Fun And Frivolity: Political Cartoons

Readers and friends have forwarded me a bunch of funny political cartoons in the past few weeks, so I'm going to go ahead and post my favorites of those rather than the usual non-political humor. Thanks to all of you who contributed! Enjoy...
















Have a great weekend!

The Reasonable Cost Of Drilling For Oil

Another winner from Laura at Hot Air's Greenroom:

The Gulf of Mexico oil spill is a catastrophe. It’s literally going to make large swaths of the coastline and wetlands a disaster area. It’s also part of the reasonable cost of drilling for oil, and Obama’s order to shut down all new American drilling is shortsighted and foolish. (The Russians, Chinese, and other countries will continue new drilling in the Gulf, regardless.) So impulsively shutting down new drilling certainly doesn’t do anything to protect our coasts. It just means that every day we wait, America will have less of a share of the oil off our own coast.

A little perspective is in order: the reason this is such a shocking disaster is precisely because this sort of thing is so rare. I’m not insensitive to how it’s going to affect the Gulf Coast. I live here. I’ve got shrimpers and fishermen in my family. And I promise you, in spite of this awful accident, we don’t want drilling shut down. Most people want it expanded. We need the jobs, the country needs the oil, and the federal government, with its massive spending binge, would surely like to have the revenue. A little known fact: other states split drilling revenue 50-50 with the federal government. Louisiana, on the other hand, has never received that. We’re fighting just to get to 37.5%. And even that doesn’t start until 2017.

Conservatives chant “Drill, baby, drill!” because we know that right now, oil is the most cost-effective form of energy available. We think it’s great that research is being done into green energy. We’d love it if hydrogen fuel cells, the wind and the sun could power how we live. But they can’t right now. So we need to continue drilling for oil, because these sort of accidents are part of the cost of doing business just as Chernobyl was part of the cost of nuclear energy.

At some point soon they’ll stop the thousands of gallons of oil per day from spilling into the Gulf. Some fish, birds, and assorted critters will die – others will be saved with the help of volunteers, just like they were after the Exxon Valdez disaster. The coastline will be cleaned, and the tourism and fishing industries will eventually come back and wildlife will return to the affected areas. We’ll figure out what caused the explosion on the rig, and try to prevent it from happening again. We’ll learn new lessons about how to prevent spills and how to mitigate the damage when the do happen. And we’ll keep drilling – or we should. Because the last thing we need in this train wreck of an economy is higher energy prices.

ADDED: Politics of fear – AP plays the otter card and Ace sums up:

It’s the childishness of this all though that bothers me, the refusal to accept the simple proposition that in life, there are choices, and choices have consequences, and sometimes it’s necessary to accept some downside to get a lot of upside. People don’t seem to acknowledge the upside of petroleum — like being able to drive places, or having heat and electricity in their homes, and so on — because it “just happens,” by magic, I guess.

On the other hand, show them a dying otter and they want to stop this all.

Crossposted.

Added x2: If you’re in the Gulf Coast area and you want to volunteer to help with the cleanup, register here.

I couldn't agree more with this. As a nation, we need rational, clear thinking in order to correct significant problems; in times of duress, we need that clear thinking more than ever. We need to get past the otter card and instead think about things like how much our children are going to be paying for gas ten years from now and how much power Middle Eastern oil countries will have over us in a generation. This oil spill is a tragedy, yes, but it's a momentary one. It will be corrected very shortly. To deliberately cripple the entire American energy industry will be a tragedy that endures for years, perhaps even until it becomes a legacy.

And that will be a legacy we won't be proud of.

There's my two cents.


***UPDATE***
Oops! I got my links swapped, and incorrectly attributed this article to Dr. Zero. In fact, it was posted by Laura, and has now been corrected. Sorry, Laura, and thanks for the correction (and your brilliant words)!

Spinning The Economy

Let's be shocked:

Obama: Drop in GDP growth rate means we're on the right track, or something

Share

Er, come again? The White House crowed endlessly about the 2009Q4 annualized GDP growth rate of 5.7% in January, even after most of it was shown to come from inventory adjustments. Now Barack Obama wants to treat today's announcement of a 3.2% annualized GDP growth rate as a continuing improvement, when (a) it failed to meet analyst expectations of 3.5%, and (b) it's a significant drop from the last report. Don't worry, though, because as Obama explains in this clip provided by Greg Hengler at Townhall, he has a different measure of progress

The economy that was losing jobs a year ago is creating jobs today. After the single biggest economic crisis in our lifetimes, we're heading in the right direction. We're moving forward. Our economy is stronger — that economic heartbeat is growing stronger. But I measure progress by a different pulse.

Well, obviously. A 3.2% annualized GDP growth rate is better than the -6.0% of a year ago, but it's still not a figure that will create the kind of economic expansion that will move large numbers of Americans from unemployment rolls to payrolls. Even the White House acknowledges that much in its own projections of unemployment. Despite Obama's claims above, we still aren't at a level of net job creation, and the continuing status of initial jobless claims in the mid-400K range means we're not even getting close to break-even yet.

One last point that I neglected to mention from the earlier post. Federal spending only rose 1.4% in 2010Q1, while state government spending dropped by 3.8%. The Porkulus money has all but stopped appearing in the economic measures. That makes the 3.2% a bit more solid than earlier measures, but it also means that Obama's ability to artificially boost numbers before the midterms appears to be dissipating. The next quarters' numbers will be quite interesting in terms of its affect on the national debate. If it's still stuck at around 3% and unemployment continues to stagnate, Democrats will have trouble trying to use the spin Obama applied today.

Spinning the economy?  That's about the only thing they know how to do.  Other than destroy it, that is.

There's my two cents.

Silence And Salt

Michelle Malkin:

From the "It's a little like hiring John Edwards to be your marriage counselor but way worse" file, we find yet another pathetic reason the US should have nothing to do with the United Nations:

NEW YORK — Without fanfare, the United Nations this week elected Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women, handing a four-year seat on the influential human rights body to a theocratic state in which stoning is enshrined in law and lashings are required for women judged "immodest."

Just days after Iran abandoned a high-profile bid for a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council, it began a covert campaign to claim a seat on the Commission on the Status of Women, which is "dedicated exclusively to gender equality and advancement of women," according to its website.

They left out that women's cleavage causes earthquakes, and women are arrested and who knows what else for the crime of being suntanned.

Iranian activists circulated and submitted a petition asking that member states oppose Iran's appointment, but that piece of paper was apparently tossed on the UN's pile of unpaid parking tickets and quickly forgotten.

No word from Barack Obama or any other liberal feminist about how this is a bad idea.  Hm, I wonder why.  I guess pro-Muslim political correctness trumps pro-woman political correctness, thus the silence.

On the other hand, they have a great deal to say on the subject of how much salt you eat every day:

The Food and Drug Administration is planning an unprecedented effort to gradually reduce the salt consumed each day by Americans, saying that less sodium in everything from soup to nuts would prevent thousands of deaths from hypertension and heart disease. The initiative, to be launched this year, would eventually lead to the first legal limits on the amount of salt allowed in food products.

What??  Look, it's one thing for the government to require that all foods clearly indicate their ingredients and the specific quantities of everything in them; it's completely another to actually regulate how much of any food you get.  This change in policy is essentially saying that Americans are too stupid to make the right decision on what they eat.

Thank you, Nanny State, may I please have another!

Being sold as a solution to the risks of high sodium conditions like cardiovascular disease, Hot Air points out the fact that salty foods have not been shown to be linked to CVD.  But, you know liberals - they never let the facts get in the way of a good cause!

Not surprisingly, most Americans oppose this idiotic idea of regulating salt.  For one thing, how would it be enforced?  Would there be a new Salt Police?  Legal Insurrection looks on the bright side: if a Salt Police is actually formed, it might create a few jobs.  It would be the first concrete jobs plan Obama has offered the nation.

Nevertheless, as with most thing political, it all comes down to freedom and power.  Do Americans have the freedom -- translate: power -- to make choices about their own health and diet?  Or, does the government have the power to take away Americans' freedom, even to the point of dictating what we eat on a daily basis?

If liberals get their way, they will have total control over every aspect of American life, while at the same time remaining silent on truly disturbing things like global human rights policy being dictated by one of the worst human rights offenders in the world.  If that's the kind of America you want to live in, by all means keep voting for liberal Democrats.

There's my two cents.


Related Reading:
Waiter! There's a boot in my plate!

A Calm, Reasonable, And Devastating Response To Critics

UMKC law professor Kris Kobach:

The arguments we've heard against [the recently passed Arizona illegal immigration law] either misrepresent its text or are otherwise inaccurate. As someone who helped draft the statute, I will rebut the major criticisms individually:

It is unfair to demand that aliens carry their documents with them. It is true that the Arizona law makes it a misdemeanor for an alien to fail to carry certain documents. "Now, suddenly, if you don't have your papers ... you're going to be harassed," the president said. "That's not the right way to go." But since 1940, it has been a federal crime for aliens to fail to keep such registration documents with them. The Arizona law simply adds a state penalty to what was already a federal crime. Moreover, as anyone who has traveled abroad knows, other nations have similar documentation requirements.

"Reasonable suspicion" is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct. Over the past four decades, federal courts have issued hundreds of opinions defining those two words. The Arizona law didn't invent the concept: Precedents list the factors that can contribute to reasonable suspicion; when several are combined, the "totality of circumstances" that results may create reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.

For example, the Arizona law is most likely to come into play after a traffic stop. A police officer pulls a minivan over for speeding. A dozen passengers are crammed in. None has identification. The highway is a known alien-smuggling corridor. The driver is acting evasively. Those factors combine to create reasonable suspicion that the occupants are not in the country legally.

The law will allow police to engage in racial profiling. Actually, Section 2 provides that a law enforcement official "may not solely consider race, color or national origin" in making any stops or determining immigration status. In addition, all normal Fourth Amendment protections against profiling will continue to apply. In fact, the Arizona law actually reduces the likelihood of race-based harassment by compelling police officers to contact the federal government as soon as is practicable when they suspect a person is an illegal alien, as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment.

It is unfair to demand that people carry a driver's license. Arizona's law does not require anyone, alien or otherwise, to carry a driver's license. Rather, it gives any alien with a license a free pass if his immigration status is in doubt. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country.

State governments aren't allowed to get involved in immigration, which is a federal matter. While it is true that Washington holds primary authority in immigration, the Supreme Court since 1976 has recognized that states may enact laws to discourage illegal immigration without being pre-empted by federal law. As long as Congress hasn't expressly forbidden the state law in question, the statute doesn't conflict with federal law and Congress has not displaced all state laws from the field, it is permitted. That's why Arizona's 2007 law making it illegal to knowingly employ unauthorized aliens was sustained by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In sum, the Arizona law hardly creates a police state. It takes a measured, reasonable step to give Arizona police officers another tool when they come into contact with illegal aliens during their normal law enforcement duties.

And it's very necessary: Arizona is the ground zero of illegal immigration. Phoenix is the hub of human smuggling and the kidnapping capital of America, with more than 240 incidents reported in 2008. It's no surprise that Arizona's police associations favored the bill, along with 70 percent of Arizonans.

It's hard to get more clear than that.

And, while we're on the subject, don't be fooled by talk of 'comprehensive immigration reform' - that's nothing more than a code phrase for amnesty, which will only make the problem worse by rewarding with citizenship and sanctuary those who are causing these problems in the first place.  Tolerating lawlessness, corruption, and violence is not compassionate, and if you want to talk about 'fairness', let's talk about how 'fair' all this is to those who are suffering the effects of these problems: law-abiding American citizens.

What we have here is a systemic incursion of non-Americans who are forcing their way onto American soil and unleashing violence on innocent American citizens, and Barack Obama is taking their side.  Sounds like he's cranking up the war against a free and prosperous America to a whole new level, doesn't it?

There's my two cents.

High Priest Of Green-ness Raises Hypocrisy To New Level

Michelle Malkin:

Clearly Gore’s humble Nashville abode was way too confining, so Al has purchased a new gigantic pulpit from which to preach to the rest of us about how our gas-powered leaf blowers and electric can openers are killing the planet:

Former Vice President Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, have added a Montecito-area property to their real estate holdings, reports the Montecito Journal.

The couple spent $8,875,000 on an ocean-view villa on 1.5 acres with a swimming pool, spa and fountains, a real estate source familiar with the deal confirms. The Italian-style house has six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms.

It’s perfectly understandable — when you’re full of that much s#*t you need a lot of toilets — but a seaside mansion? Gore doesn’t seem too intimidated by the imminent rising oceans his fellow enviroscammers keep predicting. What a brave soul!

Even the commenters at Democratic Underground are turning on Gore.

You know, when it comes to Al Gore, this is one time I heartily agree with Obama:

“I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”

And I do think at a certain point the argument is over.

There's my two cents.

Off-Teleprompter Remarks Once Again Reveal Obama's True Beliefs

You'd think he would have learned by now, but no:

Via News Alert and Breitbart TV, consider this Share the Wealth 2010. Barack Obama went off the TelePrompter in his speech to a Quincy, Illinois audience about Wall Street reform. After saying that Democrats don't begrudge success that's "fairly earned," Obama then ad-libs — and reveals more about himself than he probably wanted:

We're not, we're not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that's fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you've made enough money. But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you're providing a good product or providing good service. We don't want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy.

Compare that to his remarks as prepared for delivery:

Now, we're not doing this to punish these firms or begrudge success that's fairly earned. We don't want to stop them from fulfilling their responsibility to help grow our economy.

He should have stuck with the TelePrompter.

Of course, we've learned more actual truth about Barack Obama when he's spoken off the teleprompter (i.e. bitter clingers, spread the wealth around) than at any other time in the past three years, so I'm not complaining.

Regardless, the real meat of this incident is that Obama has revealed two very important things that he believes:
1. it is possible to make 'enough' money, and one should presumably stop at that point
2. he is qualified to judge when that point is reached

Does this bother anyone else?

Hot Air offers some further analysis:

...that's a statist point of view. Furthermore, the responsibility of an entrepreneur isn't to "grow our economy," core or otherwise. It's to grow his own economy. In a properly regulated capitalist system, the natural tension of self-interests create economic growth through innovation and efficient use of capital and resources.

Put simply, a free people work for themselves, not for the government. Barack Obama seems to have a problem understanding that.

I'm not sure he has a problem understanding it - I think he understands it just fine, but he finds that concept to be repulsive.  That's why he's doing everything in his power to undermine it and scrape more power into the hands of government, where he believes it rightfully belongs.  This is nothing new, but at this point I think that more Americans are open to the truth about him, and that's why his poll numbers continue to drop and support for his agenda continues to shrivel.

By the way, Gateway Pundit helpfully reminds us that Obama's income in 2009 was $5.5 million.  Apparently that's not 'enough', but whatever Wall Street CEOs earn is 'enough'.  Hmmm...

There's my two cents.

The Permanent Campaign Amuses

As you know, I'm on Barack Obama's campaign e-mail list, just for fun.  From time to time, they send out campaign messages (it's a permanent campaign for them, remember) asking for more money, usually demonizing Sarah Palin, George W. Bush, or the eeeeeevil bitter-clinger-mobster sect of which I am a proud member.  These messages usually amuse me because they are spinning so fast and loose with the truth that they would make a gyroscope envious.

The most recent of these e-mails made me chuckle more than usual.  See if you can see why:

Friend --

"Republicans win back House, Senate." "Voters reject Obama's agenda."

If you listen to the talking heads on TV, it's like November 3rd's headlines are already written.

But here's what they don't know -- and it's why they're dead wrong: The same grassroots movement that knocked on the most doors, made the most calls, and inspired the most first-time voters in history in 2008 hasn't gone anywhere. In fact, we're gearing up to do it all again.

You heard it from the President on Monday. We've been planning for the fall campaign all year. And we know full well that winning nationally means organizing locally. Every House district holds an election this year, and all but five states will vote statewide for a governor or senator.

We need to get moving in MO -- and all over the country -- earlier than ever before. David Plouffe and I have taken a hard look at the numbers, and we need 8 donations from [my city] by May 1st to kick off our efforts.

Please donate $5 or more to help us get more boots on the ground and start implementing our 2010 grassroots strategy now.

My first thought: I haven't seen any of these headlines, nor anything remotely resembling those headlines.  Sure, there has been plenty of analysis comparing the conditions leading up to 1994 -- when Dems were slaughtered -- and current conditions, but the adoring media probably won't even write headlines like that after it's actually happened (it'll be more along the lines of "GOP Cheats, Steals Election", or some such nonsense).  My second thought is that yes, that 2008 grassroots movement has gone somewhere: across the aisle.  They've lost all the major demographics but the youth -- and now they're losing them, too -- and their base's enthusiasm is nowhere near that of the GOP base.  But go ahead and keep calling out the rallying cry to the great big empty room, if it'll help you feel better.

Aside from all that, though, what really made me chuckle is that last bit - they need 8 donations -- each one a whopping $5 -- in order to put more 'boots on the ground' in my corner of the world.  Really?  A whole $40 would do it?  Well, gee, where's George Soros when you need him?  I assume this form e-mail would have a lot more impact in a major city or zip code, where they're asking for thousands of donations and millions of dollars.  Or, at the very least, it wouldn't look like a half-baked e-mail scam from Nigeria.

Or Kenya...

There's my two cents.

Obama Uses Outright Racism To Shill For Immigration Reform

Wow, this is pretty audacious, even for the one who spent more in his first year than all 43 presidents before him. You can check out the video at the link, but it's so filled with the same old lies and campaign slogans that it kinda makes me sick, so I'm not going to post it here. The key section is this, according to Politico:

The Democratic National Committee this morning released this clip of the president rallying the troops, if rather coolly, for 2010. Obama's express goal: "reconnecting" with the voters who voted for the first time in 2008, but who may not plan to vote in the lower-profile Congressional elections this year.

Obama speaks with unusual demographic frankness about his coalition in his appeal to "young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again."

What??  He only wants these people to help him out?  What's he got against Americans of the Asian, European, or male persuasion?  By the way, this is the most post-racial President ever.  Forgot that little detail.

There's my two cents.

The Guy Just Doesn't Miss

Michael Ramirez, that is, certainly not on these Obama vs. the economy cartoons...





Brilliant!

There's my two cents.

Your Papers And Other Nonsense

The opposition has reached a fever pitch on the Arizona law now, with media outlets readily parroting the notion of 'showing your papers' and extreme racial profiling being the result. Why? Because that phrase conjures up all the scariest images of Nazi Germany or the Communist Soviet Union. We've already talked a lot about this, but it appears that this issue isn't going away any time soon. There's a really good reason for that, but we'll get to that in a moment. First, let's take a look at a bit more commentary.

First, it's interesting to note that the Governor of Arizona has seen a HUGE leap in the polls -- 16 points -- since signing this bill into law. Though a couple of Arizona cities are planning to fight the law, other states seem to be taking Arizona's actions as an example, too. Lawmakers in Texas are planning to bring forward a bill much like Arizona's. In California, lawmakers are talking about the inherent problems of anchor baby citizenship:

Representative Duncan Hunter wants to deport the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants.

Hunter, who spoke at a tea party gathering in Ramona Saturday, said he does not believe children born to illegal immigrant parents should get automatic U.S. citizenship.

“We’re not being mean,” he told the crowd. “We’re just saying it takes more than just walking across the border to become an American citizen.”

Our media partner the North County Times confirmed the statements when a reporter spoke with Hunter Tuesday.

The congressman, whose district includes parts of Poway and Ramona in North County, told the paper that it makes sense that if the parents of illegal immigrant children are deported, that their children go with them. Hunter said he also supports a bill, House Resolution 1868, that would eliminate automatic citizenship for those children.

Amen to that! There are other states looking at similar measures, too.

Ironically, the AP is now reporting that angry illegal immigrants are pledging to leave Arizona. My first thought: cool, it worked immediately! If all 50 states passed a law like this, we would apparently resolve 100% of illegal immigration instantly and without having to deport a single person! My second thought: how is it that the Left insists that we cannot possibly even consider mass deportations because we couldn't possibly even find all these illegal immigrants...and yet, that same Left is always -- ALWAYS -- able to dig up an illegal or two every time they want to write an article about how horrible it is that American citizens think that the laws of America should be obeyed. Just sayin' you can't have it both ways...

Anyway, Byron York knocks it out of the park with a blistering critique of a Washington Post columnist's whine-fest (emphasis mine):

In the Washington Post, columnist and former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson pronounces the new Arizona immigration law "understandable -- and dreadful." Gerson says states do not have the authority "to take control of American immigration policy -- an authority that Arizona has seized in order to abuse." The effect of the new law, he argues, will be bad for everybody:

It makes it harder for illegal immigrants to live without scrutiny -- but it also makes it harder for some American citizens to live without suspicion and humiliation. Americans are not accustomed to the command "Your papers, please," however politely delivered. The distinctly American response to such a request would be "Go to hell," and then "See you in court."

Which leads to the question: What America is Gerson living in? No, we are not confronted by actors with heavy German accents demanding our papers. We are instead confronted routinely by people of all stripes asking to see our driver's license. When we board an airplane, we are asked to produce a government-issued photo ID, usually a driver's license. When we make some credit- or debit-card purchases in department stores, we are asked to produce a driver's license. When we enter many office buildings, both private and government, security guards often ask us to produce a driver's license. When we go to doctors' offices and hospitals, we are asked to produce a driver's license. When we check into hotels, we are asked to produce a driver's license. When we purchase some over-the-counter drugs, we are asked to produce a driver's license. If we go to a bar or nightclub, anyone who looks at all young is asked to produce a driver's license. And needless to say, if we have any encounter with police or other authorities, we are asked to produce a driver's license.

Some situations involve an even higher level of scrutiny. When we get a new job, we are asked to provide not a driver's license but a passport or birth certificate to prove citizenship. In other situations, too: When I renewed my District of Columbia driver's license last year, I had to produce a passport to prove citizenship, even though it was a valid, unexpired license I was renewing. And in many places, buying a gun -- a constitutionally-protected right -- involves enormous scrutiny.

Has Michael Gerson never experienced any of those situations? And by the way, has he read the Arizona law? Does he know that it specifically states that in any encounter with police, when a person produces a valid Arizona driver's license (or, for non-drivers, other forms of ID listed in the law), that person is immediately presumed to be in the United States legally? Given all the situations listed above, can anyone argue that being asked to produce a driver's license, if one is in some sort of encounter with police in which police are acting lawfully (that is also specified by the new law) is overly burdensome? Being asked to produce identification is a burden that falls on everyone.

That is simply a fact of life today. Many of the situations in which we are asked to produce ID are the result of laws passed by our representatives, Democrats and Republicans, that are, overall, good things. But they require Americans to produce their papers, in the form of a driver's license, quite frequently. If Americans responded with "Go to hell" and "See you in court" each time they were asked to produce their license, both hell and court would be very crowded.

P.S. -- All the discussion above relates to people who are American citizens. In addition to the situations requiring a driver's license, some people might not know that since the 1940s, federal law has required non-citizens who are in the United States permanently to carry on their person, at all times, the official documents proving that they are here legally -- green card, work visa, etc. That has been the law for 70 years, and the new Arizona law does not change it.

So can we please drop the scary images of Nazis and Communists? Rush Limbaugh suggested on his radio program that the behavior of the Obama administration has been far more thuggish and Nazi/Communist-like over the past year, what with the takeover of private car and insurance companies, unconstitutional brute force legislative tactics to confiscate 17% of the American economy and 100% of the American health care system, anti-transparency on all manner of issues, the generation of crisis after crisis simply to expand government power, governing against the will of the people on most of the major issues, and so on. It's a good point, if we're going to be discussing Nazi/Communist behavior, I think.

And how about that lame argument about 'fairness'? It's hogwash:

Democrats say that they're in favor of everything being fair. Let me ask this. How is it fair to legal immigrants that have taken all the necessary steps to become legal citizens for years to grant everybody legal benefits even if they aren't legal and have cheated the system? What is fair? If we're going to use fairness let's throw it right back in their face. What about any of this is fair? Isn't it funny, ladies and gentlemen? Isn't it funny how much we heard about the need to cut our health care spending? But neither Obama nor any of the Democrats ever suggested that providing health care services for millions of noncitizens was ever once mentioned as part of the problem. In fact, wouldn't part of our new era of fiscal responsibility notice how many billions of taxpayer dollars are being spent on illegal aliens who are getting costly services that they are not paying for? We've got this big blue ribbon commission with Irksome Bowles and Alan Simpson. They're going to recommend all these Draconian steps, we've gotta get the deficit under control.

We never, ever hear anybody say, in this era of fiscal responsibility, about all the billions of taxpayer dollars that are being spent on illegals. And, of course, ladies and gentlemen, wouldn't anybody who is turning his laser-like focus on providing jobs for Americans, wouldn't that person notice that there would be a lot more jobs available for our citizens if there were not so many noncitizens here illegally? Obama loves to talk about the need for people to have skin in the game, doesn't he? How do illegal aliens have skin in the game? They don't. That's social injustice.

And we can't have social injustice, you know. Damn the consequences, we CANNOT HAVE SOCIAL INJUSTICE!!!

Doug Powers at Michelle Malkin's site observes an interesting contradiction:

Obama has blasted the new Arizona illegal alien law that 70% of Arizona votors favor as “poorly conceived” before his justice has even finished its review (a “poorly conceived” law to the Obama administration being one that the signatory actually took the time to read). But in the same speech, Obama also said that illegals shouldn’t be harrassed with requests for papers, but rather the US should “make them register, make them pay a fine, make them learn English.”

And exactly how do we know who needs to register without checking IDs? Naturally, Obama doesn’t mean any of it — except maybe the “register” part. I have no doubt the goal is to get illegals to register… as Democrat voters.

As a Senator, Obama voted “no” on making English the official language for the US government. If Obama doesn’t care if I can understand what the clerk at the DMV is saying when I’m trying to renew my driver’s license (which I have to produce papers for, by the way), I seriously doubt he cares if a construction worker in Tuscon can speak English.

The “wink, nudge” factor from this speech yesterday in Iowa is enough to knock you off your chair — and if that doesn’t do it, you’ll fall off the chair laughing

That really brings us to the core of the issue: why do the Democrats insist with an almost religious zeal that we allow unchecked and rampant illegal immigration, even at the expense of our own safety, security, and economic health?

Because this is their only hope for winning elections.

If Democrats were completely honest about their beliefs, intentions, and plans for governing America, they would never win. As usual, Rush Limbaugh explains it best:

Drop.io

And just to clarify...

Drop.io

Bingo. Need a real-world example of how this affects you? Rush supplies again:

"A Federal immigration probe in 1996 into alleged motor vote fraud in California's Orange County revealed that 4,023 illegal voters possibly cast ballots in the disputed election between Robert Dornan and Loretta Sanchez for Congress." Dornan lost that race by fewer than one thousand votes, and there were alleged to be 4,000 illegal votes. That is the point.

So there you have it. But, if you're a long-time reader of this blog, you knew that already.

The icing on the cake, of course, is that under the new DemCare regime, everyone will be required to 'show their papers' to prove they have insurance and avoid the insurance enforcement tax and legal prosecution by the IRS...everyone except illegal immigrants, that is.

Go figure.

There's my two cents.


Related Reading:
Deconstructing the outrage
Brilliant liberals boycott Arizona brand drink products...without realizing it's based in New York

The Banking 'Reform' Bill

I hesitate to use the word 'reform', even in quotes, because it's anything but reform. Well, unless you define reform as changing a privately owned and controlled industry to a government owned and controlled industry. But only a liberal would do that.

Anyway, what about this bill that the Senate is kicking around now? Heritage gives you the bottom line:

And aside from all of those problems, there's another teeny, little, almost inconsequential thing you should know about...'bank' could mean just about any business:

The Dodd financial reform bill is beginning to scare executives. However, it is not necessarily scaring bankers or Wall Street fat cats. It is scaring motor cycle manufacturers, college presidents, retailers, car dealers, and even coffee shop executives. All of these people and more are waking up to the Dodd bill’s threat to their businesses.

If you read the Dodd financial reform bill carefully, the words “bank” or “financial” could refer to many more people than just bankers. Those words apply to any provider of “financial products” even if the major business of the company is something completely different. On page 131, the summary of the bill’s section creating a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau says that the section “makes clear that financial products or services defined in the Act that are offered or provided for use by consumers primarily for personal, family, or household purposes are considered to be “consumer financial products or services” for purposes of this Act.

In addition, other key financial activities that are central to consumers are also included in this definition. These include, among others listed, the servicing of mortgage loans and debt collection services where the financial service being provided is the result of a contract between the lender and the servicer or debt collector. For example, mortgage servicers typically provide services to the owners of the mortgages. Nonetheless, this service is included in the definition of “consumer financial product or service” because of its obvious impact on consumers. A number of other financial activities of a similar nature are included in this definition.

In short, the definition is open-ended and could apply to just about any service that is sold to a consumer.

Oh, and the leaders of these 'banks' also include an interesting group of people, too:

...if you run a company or a college or just about anything that might remotely offer a financial product to consumers, the Wall Street fat cats this bill aims to regulate just might include you.

You might want to place a call to your Senators and tell them that this isn't really in any business' best interest.

There's my two cents.

Dems Continuing Pretending They're Serious About Fiscal Responsibility

Read this whole post from Gateway Pundit:

Here we go, get ready for the looting…
"Shared Sacrifices Will Solve the Debt Crisis"
Having a frank conversation about the realities of the budget is harder than promising not to raise taxes.

What he means is that American producers will have to share and sacrifice.

Somebody has to pay the Obama-Pelosi debt off.

Hoyer slanders Bush for the Obama-Pelosi debt.
From The Wall Street Journal this morning:

Americans are rightly outraged over our nation's fiscal situation. The course we're on will lead to public debt that will exceed the size of our entire economy, and a government that will eventually exist to do only two things: fund entitlement programs and make interest payments. Americans may be wondering whether the Greek financial crisis could happen here.

It will—unless we change course. There's a myth that our budget deficit mess sprang into existence at the presidential inauguration on Jan. 20, 2009. But in truth, more than 90% of the projected deficit we will face over the next decade is the result of President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the rescue of the financial sector he began in the last few months of his presidency, and lower revenues from the recession.

That is a horrible lie.
During the Bush years, despite the 2000 Recession, the attacks on 9-11, the stock market scandals, Hurricane Katrina, and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush Administration was able to reduce the budget deficit from 412 billion dollars in 2004 to 162 billion dollars in 2007, a sixty percent drop. In 2004 the federal budget deficit was 412 billion dollars. In 2005 it dropped to 318 billion dollars. In 2006 the deficit dipped to 248 billion dollars. And, in 2007 it fell below 200 billion to 162 billion dollars. During the Bush years the average unemployment rate was 5.2 percent, the economy saw the strongest productivity growth in four decades and there was robust GDP growth.
Obama, on the other hand, has destroyed the economy.

But, democrats want desperately for you to believe that it was George Bush who passed the failed stimulus and record 2009 spending bills.
Hoyer even goes on to say that Barack Obama has shown fiscal restraint:

Voters are demanding that Washington take fiscal responsibility seriously. Democrats agree. But the public has a responsibility, too: To understand that lower taxes and higher spending may be popular, but they are a dangerous combination that leads to exploding deficits.

On a host of other issues, President Barack Obama also showed his seriousness about fiscal restraint. His budget freezes nonsecurity discretionary spending and cuts our deficit by more than half by 2013, and more than $1.3 trillion over the next decade. He signed a bill to reform weapons acquisition and target cost overruns at the Pentagon.

Is he freaking serious?
Obama has been the most irresponsible spender in history. Obama raised government spending to a record level and then froze it.
This article is infuriating. What garbage.

These are the truths that we must speak confidently and loudly.  If the Leftist media and political establishment is successful in painting over the reality of what happened and who is responsible, then no real change will be enacted and nothing will be corrected.  Since American prosperity is currently being flushed down the toilet, we need some major changes fast if we are to pull out of the tailspin.

Unfortunately, we have a planet-sized mountain of evidence that Washington in general (and Dems in particular) have zero ability or inclination to do anything resembling fiscal responsibility.  Here's the latest continent-sized chunk to throw on the pile:

The deficit commission held its first meeting yesterday, but another debate is taking place on the Hill these days. The 54-member Blue Dog Coalition is asking Appropriations chairman David R. Obey (D., Wis.) that domestic spending cuts go beyond what President Obama proposed in his fiscal 2011 budget.

They want an $8 to $10 billion cut in non-defense, non-homeland-security spending. In the worst-case scenario, that's a $10 billion cut out of a $530 billion budget. That's 1.89 percent.

That's 0.73 percent of the discretionary budget (security and non-security appropriations).

That's 0.27 percent of total spending.

You'd think that would be doable. But, according to Congressional Quarterly, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer disagrees.

"You know, we're in a very tough situation, and it's very tough for people to make decisions that they don't want to make because they don't want the consequences," Hoyer said. "Some people want to cut more, some people want to not be cut as much."

I would suggest that if they can't cut $10 billion out of $3.7 trillion (which is the equivalent of cutting $8.30 a month out of a $50,000 annual salary, or $16.6 a month out of a $100,000 salary), they are unlikely to perform appropriately when the time comes (i.e., now) to make the necessary cuts in the budget to address the entitlement-spending explosion.

There's simply way any rational and intelligent person can think that the people who are now running the show are capable of doing what it takes to restore economic health to America.  This country desperately needs the immediate removal of any and all such elected officials -- regardless of party -- at the next election.  If they supported bailouts, takeovers, reckless government expansion, or legislative thuggery of any kind, VOTE FOR THE OTHER CANDIDATE.

Period.  It's that simple.

If we as American voters can't take the time and exert the small effort it would take to learn at least that much about the people we're voting on, then we really have no grounds to complain about handing our kids and grandkids a craphole of an economy, nor do we have any defense against their certain ire and miserable circumstances.  Now, if you want to start your preparation early, this is the absolute best place to start.

There's my two cents.

Barack Obama: Taxes Then And Now

Barack Obama, pre-President:

Barack Obama, President:

(h/t Hot Air)

Now, the question is...

contradict:

–verb (used with object)

1. to assert the contrary or opposite of

lie:

-verb (used without object)
5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.

So which is it? Of course, it's largely an academic question, since your taxes are going up regardless of his intentions.

HOPE! CHANGE!

(Or not.)

There's my two cents.

Arizona Follow Up

Some pretty major developments have prompted another update. The Governor of Arizona signed into law the stringent new illegal immigration law we discussed earlier in the week. Obama promptly criticized everything about the law and called for it to be rolled back. His people are still whining and grumbling about it being really, really unfair. Obama mouthpiece MSNBC was SHOCKED that the Arizona law would actually make being an illegal immigrant illegal!

Indignant Mexicans and illegal immigrants took to the streets to protest:

I especially like how they throw stuff at the cops, don't you? Cassy Fiano points out the obvious:

Frankly, the rioting seems to do nothing except bolster the argument for why this bill was needed. The federal government has failed Arizona residents. Despite growing numbers of crime — drug smuggling, assault, rape, kidnapping, murder — nothing has been done to secure the borders or crack down on illegal immigration. While not all illegal immigrants are violent criminals or drug smugglers, they are all criminals. Even if our borders aren’t well-enforced, it is still a crime to cross them illegally. The federal government has just sat back and let it happen. The state of Arizona responded to the overwhelming crime… and the protestors of this bill responded to the state with violence.

Kind of just proves the whole point of why this bill was needed, doesn’t it?

The point is that if it weren't for the frequent (and violent) crimes committed by a disproportionally high number of illegal immigrants, the state government would probably ignore them just like the federal government has done since 1986. But, with real safety concerns and violent crime escalating against its local citizens, the Arizona government cannot ignore this problem any longer.

This isn't a sudden development, though. For a stroll down memory lane of past violent protests by illegal immigration supporters, go here. Now, for an ironic look at the other side of the coin, Mexico's immigration policy, go here. It's amazing how much gall these people have to caterwaul and bellyache about America's policy!

Regardless, a close look at the actual bill reveals there really is no cause for concern...for anyone who wants to preserve American sovereignty and uphold American law, that is.

Far from authorizing local police officers to pull Hispanics from crowds at random and demand to see proof of legal residency, the law requires a prior "legal contact" -- that is, there needs to already be something going on, like an arrest or a traffic stop. The law specifically bans race and ethnicity as the sole grounds for a "reasonable suspicion" of illegal presence in the United States. Noncitizens have been legally required to carry proof of legal residence on their persons for 70 years.

As Byron York points out, this was actually a law that was carefully crafted to withstand both political objections and legal challenges. Rich Lowry has more on the hysterical reaction to Arizonans wanting some protection from federal non-enforcement of the laws safeguarding their borders.

This situation is very informative for many reasons. To watch Obama and the Left fight so hard to defend illegal law-breaking criminals from the ravages of legal American citizens trying to protect their families should be an eye-opening experience. To see them generate hysteria at the enactment of legislation that is widely supported in a state, and to misrepresent the ramifications of that legislation should be, as well.

Once again, we see the core of the tension: it is Barack Obama and the American Left versus the American people, and it is war.

There's my two cents.

A Shiver-Inducing Preview Of The Coming DemCare Doctor Shortage

Remember that whole doctor shortage thing that will only get worse now that DemCare is law?  One of the solutions being bandied about is to utilize technology to make up for that lack of qualified doctors.  How might that play out?  Maybe like this:

The effort, loosely called e-Health or e-Care, combines health-care technology with 21st-century Internet connectivity. It will allow doctors to interact with their patients through innovations such as video chats, telephone health checkups, and home-health monitoring devices that relay data over wireless Internet connections.

 

"The development of the broadband network and health information technologies has the potential to truly transform health care and simultaneously enable better outcomes and lowering costs," said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).

 

One of the new health technologies on display last Thursday was an automatic drug dispenser that can monitor and adjust medication dosages wirelessly, allowing doctors to tailor dosages of drugs such as insulin without having to schedule in-person visits with patients. 

 

"What we're talking about, folks, is using a device like this one," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said, as he displayed the small device. "It attaches to the patient's skin and is loaded with drugs that are administered in the exact way that the doctor prescribes – wirelessly. 

Okay, let's stop and think for a moment, shall we?  First of all, while this idea has some merit in terms of reducing costs and increasing efficiency, it is profoundly disturbing.  I believe there are times when just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it.  This is one of those times.

What if you fall and dislodge the automatic injector?  What if the machine malfunctions and injects half a dose or twice the normal dose, or stabs you repeatedly?  What if your power goes out and the machine is in paperweight mode and you don't get your medication?  You have no qualified medical personnel around to spring into action in any of these or any other scenario.

Now, let's take the next step.  Do you trust anyone who has a wireless link directly into your body?  What if the doctor gets drunk after a birthday party and just happens to sit down in front of his computer for some real life entertainment?  What if his computer gets stolen, or what if he loses his smartphone?  Who's going to have access into your automatic injector?  Furthermore, do you trust the link itself?  Remember, the government is going to control the health care system in just a few more years...do you trust the government with a needle pointed at your heart and the ability to inject you remotely?  What if the link itself gets hacked?  Don't kid yourself that the United States has impenetrable security - remember this?  Or this?  If it's a wireless Internet connection, I assure you it can be hacked.

Quite frankly, this idea of having a wireless medical device strapped to (or, even worse, embedded in) my body that is controlled remotely by someone else is one of the scariest things I can imagine.  I would rather die than let that happen.  Of course, given where DemCare is headed -- unless the GOP can repeal it in the next four years -- that's entirely within the realm of possibility.

So be it.

But what do you think?  You'd better start giving it some thought...this isn't just science fiction anymore.

There's my two cents.

Barack Obama Surrenders Another Frontier

On top of disarming America's nuclear arsenal, shutting down proven missile defense technologies, killing off air superiority fighters, and snubbing our allies, Barack Obama has also managed to surrender yet another traditional American frontier: space.  This post from The American Spectator is a pretty damning recounting of Obama's backward sprint:

Any long-term future for the U.S. in space has suddenly become a great deal less assured, despite the fact space flight has been paying massive dividends for decades. President Obama, to the joy of some rivals and enemies of the U.S. Space program, has produced a future of fudge for it, which upon examination looks as if it is no future at all. Apparently, according to the president, the U.S. is not going back to the moon because it's already been there, but it's going somewhere else. Where exactly is a moot point:

Obama has been reported as  saying:

Now, I understand that some believe that we should attempt a return to the surface of the Moon first, as previously planned, but I just have to say pretty bluntly here: We've been there before. Fifty years after the creation of NASA, our goal is no longer just a destination to reach. Our goal is the capacity for people to work and learn and operate and live safely beyond the Earth for extended periods of time, ultimately in ways that are more sustainable and even indefinite.

Like so many of Obama's speeches, it sounds good at first, with something in it for everyone. Except that at a second look, there doesn't seem to be anything in it for anyone, least of all the space-program. It sounds less like a program for exploring space than for putting off space exploration as jam tomorrow and, literally, pie in the sky. It also seems to fit uncomfortably well with to use old-fashioned language, a turning away from the concept to manifest destiny, which surfaces in Obama's thoughts and actions at times.

Neil Armstrong and fellow Apollo 11 program commanders James Lovell and Eugene Cernan have released a letter saying that while some of Mr. Obama's NASA budget proposals have merit, the decision to cancel the Constellation program, the Ares 1 and Ares V rockets and the Orion spacecraft is devastating.

American astronauts could now only reach low earth orbit and the International Space Station by hitching a ride on the Russian Soyuz spacecraft at a price of more than $50 million per seat, the letter said.

It continued:

For the United States, the leading space-faring nation for nearly half a century, to be without carriage to low earth orbit and with no human exploration capability to go beyond earth orbit for an indeterminate time into the future, destines our nation to become one of second- or even third-rate stature.…

Without the skill and experience that actual spacecraft operation provides, the USA is far too likely to be on a long downhill slide to mediocrity.

Britain provides a historic example. Socialist Prime Minister Harold Wilson (who once promised: "We are restating our socialism in terms of the scientific revolution ... the Britain that is going to be forged in the white heat of this revolution will be no place for ... outdated methods.") and left-wing Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath between them killed off a successful and inexpensive British space program in the 1970s with its own rockets and satellites (and which, if proceeded with, would have been a financial Golconda). There was never the money or, more importantly, the will and inspiration, to start it again. It drifted off into the realms of "one day…", becoming ever more remote. A tiny British space agency has only just been restarted and its future seems vague and uncertain (this in a country which each year spends enough on gambling to finance the U.S. Space program).

Establishing a proper base on the moon would be a huge and challenging undertaking. Establishing a base somewhere else -- Mars or the asteroids -- would be many times more difficult, expensive, and dangerous. This is not to say it couldn't, or shouldn't, be done eventually -- it certainly should and inevitably someone is going to do it eventually -- but to bypass the moon, a case of running before one can walk, is simply bizarre. If the U.S.'s goal really is "for people to work and learn and operate and live safely beyond the Earth for extended periods of time," the moon is the obvious place to learn how to do it.

Obama's reported reason for abandoning the moon project -- "We've been there before" -- if taken seriously, and U.S. presidential policy pronouncements are meant to be taken seriously -- is simply horrifying in its myopia, ignorance and philistinism. It is as if 16th-century Spain refused any further funding for exploring the Americas on the grounds that Columbus had already reached it ("But one day we'll go to the North Pole").

Twelve men have landed on the moon and stayed for a few hours, the last more than 40 years ago. They brought back some rock samples. This was important but in terms of advancing science did not even scratch the surface of what could be done.

The Chinese, it seems, appreciate the potential scientific and possibly military value of the moon. They have launched four manned rockets, the last carrying two men, and it is reasonable to guess that they are aiming at a permanent moon-base. India, Europe, and of course Russia are all pushing into space, while the U.S. throws away its lead.

In fact, the moon is a ready-made space station. Its low gravity means large spacecraft can be assembled there relatively easily for longer voyages. As a major bonus large quantities of water have recently been found there -- a heavy and incompressible substance difficult to transport into space: you can't save weight or space in a space-ship's stores by carrying compressed or dehydrated water. The mere fact of working in vacuum might well establish a whole set of new industries and technologies. It is simply impossible to know what benefits and innovations a moon-base would bring, but it is safe to say that, like the space program itself, they would be substantial.

Further, while an operating moon-base might be a practical demonstration of the value of space flight, as artificial satellites have been, with all sorts of unforeseen benefits, it is hard to imagine the money ever being available for a one-off shot straight to Mars. What it looks like is administering euthanasia to the space program while disguising the fact in pseudo-stirring language of exploration, adventure, and discovery. It is also hard to imagine "astronaut" being first choice for a career-option among the best and brightest when the possibility of getting into space, let alone of setting foot on another world, is suddenly decades away, if it still exists at all.

*sigh*

There's my two cents.