State of California.

According to these reports, Obama’s fears of rebellion are due to the economic health of California (the United States largest State) after the 3rd largest US State, New York, declared a ‘fiscal emergency’ and refused to release to its cities and towns over $750 Million due them this past week with the Governor of New York, David Paterson, declaring “I can’t say this enough: The state has run out of money.”

New York’s fiscal crisis, however, pales in comparison to California’s, where new economic data points to its expected 5-year budget deficit reaching the staggering amount of over $100 Billion which Russian economists warn will result in budget cuts so steep as to create ‘social chaos’ among this States 36 million citizens.


Here are your options -- don't get sick, or injured, or old.

Betsy McCaughey, NY Post:  The bill that Sen. Harry Reid aims to pass in the Senate would mandate that every American enroll in a "qualified" insurance plan. And page 149 states that "qualified" health plans can do business only with a doctor who "implements such mechanisms to improve health-care quality as the secretary [of Health and Human Services] may by regulation require."

But "mechanisms to improve health-care quality" covers everything in medicine.

What makes this especially troubling is that government will be imposing its regulations with an eye on reducing the cost of your care, even if you're paying for it yourself: The explicit purpose of "reform" is to reduce what everyone consumes and to discourage some from getting more care than others.


Looking forward.

Charles Krauthammer, Townhall.comIt has always been my intention to die at my desk, although my most cherished ambition is to outlive the estate tax.


Money-grubbing at Copenhagen.

James Delingpole, Telegraph (UK):  Copenhagen never really had anything to do with “Climate Change”. Rather it was a trough-fest at which all the world’s greediest pigs gathered to gobble up as much of your money and my money as they possibly could, under the righteous-sounding pretence that they were saving the planet.


December 17, 2009


On one side of history or the other.

Dennis Prager:  One day, our grandchildren may ask us what we did when Islamic fascism threatened the free world. Some of us will say we were preoccupied with fighting that threat wherever possible; others will be able to say they fought carbon dioxide emissions. One of us will look bad.


Ignorance in the Senate.

Nicholas Ballasy,   Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) told that Congress has the authority to force individual Americans to buy health insurance because the U.S. Constitution “charges Congress with the health and well-being of the people.”

The words “health” and “well-being” do not appear anywhere in the Constitution.

I guess this story shouldn't be surprising, since it is obvious that Dems either never read the Constitution or don't believe in it. -- CB


Liberals' lies never stop.

Eric Zimmerman, The Hill:  The government is headed for bankruptcy if Congress doesn't pass healthcare reform, President Obama warned today.

"[I]f we don't do this, nobody argues with the fact that health care costs are going to consume the entire federal budget,” Obama told ABC's Charlie Gibson in an interview airing tonight.

Healthcare costs are growing so rapidly that "the federal government will go bankrupt" is drastic steps aren't taken, he added.

“[Healthcare reform] actually provides us the best chance of starting to bend the cost curve on the government expenditures in Medicare and Medicaid," Obama said.


On the edge, ready to jump?

Investor's Business Daily:  The president used an illuminating choice of words to describe the transformation of the health system Congress is set to enact. We are indeed "on the precipice" — staring into an abyss of statism.

After emerging from a White House meeting with Senate Democrats Tuesday, President Obama said: "We are on the precipice of an achievement that's eluded Congresses and presidents for generations, an achievement that will touch the lives of nearly every American."

Has Barack Obama just written his own historical epitaph? Will he be the figure who pushed America off the precipice, into a bottomless pit of socialism?


Good news for Connecticut.  Where does my state sign up?

Meredith Jessup, NROMichael Moore to Boycott the State of Connecticut.  No joke. Apparently ticked off at Sen. Joe Lieberman's distaste of the public option, Moore tweets:

People of Connecticut: What have you done 2 this country? We hold u responsible. Start recall of Lieberman 2day or we'll boycott your state.

As Moore's followers delightfully forwarded-on his message, it apparently escaped them all that the U.S. Constitution does not authorize the recall of Representatives, Senators, Presidents or Vice Presidents--thus no member of Congress has ever been recalled in the history of the United States.


December 16, 2009



Rich Lowery, NROBarack Obama's vibe used to be a cross between JFK and Beatlemania. Now it's fading into 'Oh, him again?' ... An American president is almost by definition overexposed. But Obama has jammed a full term's worth of exposure into a mere 11 months. Michelle Obama notoriously said during the campaign, 'Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.' What she really meant, apparently, was that Barack would never again allow us to turn on the TV without seeing or hearing Barack.


Obama is leading us down the road to serfdom.

Richard Ebeling, CSM:   Unless those who love liberty stop it, the radical ideological belief in political paternalism and the welfare state may leave nothing but tyranny and poverty for generations to come...  At the core of the Obama administration’s push for implementing a comprehensive national healthcare system and related programs is a radical ideological belief in political paternalism and the welfare state.

First, the guiding idea behind political paternalism is that the individual cannot be trusted to be a free and responsible human being. Those who wish to socially engineer our lives consider us too ignorant, too irresponsible, and too narrow in our own planning to intelligently and reasonably take care of our own healthcare, retirement, family’s education, or spending and consumption choices.

These paternalists presume to know what is good for us, better than we know ourselves. They are determined to make the world over in their own ideological image – and, of course, all for our own good, whether we want it or not.

They are also willing to use force against their fellow human beings to attain their ends. They believe that it is morally right for the state to use its coercive powers to take the income and wealth of some to give to others.

Sound exaggerated? Well, imagine how the government would react if you inform the government that you are sending in a tax payment for your contribution to police, courts, and national defense, but you’re withholding any amount that would fund a national healthcare plan because you consider it unnecessary and immoral. You’d soon face jail time if you resist the confiscatory seizure of your property for unpaid taxes.

The welfare state has been and will continue to lead us down a dangerous new “road to serfdom” in which our lives are more and more controlled, managed, and manipulated by those in political power who claim the right to dictate how we are to live and work.

It encapsulates an immorality in which political force claims the authority to deny us our individual rights to life, liberty, and honest acquired property. 

All of us who prefer to be free men in a free society with a free market need to do all in our intellectual power to stop and reverse this reactionary counterrevolution against the ideal of human liberty. Otherwise, our civilization may be heading for a collapse that will leave nothing but tyranny and poverty for generations to come.



Obama, the arrogant.

Peter Roff, Thomas Jefferson Street blog, US News:  The lower President Barack Obama's approval numbers go the more certain he seems to be about his vision for the country. In the Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll for December 15, 41 percent of those surveyed across America give Obama's performance as president a highly negative review.

On healthcare, the issue that is at this moment at the forefront of the debate, 56 percent of those surveyed by Rasmussen now say they oppose the bill working its way through the Senate. Yet he continues to press ahead with signature issues like healthcare as though the sentiments of the electorate mattered not at all to him, never once pausing to admit that he has been wrong about anything or that he has failed to live up to the promises he made during his presidential campaign.

Obama needs to go study the Gettysburg Address, and pay close attention to the last sentence:  "It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government: of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." -- [Emphasis added] CB


December 15, 2009 -- Bill of Rights Day, ratified 1791.


The Copenhagen greedy pity party.

Peter Worthington, Toronto Sun:  Now that it's reaching its final stages, wanna know what the celebrated two-week summit conference in Copenhagen on climate change was all about?

Forget the official version: Cautious optimism, supposedly blended with the reality that the organizers foist on the world -- a last chance to save the planet, and all that with nearly 200 countries and world leaders attending.

African countries have picked up the fumbled ball and are running with it.

Constituting roughly 14% of the world's population and responsible for less than 4% of global greenhouse gas emissions, these nations think the rest of the world should give them from $45 billion to $500 billion a year as compensation for causing global warming, which no one seems to be able to prove without fudging figures.

If global warming or climate change was so catastrophic, one might think African nations would relish their innocence in not having been party to having caused it.

Instead, like the rest of the developing world, they want a payoff, which tells you the prime purpose of schemes like Kyoto -- redistributing the wealth of guilt-obsessed developed countries to developing ones.


Obama wants to put your life in danger.  He fails to understand his primary responsibility.

National Review:  The Obama administration’s plan to move terrorist detainees from the security of Guantanamo Bay to a little-used state prison in Illinois is being hailed by supportive Democrats as a boon for local economic development. Even if the development were truly a boon — and it’s more a boondoggle — that would not come close to justifying it. National security is not a shovel-ready jobs program. It is the first duty of government, and it would be senselessly imperiled by transferring trained jihadists into the United States.

Like much unpopular or embarrassing news, the transfer plan leaked late on a Friday. It appeared in the form of presidential memorandum drafted by Eric Holder’s Justice Department. Once approved by the president, the memo would direct Holder to “acquire” (as in purchase) the Thomson Correctional Center, about 150 miles west of Chicago. Defense Secretary Robert Gates would then, “as expeditiously as possible,” relocate the remaining 200-plus Gitmo detainees to the TCC.

The prison is a $145 million white elephant. When Illinois was comparatively flush with capital, it built the 1,600-bed penitentiary to stimulate the depressed Mississippi Valley town. But the state is now a basket case. Budgetary woes have squeezed law-enforcement funding, and local politicians — including former state senator Barack Obama — have insisted that alternatives to incarceration be found, even for violent offenders; as a consequence less than 10 percent of the TCC’s space is currently being used. Naturally, Obama’s home-state Democrats are thrilled by the prospect of having Uncle Sam take the TCC off the state’s hands. Sen. Dick Durbin and Gov. Pat Quinn issued a statement rapt at the prospect of “generating up to 3,800 jobs” and “injecting more than $1 billion into the regional economy.”


December 14, 2009


Dangerous watermelons.

Jeffrey Kuhner, The Washington Times:  Like most global-warming alarmists, Mr. Gore is an obtuse ideologue who has invested in environmentalism a religious fervor impenetrable to rational debate.

The seminal lesson of the 20th century is that utopianism leads to totalitarianism; the road to Utopia goes through Golgotha. Mr. Gore and his fellow green socialists have been warning about Armageddon for more than a decade. Melting ice caps, rising sea levels, cities like New York and San Francisco under water, crippling droughts, mass starvation, hundreds of millions of "climate-change refugees" - these are the supposed disastrous consequences of unadulterated capitalism.

Hence, Mr. Gore and Mr. Obama are determined to save humanity - from itself if necessary. They are willing to circumvent democracy, too. With cap-and-trade stalled in the U.S. Senate, moderate Democrats increasingly wary of its high costs and public opinion skeptical of man-made global warming, the Obama administration is resorting to a regulatory regime to implement its radical green agenda.

The EPA's announcement marks a major political watershed: the rise of a socialist ruling class that is unaccountable to the voters. Instead of relying on democratic consent and persuasion, Mr. Obama is using regulatory agencies to impose his "Green New Deal." The original New Deal was passed through Congress - in other words, through the regular legislative process and democratic debate.

Liberals once believed in respecting the popular will and democratic procedures. Now, even those values can be abandoned in the mad dash to "save the planet."


Freedom vs. Government.

Henry Lamb, Canada Free PressFreedom cannot co-exist with a government that insists on controlling its citizens.


Whatever happened to "government of the people, for the people, and by the people"?

Rasmussen Reports:  Fifty-six percent (56%) of U.S. voters now oppose the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the highest level of opposition found - reached three times before - in six months of polling.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 40% of voters favor the health care plan.

Perhaps more significantly, 46% now Strongly Oppose the plan, compared to 19% who Strongly Favor it.


December 11, 2009


This is an example of the type of person advising the president.  Does Obama agree with this?

The Washington Times:  Once again, "safe schools czar" Kevin Jennings has been involved in making schools less safe. As always, this one was, whoops, a mistake. It is always a mistake. Whoops, while a teacher, he enabled a teenager to continue a sexual relationship with an older man whom the student had met in a bus-stop bathroom. Whoops, he praised one of the North American Man/Boy Love Association's most vociferous defenders. Whoops, the group Mr. Jennings founded, the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network, recommended books for children as young as 13 that present sex between minors and adults in a positive light.

The new whoops is a safe-sex guide distributed in a Massachusetts high school in 2005. Included in the book are the addresses and phone numbers of Boston-area gay bars to make it easier for teens to find the businesses that cater to homosexual men over the age of 21. The guide's descriptions of what goes on in these bars is explicit. Over here, there's "dancing, young guys and those who like young guys." Over there, the ambience is "old school, cruisy, sex-charged late at night." At another hot spot, there's "porn on the television, the old, the young. Something for everyone."

A pattern has developed over the course of the Jennings scandal in which tolerance is shown for the idea that minors and adults having sex is something to be encouraged and facilitated or, at worst, politely ignored. For some reason, because the minors involved in sexual relationships with adults are homosexual, the Obama administration is closing its eyes and ears to the problem. That's a fantastic double standard that would never apply to heterosexual relationships between adults and children.


Start the revolution.

Frank Salvato, New Media Journal:  Today, enlightened statesmen are not at the helm. Political opportunists who have their own interests and the interests of the financial benefactors in a position of priority are seated in power. And while there are a scant few in government who still do adhere to the notion of public service and are still dedicated to their oaths of office and the US Constitution, the controlling majority of those in federal government – and in many cases state government – have come to represent everything our Founders and Framers despised in the elitists they waged war against for independence.

Now, the question is this, will those of us who still believe in the sanctity of the Charters of Freedom – The Declaration of independence, The US Constitution and The Bill of Rights – defend them, doing so in a cohesive manner so as to avoid the politics of factionalism – as with the institution of litmus test politics, or will we watch, helplessly, impotent, as Rome burns?


Liberals hate your freedom (2) -- and you, and your kids.

Investor's Business Daily:  Calls for forced population control as a means to conquer global warming are in the news this week. We knew the Copenhagen climate conference would keep drawing out the cranks.

'Humans are overpopulating the world," Diane Francis, a staff writer for Canada's National Post, said in Tuesday's edition.

"A planetary law, such as China's one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days."

Is there a more fundamental right for humans than to decide for themselves how many children they will have? Is there a more fundamental violation of human rights than for a government to put a legal limit on the number of children a couple or a woman can have?

Those who support population control are not enlightened thinkers, though they hold themselves to be. Quite often, "progressive" population control proponents have been racists who would use eugenics to ensure that "deficient" humans don't dilute the gene pool.

Other population control supporters simply harbor a misanthropic bitterness, obvious to those who don't share their worldview, toward their fellow man. They might have friends and maybe even families. But within them is a deep-seated loathing for their own kind because they see man as just another of Earth's many animal species. Human life, for these people, is cheap.


The jobs "kill bill".

Investor's Business Daily:  In a follow-on to the president's jobs summit, Congress is cooking up a jobs bill for a vote next week. It's the same tired recipe to expand government at the expense of the private sector. Call it a jobs kill.

Last week, we watched as 130 Big Labor bosses, community organizers, left-wing think tanks and a few token CEOs supposedly put their heads together to come up with a way to create jobs in the worst U.S. recession since 1929.

It was window dressing. Instead of looking to proven solutions to create jobs, like tax cuts and free trade, Big Labor's agenda ruled.

It just goes to show that the whole jobs approach seen among Democrats is more attuned to special interests — at a cost of real economic growth for everyone.


Dangerous stupidity that starts with our Command-in-Chief.  Let's go after terrorists, not Navy Seals.

Investor's Business Daily:  An administration consumed with apologies has said the architect of 9/11's massacre, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, must be given all the constitutional rights and privileges of the Americans he murdered. Our justice system, we are told, must be an example to the world, as if that will impress jihadists making IEDs in some faraway hideout.

[Navy Seals] McCabe, Huertas and Keefe neither need nor deserve to be made examples to impress anybody. If they are court-martialed, the only thing impressed upon foreign terrorists will be U.S. weakness. And that will invite more terrorism as surely as our shameful withdrawal from Somalia after Americans were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu inspires Osama bin Laden.


Liberals hate your freedom.

Gary Aldrich,  The liberals, long envious and nervous about the lifestyles of the truly free have set out to take those liberties using dishonest, back-door tactics.

Unable to experience the joy that freedom brings, they don’t understand why you would want it. But they do understand that long as you can travel freely, they do not have total control of your life. Make no mistake – your liberty bothers them.

In this country – at least at the time of this writing – you still have an absolute right to travel to work or to play any way you wish. As long as you are willing to pay for the car, the tags, the taxes, the insurance, the safety inspection, and the gas or diesel, you can still do as you please with your car.

Socialists calling themselves progressives or liberals cannot help themselves. Set upon a course where they believe they may have some chance of success, history tells us they will not back off until they finally pass a law that requires every one to obtain and display a permit to cross state lines – for example, to visit Aunt Flo.

In a socialistic future don’t think you will be able to sneak off to see somebody in a distant state. Police cars already have devices that screen vehicles’ license plates for computer records about car owners’ failure to pay tickets and taxes. And, with mobile computers and face recognition technology at the disposal of almost any officer, the technology certainly exists to enforce any future travel restrictions.

The greatest justification to discourage your right to travel freely is already well established. The socialists/progressives/liberals have handcuffed our ability to get more oil. How soon will it be until it is an environmental “sin” to use too much gas in your car? The movement to keep you home where they can keep an eye on you is well down the road.

Failure to pay attention to the assault on your liberty today means goodbye America and hello tyranny - tomorrow.


"Watermelons" (green on the outside, red on the inside) are hazardous to your wealth.

Charles Krauthammer,  In the 1970s and early '80s, having seized control of the U.N. apparatus (by power of numbers), Third World countries decided to cash in. OPEC was pulling off the greatest wealth transfer from rich to poor in history. Why not them? So in grand U.N. declarations and conferences, they began calling for a "New International Economic Order." The NIEO's essential demand was simple: to transfer fantastic chunks of wealth from the industrialized West to the Third World.

On what grounds? In the name of equality -- wealth redistribution via global socialism -- with a dose of post-colonial reparations thrown in.

One of the major goals of the Copenhagen climate summit is another NIEO shakedown: the transfer of hundreds of billions from the industrial West to the Third World to save the planet by, for example, planting green industries in the tristes tropiques.

Politically it's an idea of genius, engaging at once every left-wing erogenous zone: rich man's guilt, post-colonial guilt, environmental guilt. But the idea of shaking down the industrial democracies in the name of the environment thrives not just in the refined internationalist precincts of Copenhagen. It thrives on the national scale too.

On the day Copenhagen opened, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency claimed jurisdiction over the regulation of carbon emissions by declaring them an "endangerment" to human health.

This naked assertion of vast executive power in the name of the environment is the perfect fulfillment of the prediction of Czech President (and economist) Vaclav Klaus that environmentalism is becoming the new socialism, i.e., the totemic ideal in the name of which government seizes the commanding heights of the economy and society.

Socialism having failed so spectacularly, the left was adrift until it struck upon a brilliant gambit: metamorphosis from red to green. The cultural elites went straight from the memorial service for socialism to the altar of the environment. The objective is the same: highly centralized power given to the best and the brightest, the new class of experts, managers and technocrats. This time, however, the alleged justification is not abolishing oppression and inequality but saving the planet.


December 10, 2009


The EPA regulates by fraud.

Jed Babbin, Human EventsMonday’s declaration by the Environmental Protection Administration that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health is apparently a regulatory fraud. It was made after EPA regulators refused to consider a report from a leading EPA scientist rejecting the theory that emission of greenhouse gases causes global warming.  

The EPA’s highly-publicized action declared, “…GHGs [greenhouse gases] are the primary driver of climate change, which can lead to hotter, longer heat waves that threaten the health of the sick, poor or elderly; increases in ground-level ozone pollution linked to asthma and other respiratory illnesses; as well as other threats to the health and welfare of Americans.”


And now the EPA has its own “Climategate.”  It is in the report by EPA’s Dr. Alan Carlin who was -- according to this July 16 letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson -- subjected to a gag order.

The March 16, 2009 report by Dr. Alan Carlin says -- among other things -- that “As of the best information we currently have, the GHG/CO2 hypothesis as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because it fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable data. Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible conclusion based on current data.”


Nobel Empty Suit Award.

The Washington Times:  The decision to award Mr. Obama the peace prize was made during the period of irrational exuberance - the Obamamania - that attended his ascent to power. Nominations closed Feb. 1, when he had been in office less than two weeks. The lingering sense developed that the noteworthy achievement the committee wanted to recognize was either that Mr. Obama was not George W. Bush, or that he was black. Unless you are Barack Hussein Obama, you generally don't get awards in life for just showing up.

Eleven months later, the hangover has set in. When running a superpower, it is not enough simply not to be Mr. Bush, or to be the historic first black president. Mr. Obama was expected to actually do something, and the public is no longer enthralled with his lackluster leadership. Mr. Obama currently has the lowest Gallup approval rating of any president at this stage of his presidency since the polling firm began keeping these records over 60 years ago. The magic faded fast. The clothes had no emperor.


Has anybody seen any "good government" lately?  I didn't think so.

Thomas Jefferson:  [A] wise and frugal government ... shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.


Obamacare is not popular.  Why are the Dems pushing so hard?

John Fund, WSJ:  On the very morning Senate Democrats claim to have reached a "broad agreement" on a health care bill that will allow Americans over age 55 to "buy" into Medicare, a new Quinnipiac poll shows just how little support the Senate efforts inspire among the American people.

Voters oppose the bill by 52% to 38%, and President Obama's handling of health care gets even more of a thumbs down, with 56% of those surveyed registering disapproval. By more than two to one, Americans say extending health care to the uninsured will cause their own costs to go up, and a plurality expect quality to decline as well. By 71% to 21%, voters don't think universal coverage is worth lower quality of care.


Government is the problem, not the solution.

Cal Thomas,  The president would achieve real success by cutting taxes, eliminating unnecessary regulations and liberating the free enterprise system to do what it does best: create products and services people will buy so that companies will hire people.

That has always been the formula that has produced a strong American economy. Government produces little that people want to buy. Government mostly takes from those who produce. Government can spread wealth, as this president is attempting to do -- but it can't create wealth. So by spreading wealth rather than allowing wealth to be created, the result is less wealth to spread.

Why can't liberals understand this? It is because this president and much of his administration have never punched a time clock or run a business.

The economic power of America is in Americans, not in government.


Spending us into oblivion.

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Townhall.comDid I really see President Barack Obama this week calling for a vast increase in government spending? He is promising to "spend our way out of this recession." He plans to build highways and bridges. There will be tax cuts for small businesses. There will be tax incentives for making our homes more energy-efficient. Economic stimulus will be extended for unemployment insurance. Checks for $250 will be sent to senior citizens and veterans. More money will be sent to state and local governments so they will not have to lay off teachers, firefighters and police. It is estimated that the president's eruption of generosity will cost an additional $170 billion, perhaps more.


He has made this promise despite the fact that fear is spreading throughout the country that our government deficits are unsustainable. The so-called independents have forsaken him, owing to their fear that he is bankrupting the country. For that matter, he has expressed the same fear ... half a year ago.


About the time the president announced that this nation -- which is "out of money" -- is going to "spend our way out of this recession," the Gallup Poll spoke. According to it, the president's approval rating is lower than that of any of his predecessors at this point in their presidencies, and few came in with President Obama's high favorable ratings. Today he polls at 47 percent, down from 53 percent last month.


December 9, 2009


Obama's tyrannical, unconstitutional abuse of power.

Fox News:  The Obama administration is warning Congress that if it doesn't move to regulate greenhouse gases, the Environmental Protection Agency will take a "command-and-control" role over the process in a way that could hurt business. 

[W]hile administration officials have long said they prefer Congress take action on climate change, the economic official who spoke with reporters Tuesday night made clear that the EPA will not wait and is prepared to act on its own. 

And it won't be pretty. 

"If you don't pass this legislation, then ... the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area," the official said. "And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it's going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty."


December 8, 2009


Exhaling can be hazardous to your health.

Investor's Business DailyThe Environmental Protection Agency has declared carbon dioxide, a gas necessary for life on Earth, to be a health hazard that has to be managed. What follows will be a useless bureaucratic exercise.

Carbon dioxide is simply a natural product of the respiration process that keeps animals alive and the combustion that powers and expands economies. Without it, we have none of the lush greenery or old-growth trees that environmentalists pretend to protect.

These environmentalists, who presumably have no problem with naturally occurring carbon emissions, argue that it's the man-made CO2 that's causing the planet to warm. But that's nonsense. CO2 makes up a mere 0.0384% of the atmosphere, and man's contribution to that is only about 3%.

All the public needs to know is that world leaders in Copenhagen and officials in Washington will save us from ourselves. What we really need to be saved from is them.


Jobs?  Or snowjob?

Thomas Sowell, Townhall.comPresident Obama keeps talking about the jobs his administration is "creating" but there are more people unemployed now than before he took office. How can there be more unemployment after so many jobs have been "created"?


A consensus of fraud and abuse.

Mona Charen,  Though professional hysterics may seek to "hide the decline," there has been a noticeable drop in the number of Americans who believe that global warming is a man-made phenomenon. Pause on that for a moment. Though Americans have been harangued about global warming for more than a decade, only 35 percent told a recent Pew survey that global warming is a serious problem, compared with 44 percent the previous year.

This skepticism predated the exposure of the East Anglia e-mails -- those playful missives that reveal some of the most prominent climate researchers to be, if not outright charlatans, at least partisans.

Fool me once: The same people whose hair is on fire now about climate change have dressed up in fright masks before. Thirty years ago, they were (no joke) enormously agitated about the coming new ice age. From these same precincts (the Club of Rome, 1972) we were warned that the world was rapidly running out of oil, gas, aluminum, lead, zinc, copper, tin, and uranium. (We didn't.) At the same time, all of the smart people were absolutely convinced that overpopulation was the greatest threat to the globe and to humanity itself. Paul Ehrlich, author of "The Population Bomb," offered in 1980 that "If I were a gambler, I would bet even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." That same year, the Carter administration issued a global forecast predicting that "the world in 2000 will be more crowded, more polluted, less stable ecologically ... and the world's people will be poorer in many ways than they are today." Um, no.

The scaremongers' track record is poor. For people who seem to worship Mother Earth, they are oddly arrogant about their ability to understand complex systems like climate. Every day brings new discoveries about the incredibly complicated interplay of oceans, atmospheric gases, algae, wind, plants, animal excretions, solar radiation, and so forth.

The East Anglia e-mails reveal a priesthood becoming more and more hysterical as their certainty evaporates. Like all orthodoxies under duress, they are making war on heresy.

It's not illegal. But it's not science.


December 7, 2009 Pearl Harbor Day


No room at the inn.

Raymond Arroyo, lauraingraham.comThe embattled Razzle Dazzle Czar, White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers says that the Obamas were planning a "non-religious Christmas."  According to the Sunday New York Times the confession emerged at a luncheon earlier this year with former White House social secretaries. The ladies must have choked on their Caesar salads when Rogers went on to announce that the Obamas did not intend to  display the Christmas Creche--the manger scene that traditionally occupies a central spot in the East Room.  (This revelation reportedly drew a gasp from the retired social secretaries).  The idea was that the absence of the Creche (i.e.,Christ's Birth) would make Christmas "more inclusive".  Though there was serious discussion of keeping the shepherds and the Holy Family in storage, tradition finally won out.  So good of the Social Secretary to put Jesus on the Christmas party invite list. 

But Desiree Rogers' comments, which presumably reflect the thoughts of the  First couple, betray a troubling attitude toward religion and religious people.  The upshot being: expressions of faith (even something as innocuous as a manger scene) are somehow "non-inclusive".


December 5, 2009


Obama/Reid/Pelosi and the Libs refuse to learn from experience.

James Taranto, Best of the Web:  "A mentally ill, suicidal teenager was ferried around for hours by an ambulance crew because no NHS [National Health Service] unit would accept her," reports the BBC:

[A paramedic] wrote that the first hospital they took her to, believed to be the main psychiatric hospital in Ipswich, St Clements, "declined to accept the patient as she was a juvenile" so the ambulance was diverted to the local juvenile psychiatry facility.
They were unable to accept the patient as the staff were on an "away day", the memo reports. It is understood this facility would not have been the agreed "place of safety" for such a patient anyway.
The receptionist suggested they contact someone from the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service nearby.
When the crew got there, they were told the patient could not be accepted.
Another unit was suggested, but this would not be open until four days later.
The patient was then taken to A&E at Ipswich Hospital, but the crew was again told the patient could not be accepted there because she had been sectioned under the Mental Health Act.
The paramedic said: "As there was no alternative available, we had to convey the patient to the police cells as a place of safety. This was the wrong environment for this sick and vulnerable child."
A Suffolk Police custody log confirmed the girl was kept in the cells for six hours between 1700 GMT and 2300 GMT.

None of this would have happened if the paramedics had listened to former Enron adviser Paul Krugman: "In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We've all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false."


December 4, 2009


The true "inconvenient truth" bites Al Gore.

James Delingpole, Telegraph (UK):  Due to unforeseen circumstances, Al Gore has had to cancel a Copenhagen speaking event at which he had hoped to charge starry-eyed believers in his ManBearPig religion $1200 a piece for the privilege of shaking his hand, breathing in his CO2 and having his latest book inflicted on them.

Could those unforeseen circumstances have anything to do with Climategate?


An Alinskyite president, not an American president.

Andrew McCarthy, NROCynicism, however, is the defining feature of Obama speeches. This one was no different: from its use of the United States Military Academy as a prop to its concluding assertion that “our resolve is unwavering” . . .  after the president had spent the preceding 40 minutes in full waver mode.

There are two things to bear in mind in considering any Obama speech, and they go double for those that touch on national security.

First, the president is an Alinskyite, so steeped in the ideology of the seminal community organizer that he became a top instructor in Alinskyite tactics for other up-and-coming radicals. As David Horowitz explains in an essential new pamphlet, Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model, Alinksyites are fifth-column radicals. They have, in substance, the same goals as open revolutionaries: overthrowing the existing free-market republic and replacing it with a radical’s utopia. That’s why Obama could befriend such unrepentant former terrorists as Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, and take inspiration from Jeremiah Wright, a black-liberation theologist. But Alinskyites are more sophisticated, patient, and practical. They bore in, hollowing out the system from within, appropriating the appearance and argot of mainstream society. Their single, animating ambition is to overthrow the capitalist social order, which they claim to see as racist, corrupt, exploitative, imperialist, etc. Apart from that goal, everything else — from the public option to Afghanistan — is negotiable: They reserve the right to take any position on any matter, to say anything at any time, based on the ebb and flow of popular opinion. That keeps them politically viable while they radically transform society. Transform it into what, they haven’t worked out in great detail — except that it will be perfect, communal, equal, and just.

The second thing to bear in mind is that the president is a power politician who shrewdly reads the vulnerabilities of both his opponents and his backers.


Being president during war does not make one a war president.  We have a community organizer pretending to be commander-in-chief.

Charles Krauthammer,  Obama's surge speech wasn't a commander in chief's, but a politician's, perfectly splitting the difference. Two messages for two audiences. Placate the right -- you get the troops; placate the left -- we are on our way out.

And apart from Obama's own personal commitment is the question of his ability as a wartime leader. If he feels compelled to placate his left with an exit date today -- while he is still personally popular, with large majorities in both houses of Congress, and even before the surge begins -- how will he stand up to the left when the going gets tough and the casualties mount, and he really has to choose between support from his party and success on the battlefield?

We cannot prevail without a commander in chief committed to success. And this commander in chief defended his exit date (versus the straw man alternative of "open-ended" nation-building) thusly: "because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own."

Remarkable. Go and fight, he tells his cadets -- some of whom may not return alive -- but I may have to cut your mission short because my real priorities are domestic.


December 3, 2009


Not if we keep the heat on.

Byron York, Washington ExaminerThe reason the Democratic leadership and the White House are rushing to pass the [health care] bill is that they know it is killing them and believe doing it quickly will kill fewer of them than doing it slowly. If they pass it by year's end, perhaps voters will move on to other concerns by the November 2010 midterm elections.


Getting priorities right.

Jed Babbin, Human EventsThe issue isn't whether a war is popular: either it has to be fought or it doesn't. It is a president's duty to define the war and lead the nation to victory. And if a war is worth one American life, it is -- by definition -- worth however many dollars it takes to win. Domestic spending must be curtailed to fund a war, not the other way around.


Today's lesson for the President and Commander-in-Chief.

John Adams:  National defense is one of the cardinal duties of a statesman.


Not impressed with Obama's strategy.

Tunku Varadarajan, WSJWhat has struck me most about Obama's Afghan enterprise--and his speech did not cause me to alter my view--is how obvious it is that he doesn't really want to do it. He wants to do health care. Obama has tried every delaying trick in the book--waiting for three months after Gen. McChrystal's request for more troops, having meeting after meeting after meeting, sending Gen. Jones to tell McChrystal not to ask for more troops, having his economic team say it will cost too much, framing the venture in terms of "exit strategies" rather than victory, etc. His ambivalence was on naked display [Tuesday night]. Can you imagine Churchill delivering a speech like this, one so full of a sense of the limitation of national possibilities? No wonder Hillary [Clinton]--when the camera panned to her--looked like she needed a drink. No wonder the cadets all looked so depressed. Would you want Eeyore for commander in chief?


Dems in Congress support global warming fascism.

Jillian Bandes,  The Democratically-controlled Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming held a hearing yesterday to examine the science behind global warming. Two climate experts from the Obama administration testified, but when Republicans asked to have a global-warming skeptic at the hearing, Chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.) refused to allow it.

Hosting a hearing on global warming with no dissenting opinions made Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), the ranking Republican on the Committee, think the Democrats and the Obama administration were just as complicit in the global warming scandal sparked by Climategate as the Climategate scientists themselves.


December 2, 2009


Or maybe Carter's incompetence coupled with LBJ's stupidity.

Washington ExaminerEarlier this year, President Obama described the conflict in Afghanistan as a "war of necessity," but the plan he announced last night at West Point bears disturbing reminders of the doomed strategy doggedly pursued by the last Democratic president to commit the United States to a major land war in Asia. President Johnson's Vietnam strategy rejected decisive military action in favor of a policy of gradual escalation that conveniently allowed more funding for his Great Society programs at home. Johnson's "guns and butter" approach handcuffed America's warriors, tragically wasted the blood of thousands of our finest young men, sparked enduring domestic political division, and eventually forced millions of people in Southeast Asia into the enslavement of communist tyranny. The vision of a U.S. helicopter fleeing from the roof of the U.S. embassy in Saigon forever reminds us of America's shameful debacle.


Not a Churchill.  Not a Reagan.  More Jimmy Carter -- a weak, incompetent leftist.

Nile Gardiner, Telegraph (UK):  The war in Afghanistan is ultimately a battle between good and evil, and is essential to the defence of the United States, Great Britain, Europe and all who believe in the cause of liberty and freedom. It is a war that is vital to keeping our cities safe from attack by Al Qaeda. It must be led by a president who firmly believes that it can be won, and who is willing to commit the resources necessary to bring the enemy to its knees. Today was a huge opportunity for Barack Obama to outline a clear, coherent strategy for victory, and he spectacularly failed to grasp it.


Planting a carbon footprint firmly on their backsides.

The Washington TimesThe Obama administration might think Climategate is a nonevent, but on Monday, Pennsylvania State University announced it was launching an investigation into the academic conduct of Michael Mann, director of the school's Earth System Science Center. Yesterday, it was announced that Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, would step aside while his university conducts an investigation. With so much fraud being exposed in the academic community that studies and promotes global-warming theories, an example has to be made of someone.

Untold millions in federal funds have been granted to American academics and institutions ensnared in Climategate. Congress and the administration should be investigating the charges of destroyed documents and data as well as the general unwillingness to share data funded by taxpayers. An academic investigation is a start, but it's not enough, considering the role of many institutions in this cover-up. With so much federal money for academic research involved, trusting universities to get to the bottom of this scandal is akin to leaving a fox in charge of the henhouse.


Global Warming is fraud.

Professor Ian Pilmer:  If you have to argue your science by using fraud, your science is not valid.


The intellectual dishonesty inherent in intellectuals.

Jonah Goldberg,  [I]ntellectual hypocrisy is believing you are smart enough to run other peoples' lives when you can barely run your own.

I know many smart liberals for whom no idea is too complex, no concept or organizational flow chart too hard to grasp. They want government to take over this, run that, manage some other things, and in all cases put people exactly like them in charge of pretty much everything. Many are geniuses, with SAT scores so high you could get a bloody nose just looking at them.

But you wouldn't ask one to run a car wash.

The most famous story of an intellectual hypocrite getting his comeuppance is the tale of George McGovern and his inn. The senator, 1972 presidential nominee and college professor thought he could run a vast, technologically sophisticated nation with a diverse population and an entrepreneurial culture. Then, after leaving Washington, he bought an inn in Connecticut to while away his retirement years. For a guy as smart as him, running an inn should have been child's play. But it went belly-up before the end of the year, with a contritely befuddled McGovern marveling at how much harder running a business was than he thought.

Or consider Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), currently subject of a House ethics investigation. Rangel heads the Ways and Means Committee, which writes the tax code. He backs the imposition of an income tax surcharge on high earners to pay for health care, calling it "the moral thing to do." Yet he can't seem to figure out how to file his own taxes properly or, perhaps, legally.

A J.P. Morgan chart reprinted on the "Enterprise Blog" shows that less than 10 percent of President Obama's Cabinet has private-sector experience, the least of any Cabinet in a century. From the stimulus to health care reform and cap-and-trade, Washington is now run by people who think they know how to run everything, when in reality they can barely run anything.


Tyranny of the Elites.

Walter Williams, Townhall.comWhether it is health care, education, employment or most other areas of our lives, I ask you: Who has the capacity to master all the complexity to make choices on behalf of others? Each of us possesses only a tiny percentage of the knowledge that would be necessary to make totally informed decisions in our own lives, much less the lives of others. There is only one reason for the forcible transference of decision-making authority over important areas of our private lives to elite decision-makers in Congress and government bureaucracies. Doing so confers control, power, wealth and revenue to society's elite. What's in the best interests of individual members of society, such as a person who'd rather launch a landscaping business than purchase a health insurance policy, ranks low on the elite's list of priorities.


December 1, 2009


Obama is oblivious to reality.

Ralph Reiland, Pittsburg Tribune-Review:  So how can Obama maintain that economic recovery and more jobs will be delivered through his administration's agenda of higher costs on business via carbon taxes, higher energy prices for consumers and employers, the cancellation of secret ballots for workers in union-organizing drives, mandated hikes in the minimum wage, higher payroll taxes on business to fund the proposed health care mandates, a new surtax of 5 points on the incomes of the nation's key job creators, a higher inheritance tax that directly drains capital from the small business sector that's creating most of the new jobs in the economy, and a 69 percent increase in the tax on capital gains, a clear disincentive to new investment and new job development?

It's either a complete lack of understanding of even the basics in freshmen economics or a refusal to accept the reality of how the world works -- a blind devotion to what's been proven to be a failed ideology, a kamikaze mission, a last-ditch effort to intentionally go down in flames as a spotless devotee of statism and collectivism.


"Social justice" is theft.

Thomas Sowell, Townhall.comSince this is an era when many people are concerned about "fairness" and "social justice," what is your "fair share" of what someone else has worked for?



Send your comments to


For earlier posts, click on navigation bars at left.


  • Liberty Call US is protected speech pursuant to the "unalienable rights" of all men pronounced in the Declaration of Independence, and the First  Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

    All original material (c) 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009


    buy the abortion pill online where can i buy abortion pills
    where can i buy abortion pills where to buy abortion pill abortion pill
    abortion pill buy online order abortion pill abortion pill
    abortion pill online abortion pill buy abortion pills online
    link why do men cheat read here
    my husband almost cheated on me redirect cheat wifes
    why do women cheat with married men women love to cheat link
    wife cheat story married men cheat with men redirect
    why some women cheat read why husband cheat on their wife
    open open married cheat
    open online wife cheated
    wife cheated my wife emotionally cheated on me my husband cheated on me
    homemade abortion is the morning after pill abortion the day after pill
    click medical abortion misoprostol alternatives to abortion
    where do you get the abortion pill places to get abortion pill the abortion pill experiences
    married men cheat click here
    coupon for cialis new prescription coupon
    coupon for prescriptions cialis coupon card

    (c)2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 Liberty Call U.S.