Happy Memorial Day!

In Memoriam: American Patriots

"With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live as slaves." --Declaration of the Cause and Necessity of Taking up Arms, July 6, 1775

Patriots Remembered

[Today] is Memorial Day, that exceptional day of each year all Patriots reserve to formally honor the service and sacrifice of generations of uniformed Patriots now departed -- Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen who honored their sacred oaths "to support and defend" our Constitution and the liberty it enshrines.

In this era, however, our "progressive" academic institutions choose not to teach genuine history or civics. Consequently, many Americans have no sense of reverence or obligation for the liberty they enjoy. Indeed, many will "celebrate" Memorial Day as any other holiday, with barbecues, beer, and commercial sales at local malls. Simply put, they have sold out Memorial Day.

However, those of us who do understand the cost of liberty will advance this custom in honor of fallen Patriots, with both formal rites and simple prayers. For it is through the legacy of these Patriots that we are able to see most clearly our nation's noble history of eternal vigilance in support of liberty.

In 1776, an extraordinary group of men signed a document affirming our God-given right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Their commitment to the principles outlined therein are summed up in its final sentence: "And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor."

Founding Patriot John Adams wrote: "I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure that it will cost to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States."

And the cost has been incalculable.

Generations of Patriots have since pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor in defense of the Essential Liberty codified by our Founders in the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.

Our nation has, time and again, spent its treasure and spilt its sons' blood, not only for liberty at home, but also abroad.

However, Benjamin Franklin noted in 1777 that it should be so: "[O]ur cause is the cause of all mankind, and that we are fighting for their liberty in defending our own."

Since the opening salvos of the American Revolution, nearly 1.2 million American Patriots have died in defense of liberty. Additionally, 1.4 million have been wounded in combat, and tens of millions more have served honorably, surviving without physical wounds. These numbers, of course, offer no reckoning of the inestimable value of their service or the sacrifices borne by their families, but we do know that the value of the liberty they have extended to their posterity -- to us -- is priceless.

"It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died," said Gen. George S. Patton. "Rather we should thank God that such men lived."

While I greatly appreciate Gen. Patton's sentiment, I must respectfully disagree with his premise. I both mourn their absence and thank God they lived.

Etched into the base of the Iwo Jima Memorial in our nation's capital are the words of Adm. Chester Nimitz, his timeless tribute to the Marines who fought so valiantly there during World War II: "Uncommon valor was a common virtue." Such valor has attended every conflict involving American Patriots.

Not to be confused with men of such virtue, last week, Barack Hussein Obama addressed the graduating class at the United States Military Academy. His minions brokered Obama's appearance before the latest Corps (pronounced "core", not "corpse") of Cadets in the Long Gray Line, in an effort to burnish his thin veneer as "Commander in Chief" of our Armed Forces.

Obama used the occasion to dress up his strategy of appeasement.

In other years, men of somewhat greater stature have addressed the USMA, perhaps the most memorable being General Douglas MacArthur, who delivered his address on "Duty, Honor and Country," without the assistance of teleprompters, or even notes.

His words immortalize the spirit of all American Patriots who have served our nation in uniform:

Their story is known to all of you. It is the story of the American man at arms. My estimate of him was formed on the battlefields many, many years ago, and has never changed. I regarded him then, as I regard him now, as one of the world's noblest figures; not only as one of the finest military characters, but also as one of the most stainless.

His name and fame are the birthright of every American citizen. In his youth and strength, his love and loyalty, he gave all that mortality can give. He needs no eulogy from me, or from any other man. He has written his own history and written it in red on his enemy's breast.

But when I think of his patience under adversity, of his courage under fire, and of his modesty in victory, I am filled with an emotion of admiration I cannot put into words. He belongs to history as furnishing one of the greatest examples of successful patriotism. He belongs to posterity as the instructor of future generations in the principles of liberty and freedom. He belongs to the present, to us, by his virtues and by his achievements.

In twenty campaigns, on a hundred battlefields, around a thousand campfires, I have witnessed that enduring fortitude, that patriotic self-abnegation, and that invincible determination which have carved his statue in the hearts of his people.

From one end of the world to the other, he has drained deep the chalice of courage. As I listened to those songs of the glee club, in memory's eye I could see those staggering columns of the First World War, bending under soggy packs on many a weary march, from dripping dusk to drizzling dawn, slogging ankle deep through mire of shell-pocked roads; to form grimly for the attack, blue-lipped, covered with sludge and mud, chilled by the wind and rain, driving home to their objective, and for many, to the judgment seat of God.

I do not know the dignity of their birth, but I do know the glory of their death. They died unquestioning, uncomplaining, with faith in their hearts, and on their lips the hope that we would go on to victory. Always for them: Duty, Honor, Country. Always their blood, and sweat, and tears, as they saw the way and the light.

And twenty years after, on the other side of the globe, against the filth of dirty foxholes, the stench of ghostly trenches, the slime of dripping dugouts, those boiling suns of the relentless heat, those torrential rains of devastating storms, the loneliness and utter desolation of jungle trails, the bitterness of long separation of those they loved and cherished, the deadly pestilence of tropic disease, the horror of stricken areas of war.

Honor. Duty. Country.

Thomas Jefferson offered this advice to all generations of Patriots: "Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them if we basely entail hereditary bondage on them."

Indeed.

We owe a great debt of gratitude to all those generations who have passed the torch of liberty to succeeding generations.

In Memoriam, we recall these words from Henry Wadsworth Longfellow:

"Your silent tents of green
We deck with fragrant flowers;
Yours has the suffering been,
The memory shall be ours."

And these...

"[L]et us make a vow to our dead. Let us show them by our actions that we understand what they died for. Strengthened by their courage, heartened by their valor, and borne by their memory, let us continue to stand for the ideals for which they lived and died." --Ronald Reagan at Pointe du Hoc, 1984

I invite you to view these Memorial Day tributes at the Patriot YouTube Channel. Remember also that all purchases from the Patriot Shop support our Mission of Service to our Armed Forces. Permission to reprint, granted.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US

Fun And Frivolity: Coming Home And Insane Discoveries

Grab a tissue and watch these heroes come home:

Awesome.

Now, for that random bit of fun-ness that you know you just love to anticipate all week long...check out 6 insane discoveries that science can't explain (***language warning!***). My favorites:

#5.

The Antikythera Mechanism

The Mystery:

The Antikythera mechanism is an ancient, intricate machine found in a shipwreck near Greece that dates back to about 100 BC. The Antikythera mechanism contains gears and structures that were not found in devices again for 1000 years, and only then when the Muslims and Chinese were busy inventing s*** while the Europeans were busy killing each other.

Why Can't They Solve It?

First, no one can agree on where the Antikythera mechanism was made or who designed it. Popular belief was that it was made by the Greeks due to its instructions all being in Greek (about a million of our tax dollars were probably spent arriving at that genius conclusion) but serious research published in serious places suggested the design came from Sicily.

And a billion parts with indecipherable instructions suggest it comes from Ikea. Ba-zing!

The mechanism, aside from placing you at serious risk for severing a finger, was supposedly used to figure out astronomical positions. The problem with that is that at the time this thing was made, no one had yet discovered laws of gravity or how heavenly bodies moved.

In other words, the Antikythera mechanism appears to have functions that no one alive at that time would have understood, and no single mechanical purpose of that era (such as navigating ships) explains the crazy number of functions and settings this machine has.

Our Guess:

It's a scrap from a time machine that exploded the moment it arrived in the past.

#1.

The Bloop

The Mystery:

Tired of having its mind blown by the guys in the archeology department, in 1997 modern science's mind pulled itself up off the mat and triumphantly blew itself.

In that year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recorded a strange sound in the ocean. Strange and LOUD. So loud that it was picked up by two separate microphones 3,000 [miles] apart. The sound, dubbed "The Bloop," doesn't sound like anything at normal speed. However, the NOAA did us the favor of speeding up the recording to 16 times the normal speed, causing it to sound like a turd dropping into the toilet. Bloop! Except, you know, awesomely loud.

Scientists determined that its wave pattern indicates it was made by an animal, and not a giant electromagnet sucking a plane out of the sky, as the creators of Lost were no doubt hoping.

Why Can't They Solve It?

There is no animal big enough or loud enough to make that kind of noise, not by a long shot. Not a blue whale, not a howler monkey, not a startled teenage girl.

Not long after the NOAA posted the sound to their web site, some HP Lovecraft fans on the internet quite reasonably decided that The Bloop must have been made by Lovecraft's Cthulhu, a giant, murderous squid-dragon-thing.

Our Guess:

Yeah, we're also going with Cthulhu.

Other entries include giant stone balls, ancient iron pipes, and more. Check it out!

And have a great weekend!

The Whole Nine Yards

Earlier this week I posted a video of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie dropping the hammer on a union teacher whining about the injustice of only making $83k a year. Today we find out that that was just an edited version, and that the whole cut shows Christie giving the unions the whole nine nine yards. It's a beautiful thing to witness:

Boy, if only we had one guy like this leading every state, and even a handful of them in Congress...

There's my two cents.

The Military Is Not Exactly The Best Place To Conduct Social Engineering Experiments

But that doesn't stop liberal Democrats from doing it, anyway. Oh, and yes, by the way, consequences be damned:

...the House passed the compromise worked out to repeal Congress' decades-old policy on openly gay and lesbian military service.

Under the compromise, the statute implementing DADT will remain law until after the Pentagon completes its repeal review on December 1. Then, if the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs certify that the implementation of dropping the policy will not damage the military, they trigger this law and the DADT statute will be repealed.

The vote was largely along party lines, 234 to 194, though five Republicans—the newly minted congressman Charles Djou, as well as Joe Cao, Judy Biggert, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Ron Paul—voted with the Democrats.

The same compromise made it out of the Senate Armed Services Committee today 16-12, also on an almost party line vote. Senator Collins voted for the repeal compromise. Senator Webb voted against. That means it will be up for a vote on the Senate floor after the Senate comes back from the Memorial Day holiday.

Minority Leader John Boehner commented:

“Rushing ahead with a political decision without understanding how it will impact the men and women of our Armed Forces who are fighting two wars is deeply irresponsible. I hope Members of Congress who care about our national security on both sides of the political aisle will stand together to stop it.”

By the way, the chiefs of all the military branches oppose this repeal:

The heads of the Army, Marines, Air Force, and Navy oppose the current amendment to repeal "don't ask, don't tell." Senator John McCain's office just released letters from the chiefs of the armed services, as well as a statement from the senator urging Congress to let the military complete its study before taking legislative action.

“I cannot over emphasize the importance of completing the comprehensive review prior to taking any legislative action," says McCain. "Our military is currently engaged in two wars and we need to have a true assessment of the impact of repealing ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ on battlefield effectiveness prior to taking any legislative action. We must remain focused on what is in the best interest of our service men and women and not simply fulfill a campaign promise.”

McCain has written a letter to Levin opposing repeal. Here are excerpts from the service chiefs' letters:

“I remain convinced that it is critically important to get a better understanding of where our Soldiers and Families are on this issue, and what the impacts on readiness and unit cohesion might be, so that I can provide informed military advice to the President and the Congress,” said General George W. Casey, Jr, U.S. Army. “I also believe that repealing the law before the completion of the review will be seen by the men and women of the Army as a reversal of our commitment to hear their views before moving forward.”

“We need this review to fully assess our force and carefully examine potential impacts of a change in the law. My concern is that legislative changes at this point, regardless of the precise language used, may cause confusion on the status of the law in the Fleet and disrupt the review process itself by leading Sailors to question whether their input matters,” said Admiral Roughe ad, U.S. Navy.

“I encourage the Congress to let the process the Secretary of Defense created to run its course. Collectively, we must make logical and pragmatic decisions about the long-term policies of our Armed Forces – Which so effectively defend this great nation,” said General James T. Conway, Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps.

“I believe it is important, a matter of keeping faith with those currently serving in the Armed Forces, that the Secretary of Defense commissioned review be completed before there is any legislation to repeal the DA/DT law. Such action allows me to provide the best military advise to the President, and sends an important signal to our Airmen and their families that their opinion matters. To do otherwise, in my view, would be presumptive and would reflect an intent to act before all relevant factors are assessed, digested and understood,” said General Norton A. Schwartz, U.S. Air Force.

J.D. offers up a scenario of what will happen if DADT gets repealed:

If you are a person of, well, average intelligence, you know that there will be incidents between “straight” soldiers and “homosexual” soldiers. There will be fisticuffs involved, probably some sort of weapons involved, and you might as well reconcile yourself to accept that there will be incidents between “homosexual” soldiers and “straight” soldiers in which the “homosexual” soldiers will be killed. Of course, there is also the chance the fatally wounded soldier will be “straight. The point is – it is going to happen. Resign yourself to it. It is as certain as is the fact that day follows night.

Placing homosexuals in a platoon of trained killers with male testosterone running rampant in their bloodstreams and it is the equivalent of tossing a lamb into a pen of ravenous wolves.

Now, the folks over at the Pentagon KNOW this. It will fall on their shoulders to contrive ways to keep this from happening and not be accused of discrimination against the openly homosexual soldiers and/or the straight soldiers. Simply put -- it is going to be a mess!

Re-enlistments will drop. Recruiting will drop. Civilian respect for the military will drop -- precipitously. Unrest within the various military units where the actual fighting is done -- such as platoons, and squads -- will be palpable. Talk about a “Hostile Working Environment!”

Sadly, though, it appears the left is going to get its way with the military. They have shown a much lower level of respect for our fighting men and women than the right ever has. By repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” they have a chance to do some REAL damage to America’s defenders.

And that is, of course, one of the key planks in the liberal Leftist's agenda: destroy America's military superiority. Doing it from the inside out works even better than from the outside in.

It looks likely that this movement has enough momentum to pass, unfortunately. Let's just hope that the joint chiefs can turn back the tide before year's end.

There's my two cents.

John Kerry: You're Stupid And A Bunch Of Hypocrites

This is too funny:

Do you feel angry at Washington for its lack of accountability? Annoyed at your elected representatives for fiddling with the health-care system while the economy burned failed to ignite? Feel a bit put out at the massive amount of spending and debt rolled up by Democrats the last sixteen months? John Kerry has a message for you, which is that you’re nothing but hypocrites. Or, failing that, you’re just too stupid to comprehend the genius of your elites:

Times are tough, especially among those still looking for good jobs, but Sen. John Kerry doesn’t think Washington’s to blame. In fact the former Democratic presidential candidate, concerned with the anger voters are aiming at Washington, says that his party and President Obama are doing a ship-shape job.

“We’ve come back,” he says of the nation, Wall Street, and the economy. “This is an amazing resurgence.”

Kerry talked about the voter anger during a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor called to give him time to pitch his expansive climate and energy bill. He was asked if he’s ever seen such anger with Washington, in part inspired by the Tea Party movement named after the Boston Tea Party in his home state. …

“I think there’s a comprehension gap,” said Kerry. His point: While people may not be feeling the benefits of the bailouts and healthcare reform yet, Congress has been working with Obama to right the economic ship. Still, he sounded sympathetic to those kicked around by the economy. “There’s a sense of some things unraveling” to them, said Kerry.

But he said that the D.C.-directed attacks are hypocritical, since many of those attacking Washington spending presumably want to keep their Social Security and Medicare and want Washington to play a big role in the Gulf Oil cleanup. “There’s a huge contradiction on a daily basis,” he said.

You know, it's one thing to be called shtoopid by our betters in Washington. That happens all the time, and on both sides of the aisle. But, is John Kerry really the best person to be lecturing us about our shtoopidity and hypocrisy?

I rest my case.

There's my two cents.

Blistering The Most Least Involved President Ever

Michelle Malkin unloads on Barack Obama's listless press conference yesterday, and it's something to behold:

My column today examines the diffident demeanor of our commander-in-chief in crisis. To his oil spill and Christmas Day bomber press events, I should also add his bizarrely detached initial remarks about the Fort Hood jihadi attack — which he treated as an afterthought. Remember? Once is an oddity. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is a condition.

***

Barack Obama in crisis: Zzzz
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2010

President Bush's harshest critics often described his look during moments of crisis as "deer in the headlights." After two years of Hope and Change, America has grown accustomed to President Obama's crisis face: eyes glazed over.

At his first press conference in 308 days, Obama fielded questions about the Gulf oil spill, immigration, the war in Afghanistan and the mounting outrage over Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak's job-trading allegations with a sluggishness bordering on geriatric. His aplomb was a bomb.

The commander-in-chief's mumbling, diffident tone contradicted the "I CARE" message of urgency that drifted across the teleprompter screen and rolled languidly off his tongue.

"I am angry and frustrated," he heaved. Rather unconvincingly. He was "singularly focused," he asserted. Rather distractedly. The president did manage to work up enough energy to condemn BP and then turned to a moment of obligatory self-aggrandizement: "I'm confident that people are going to look back and say that this administration was on top of what was an unprecedented crisis."

How "on top" was he? Well, not enough to take the time on Thursday morning before his much-hyped appearance to nail down the details of how and why his Interior Department Chief of the Minerals Management Service Liz Birnbaum was no longer in office. "You're assuming it was a firing," Obama told reporters. "I don't yet know the circumstances." He explained that he was preoccupied with other matters and couldn't get ahold of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

When pressed to elaborate, he heaved again: "I don't know."

Then, addressing all the ignorant Americans who have failed to appreciate his rescue efforts, Obama mustered up a semblance of indignation: "Those who think we were either slow in our response or lacked urgency don't know the facts. This has been our highest priority since this crisis occurred."

And this is the Obama definition of accountability: blaming everyone else for lacking the Ivy League-honed comprehension skills to see the greatness of his fortitude and foresight.

How high of a priority did his administration really make the post-spill cleanup? After droning on haltingly about the federal failure to form an "oil…tracking…flow…group," Obama admitted with a shrug: "There was a lag of several weeks that shouldn't have happened."

With more self-pity than compassion, Obama wrapped up the rare press conference with a disjointed, off-script ramble:

"But look, we've gone through a difficult year and a half. This is just one more bit of difficulty. And this is going to be hard, not just right now; it's going to be hard for months to come. …

"You know, when I woke up this morning, and I'm shaving, and Malia knocks on my bathroom door, and she peeks in her head, and she says, 'Did you plug the hole yet, Daddy?' — (soft laughter) — because I think everybody understands that, you know, when we are fouling the Earth like this, it has concrete implications not just for this generation but for future generations. …

"And in case anybody wonders — in any of your reporting, in case you're wondering who's responsible, I take responsibility. It is my job to make sure that everything is done to shut this down.

"That doesn't mean it's going to be easy. It doesn't mean it's going to happen right away or the way I'd like it to happen. It doesn't mean that we're not going to make mistakes. But there shouldn't be any confusion here. The federal government is fully engaged, and I'm fully engaged, all right?"

Not waiting for an answer (or for any more nettlesome questions), he hurried off for a quick photo-op pit stop in the Gulf on Friday before jetting to Chicago to keep a high-priority promise to be back in his hometown for Memorial Day weekend.

The sterile performance was eerily reminiscent of his national security announcement last December from Hawaii, when he appeared before the American people in tie-less informal island wear to read a bloodless, perfunctory statement about the Christmas Day bomber. Eyes down on his notes the whole time, he described the failed attack with the weariness of a small-town sheriff's deputy, rather than as the leader of the free world. Then it was back to the beach. This is Obama in crisis: disengaged, put upon and impatient to get back to Me Time.

Rough men stand ready to keep and defend our well-being and safety. Someone wake President Obama when it's over.

Whoa!  Ouchee-wow-wow!

I listened to the first part of this press conference, too, and I also got the sense that it was all a big bother to him.  He threw out lots of one-liners that anyone paying attention knows were absurd, and he just seemed irritated that anyone would dare to question anything he said or did.  He just can't change who he is, and the facade has cracked, hopefully for good.  I think that his handlers know exactly how bad he is at this sort of thing, but the political heat had just become to hot to avoid doing a real press conference any longer.  After all, without the media on his side, the propaganda machine breaks down and the truth trickles out.  Can't have that nasty truth thing being public knowledge, you know.  So, when even Obot reporters started complaining in public about going almost a full year without a press conference, Obama had little choice.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  He screwed himself by performing dismally again, but at least he smoothed the press' ruffled feathers a bit.

But, the American people are now seeing him for what he is: a disinterested, better-than-thou, intellectual who has no solutions for real-world problems other than to throw gobs of taxpayer dollars and empty platitudes at them until someone in the private sector actually fixes them.

Jim Geraghty's daily newsletter had a great roundup of some of the best comments on the lackluster performance:

1. So That's Why He Doesn't Do Press Conferences Anymore

Early on -- say, 2005 or 2006 -- I thought then-senator Barack Obama was indeed a great speaker and a true rising star in politics. (For those jeering, cut me some slack, pal -- I was out of the country.) But then I caught him at a few candidate cattle calls in early 2007 and was strikingly underwhelmed; when your reputation is that you're LeBron James, JFK, Martin Luther King, and Jesus all rolled into one, you're expected to knock it out of the park every time. And the more he underwhelmed me, the more my social betters at larger publications kept insisting that his latest speech was the greatest in American history, or at least the best in American history since his last speech.

So when Obama completely bobbles a press conference, I'm not surprised; what does surprise me is when everybody else starts noticing.

Tom Maguire, writing at JustOneMinute: "Obama tells us he is in charge at his press conference, then goes off-message by claiming he was a mere bystander to the dismissal of the head of the Minerals and Management Services. NY Timeswoman Jackie Calmes asked a skeptical follow-up about this, so we will see how much BS the press can swallow."

Allahpundit, writing at Hot Air: "I could wring 10 posts out of that oil spill of a press conference but any more than three would be cruel to you guys, I think. So here's the first golden moment, which even some lefties were laughing at on Twitter. After solemnly insisting that 'the federal government is fully engaged and I'm fully engaged,' The One admits he's . . . not quite sure what happened with the head of MMS this morning because he was busy with a bunch of other important stuff at the time. Like, for instance, meeting with the Duke basketball team. In fairness, it's not entirely clear even now whether Birnbaum jumped or was pushed: Officially she resigned but sources tell CNN she was fired. Even so, given the growing public contempt for MMS's embarrassingly shoddy oversight, I'm amazed he didn't seize this as an opportunity for a 'damn right I ordered the code red on Birnbaum' moment. On a day when the public's desperately looking for authority and accountability, he's flatly admitting that he's out of the loop. Great work, champ."

The Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart, usually a reliable Obama fan: "Obama's admission that he was clueless on this question was shocking. Perhaps he was being polite. Not wanting to draw attention to the sacking of an individual the American people didn't realize was even there. But by not proactively announcing Birnbaum's departure and then being caught flat-footed on what happened to her, Obama will fuel the narrative that he is a cool chief executive who is not only aloof but also unaware of the machinations of his own administration."

I thought I had the perfect example of how meaningless Obama's rote pledges have become -- "We will not rest until," "Let me be clear" -- with my list of "top priorities" he's referred to since the initial explosion, but Tabitha Hale tweets, "Obama has made 2 visits to the gulf since the spill . . . and 4 visits to California to campaign for Boxer." (Although I wonder, is it four visits or four fundraisers in two visits?)

The comparisons of this being the equivalent of Bush's Katrina aren't exactly accurate -- though in some ways still very close -- for reasons I won't get into here.  Regardless, this does seem to be shaping up in such a way as to paint Barack Obama in a certain light that won't be kind to him no matter how much time passes, and are almost certain to hurt him politically big-time in the near future.  In fact, the anger and frustration has gone beyond the traditional Right and the right-leaners who still supported him, even boiling over onto the reliable Left now, too.  Not good for him, very good for America.

We'll keep watching him be 'on top of' and 'fully engaged in' the situation.

*snort*

There's my two cents.

This Congress Has No Shame

This is some supremely good stuff from Heritage:

On February 4, 2010, pushing for passage of her pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) legislation, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said on the House floor: “When I became Speaker of the House, the very first day we passed legislation that made PAYGO the rule of the House. Today we will make it the law of the land. … So the time is long overdue for this to be taken for granted. The federal government will pay as it goes.” That was the promise. But here is the reality: in the three years that Speaker Pelosi has enforced her PAYGO rule, the House has violated it by nearly $1 trillion.

And now with the U.S. Debt Clock officially passing the $13 trillion milestone Wednesday, the House is set to violate their own PAYGO law yet again, this time to the tune of around $150 billion. The legislation clocks-in at almost one-fifth the size of President Barack Obama’s original $862 billion failed economic stimulus, and the leftist majority in Congress has titled it “The American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act.” And it is a tax-hiking, spending-exploding, job-killing, deficit-hiking wonder.

The Tax Hikes: The entire purpose of this bill was originally to extend some popular and well-established tax cuts that have been around for years but have to be reapproved every year. But being the big government lovers that they are, the left has crafted a bill that actually increases tax revenues by $57 billion over ten years. The biggest items are a job-killing tax on American corporations that compete overseas, a job-killing tax on innovation-creating venture capital partnerships, and a four-fold increase in the tax on oil production that ostensibly is supposed to go to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, but is instead being siphoned off to help pay for completely unrelated new domestic spending.

The Spending: The bill originally clocked-in at almost $200 billion, and Democrats have since cut the spending to just under $150 billion, $95 billion of which will go straight onto our children’s credit card bill in flagrant violation of Congress’ own PAYGO rules. Goodies include $26 billion for infrastructure, more than $40 billion for yet another unemployment insurance extension, another $24 billion bailout of state Medicaid programs, $8 billion in needlessly expensive health insurance subsidies, and $2.5 billion for states to increase their welfare rolls. Even some Democrats are beginning to question the endless UI extensions, with Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA) telling The Washington Post that businesses back home complain that they want to start hiring but are getting few applicants because Congress has repeatedly extended unemployment benefits.

And then there is what was originally the largest-ticket item in the bill: $65 billion over three and a half years for increasing physician Medicare reimbursements, aka the “doc fix.” This one item alone proves that all of President Barack Obama’s claims that his health care law reduces the deficit are 100% false. The CBO report this month estimated that $276 billion would be required to shore up the “doc fix” over the next decade. Adding that spending to Obamacare’s already $940 billion total would easily push it into the red. That is why Congress did not address the problem in Obamacare. Brandeis University professor Stuart Altman calls the “doc fix” charade “one of the worst pieces of legislation I’ve ever seen.” The House has cut this version of the “doc fix” down to $21.8 billion just through December 2011.

Across the country, millions of American families are struggling to make family budgets and keep to them. Not Congress. For the first time in the history of the budget process, the House of Representatives has failed to plan how they will spend your tax dollars. Instead they will recklessly continue to flagrantly violate their own PAYGO rules as they add billions and billions worth of debt onto your children. This Congress has no shame.

That's right. And they deserve to be sent packing for it.

There's my two cents.

Awww...The Leg Tingle Evaporates

I don't usually enjoy laughing at others' discomfort, but I can't help it on this one. In just a year and a half we went from this...

...to this...

The only thing holding Barack Obama's approval ratings in the mid- to upper-40s is the fact that the media is completely sold out in defending Obama at all costs. If he loses even the Leg Tingler, can it be long until we see his ratings plummet even further?

Hmmm...


I'm just sayin'...

There's my two cents.

Ramirez On Iran And Obama's Endorsements

http://townhall.com/cartoons/cartoonist/michaelramirez

More Common Sense Conservatism

More awesomeness from the most forthright elected politician in America:

Love him or hate him, you’ve got to admit that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is not afraid to take a stand, speak his mind, or face the heat while doing it.

He served up his latest dish of no-nonsense honesty at a townhall in Rutherford, New Jersey, on Tuesday in defense of his plan to reform the Garden State’s bloated budget through an overhaul of civil service, reform of public pensions, and a constitutional cap on property tax growth.

And he’s taking flak for it. As you can see in the Video of the Week, a teacher confronted Christie and argued she’s underpaid for her work, given her education and experience. Christie’s reply? “Well, you know, then, that you don’t have to do it.”

A few weeks ago, a reporter questioned the governor’s penchant for tough talk and asked him about his “confrontational tone.” Christie said in response:

I believe in less government, lower taxes, and in empowering local officials who are elected by their citizens to be able to fix their problems. That may lead to a disagreement or two … [T]he fact of the matter is, this is who I am, and this is who the people elected.”

Colorful Q&A aside, Christie is drawing national attention for his decidedly different tack on coping with budget deficits – he’s cutting spending. (Well, OK, it’s “different” if your basis of comparison is the federal government.)

As he writes on RealClearPolitics.com, New Jersey’s fiscal crisis is marked by a $10.9 billion deficit and a $29.3 billion budget, which makes it the worst budget deficit percentage in America. So he’s proposing budget cuts, a cap on property taxes (because people can’t afford to pay them), a cap on spending, collective bargaining reform and other measures.

Christie explains that he knows how painful the cuts are but that he feels “an obligation to stand up and do what the people elected me to do, which is to get our government under control.” And like he says in this week’s video:

Unlike the United States of America, the State of New Jersey can’t print money.”

The U.S. Congress could use some of that commonsense conservatism.

Or a lot of it. That'd be even better.

There's my two cents.

The Economic Duh Factor: Increased Government Spending Results In Higher Unemployment

The explanation:

Don't color Veronique de Rugy shocked, shocked to find that government spending crowds out private investment, but the results of the new study by Harvard Business School will certainly shock some Keynesian academics — and high-ranking government officials.  Instead of providing a stimulating effect to the economy, government spending creates pressures on private industry to reduce staff and investment.  The study's authors count themselves as among the shocked:

Recent research at Harvard Business School began with the premise that as a state's congressional delegation grew in stature and power in Washington, D.C., local businesses would benefit from the increased federal spending sure to come their way.

It turned out quite the opposite. In fact, professors Lauren Cohen, Joshua Coval, and Christopher Malloy discovered to their surprise that companies experienced lower sales and retrenched by cutting payroll, R&D, and other expenses. Indeed, in the years that followed a congressman's ascendancy to the chairmanship of a powerful committee, the average firm in his state cut back capital expenditures by roughly 15 percent, according to their working paper, "Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?"

"It was an enormous surprise, at least to us, to learn that the average firm in the chairman's state did not benefit at all from the unanticipated increase in spending," Coval reports.

This surprising result does not come from a misapprehension about pork and its relation to the chairmanships of the committees.  Indeed, the study shows that pork dollars flow in mighty streams from those chairs to home districts and states.  It's not just earmarks, either, but also legislative expenditures that increase:

The average state experiences a 40 to 50 percent increase in earmark spending if its senator becomes chair of one of the top-three congressional committees. In the House, the average is around 20 percent.

For broader measures of spending, such as discretionary state-level federal transfers, the increase from being represented by a powerful senator is around 10 percent.

And yet:

In the year that follows a congressman's ascendancy, the average firm in his state cuts back capital expenditures by roughly 15 percent.

There is some evidence that firms scale back their employment and experience a decline in sales growth.

If this seems counterintuitive, it might be from marinating too long in Beltway conventional wisdom.  When private entities (citizens or businesses) retain capital, it gets used in a more rational manner, mainly because the entity has competitive incentives to use capital wisely and efficiently.  The private entity also has his own interests in mind, and can act quickly to use the capital to its best application.  Private entities innovate and look to create and expand markets, creating more growth.

In comparison, government moves much slower with capital.  It generally works to its own benefit and not that of private entities.  Lacking competition, there is no incentive for efficiency.  Most importantly, it rarely creates new markets or growth but instead creates a spoils system that ends up reorganizing the status quo to favor some and disfavor others.

All of that is certainly true in the long-term sense.  It now appears true in the short-term sense as well, despite the immediate application of government funds to specific areas.  If this study is true, it calls into question the entire concept of Keynesian stimulus, and it shows that the Obama administration has gone in an entirely wrong direction both in concept and in practical terms in attempting to create economic growth.  The best way to achieve growth appears to be to eliminate government interventions and to keep capital in the hands of the private sector.  And that's no shock at all to anyone who pays attention to economics.

Nor to anyone who's been reading this blog over the past two years.  Isn't it great to be ahead of the curve?  Now, if we could just wake up our liberal friends on the other side of the aisle...

There's my two cents.

Socializing America

Obama must be happy about this (emphasis mine):

Paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of this year, a USA TODAY analysis of government data finds.

At the same time, government-provided benefits — from Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps and other programs — rose to a record high during the first three months of 2010.

Those records reflect a long-term trend accelerated by the recession and the federal stimulus program to counteract the downturn. The result is a major shift in the source of personal income from private wages to government programs.

The trend is not sustainable, says University of Michigan economist Donald Grimes. Reason: The federal government depends on private wages to generate income taxes to pay for its ever-more-expensive programs. Government-generated income is taxed at lower rates or not at all, he says. "This is really important," Grimes says.

We've been on a path of gradual socialization for a very long time, but Barack Obama has shifted this process into warp speed.  He campaigned on re-making America, his background pointed to this conclusion, and his policies have implemented socialist-style Statism at every turn.  The Dems in Congress have played along the whole way.

And it won't stop until they're thrown out of office:

President Obama and Democrats on Capitol Hill are publicly fretting about the dangers of spending and debt, which can mean only one thing: Another big spending "stimulus" bill is in the works. And sure enough, the House plans to vote this week on $190 billion in new spending, $134 billion of which it won't even pretend to pay for.  ...

This bill is also one of the most expensive corporate welfare giveaways in recent years with subsidies for municipal bond traders, cotton farmers, yarn producers, sheep growers, Hawaiian sugar cane cooperatives, motor sports businesses, renewable energy firms, the steel lobby, and so on. Any industry that doesn't get a tax credit or other handout in this bill should fire its lobbyist.

All of this is "paid for," in the Beltway lingo, with a net tax increase on business of about $40 billion and at least $134 billion of new debt. There's a new 24 cent a barrel tax on oil companies, which would flow to consumers in higher gas prices, because Congress says the industry's profits are excessive.

I'm not sure 'paid for' should count hypothetical tax increases because it hasn't happened yet, and it has a negative effect on the economy anyway.  And since when does Congress get to determine how much a company can earn before it's considered 'excessive'?  Anyway, this new jobs bill is just more of the same.

Here's the almost inescapable conclusion:

Perhaps you're wondering what happened to the "pay as you go" budget rules that Mr. Obama announced to great media fanfare as recently as February. Democrats now say "paygo" doesn't apply because this spending qualifies as an "emergency." But while the new spending isn't paid for, Democrats are insisting that the bill's extension of the R&D tax credit and small business depreciation allowance must be offset by the tax increases.

Oh, and by the way, the President is unveiling a new line-item veto proposal this week to "rein in wasteful spending and hold Congress accountable," as Senator John Kerry put it yesterday in a press release. If any of them were remotely serious, they'd start by line-item vetoing this entire bill.

Yeah, that'll happen.

On a related note (emphasis mine):

Tuesday's primaries were more proof of the anti-incumbency mood felt in many parts of the nation, and a new Rasmussen Reports poll finds that many voters continue to feel a randomly selected sample of people from the phone book could do a better job than their elected representatives in Congress.

The latest national telephone survey of Likely Voters finds that 41% say a group of people selected at random from the phone book would do a better job addressing the nation's problems than the current Congress. ...

These findings show little change from early January and early September 2009. However, the number of voters who feel a random selection could do better is up eight points from early October 2008, just before the presidential election.

I find this tidbit very interesting:

Yet while 57% of Mainstream voters think a random selection from the phone book would do a better job than the current Congress, 90% of the Political Class disagree.

Ignorance is bliss, Congress.  Ignorance is bliss.  Until you get thrown out on your rotten, lying, out-of-touch butts, that is.

There's my two cents.

Obama Continues To Play Games With Arizona

There's some very interesting news on this already touch subject. Check it out:

The White House released a statement yesterday following their decision to deploy 1,200 National Guard troops to the border to target illicit trafficking networks:

The President is committed to a strategic approach, consisting of a requirements-based, temporary utilization of up to 1,200 additional National Guard troops to bridge to longer-term enhancements in border protection and law enforcement personnel from the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice to target illicit networks’ trafficking in people, drugs, illegal weapons, money, and the violence associated with these illegal activities.

Later in the day Mexican President Calderon set the rules for the troops.
From the Mexican Foreign Ministry, via Michelle Malkin:

Regarding the Administration’s decision to send 1,200 National Guard servicemen to the US Southern border, the Government of Mexico trusts that this decision will help to channel additional US resources to enhance efforts to prevent the illegal flows of weapons and bulk cash into Mexico, which provide organized crime with its firepower and its ability to corrupt.

Additionally, the Government of Mexico expects that National Guard personnel will strengthen US operations in the fight against transnational organized crime that operates on both sides of our common border and that it will not, in accordance to its legal obligations, conduct activities directly linked to the enforcement of immigration laws.

At least we know who the boss is.

Um...is anyone else thinking this is mighty strange? Why should the President of Mexico dictate what our troops are and are not allowed to do?

Well, maybe we're just misunderstanding things. Let's see what President Obama says about the matter:

The AFP reported:

US National Guard troops being sent to the Mexican border will be used to stem the flow of guns and drugs across the frontier and not to enforce US immigration laws, the State Department said Wednesday.

The clarification came after the Mexican government urged Washington not to use the additional troops to go after illegal immigrants.

President Barack Obama on Tuesday authorized the deployment of up to 1,200 additional troops to border areas but State Department spokesman Philip Crowley told reporters, “It’s not about immigration.”

He said the move was “fully consistent with our efforts to do our part to stem, you know, violence, to interdict the flow of dangerous people and dangerous goods — drugs, guns, people.”

He said the extra troops would be used to free up civilians engaged in support functions so that law enforcement personnel can be increased along the 2,000-mile-long (3,200 kilometer) border.

Aw, damn.

On a related note, the federal government has issued a warning of terrorist activity on the U.S.-Mexico border. Oh, and these National Guard troops will be unarmed.

But other than that, yeah, this is a tremendously great move on Obama's part. He's really cracking down and helping out the American people, especially in the state of Arizona. Whew, now we're saved!

There's my two cents.

Louisiana Is Not Happy With The One

That's putting it mildly, actually:

Keep in mind: this is a Democrat!

Obama's Katrina, anyone? How's that vacation, Mr. President?

But it's not only the problem of Obama failing to act here (which he is)...the problem is also the fact that his absence on the issue is preventing local authorities from acting, too:

“Let’s be clear: Every day that this oil sits is one more day that more of our marsh dies,” Gov. Bobby Jindal (LA) said Monday. “We’ve been frustrated with the disjointed effort to date that has too often meant too little, too late for the oil hitting our coast,” he continued. Specifically, Jindal is frustrated by the failure of the federal government to produce the 8 million feet of oil-blocking booms it asked for back on May 2nd and 3rd. So far Louisiana has only received 815,000 feet of boom, and even then the federal government has failed to place it in the correct locations.

Worse, Obama administration regulators continue to deny Louisiana officials permission to build up barrier islands between the coast’s marshes and the gulf. Federal regulators have so far refused to permit the state to act, fearing the unintended long-term damage to local wildlife. So instead of action, the oil continues to float on shore threatening the livelihoods of millions of Louisianans.

Why the silence? It couldn't be simply based on politics, could it? Because Jindal is a Republican? Nah, surely not. That would be putting politics over principle, and sticking a finger in the eye of the American people, and Barack Obama would never, ever, EVER do that.

Right...?

There's my two cents.

More Of That Superior Judgment, I See

Since he was almost entirely unqualified for the office of the President, Barack Obama during the 2008 campaign often asserted that his superior judgment would more than make up for any possible lack of experience he might have.

Now, we all know of the worsening disaster happening in the Gulf of Mexico, right? While the oil continues to wash ashore and ***GASP!!!*** destroy the local environment there, Barack Obama displays what could only be considered more of that superior judgment he promised:

President Barack Obama plans to spend a long holiday weekend in Chicago.

The White House says Obama and his family will travel to their hometown on Thursday and stay through the weekend. It will be their first trip back home since a visit for Valentine’s Day weekend in February 2009.

...

In Obama’s absence, Vice President Joe Biden will participate in the customary wreath-laying ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery outside Washington.

He will, however, make time to award a prize to Paul McCartney. Superior judgment, indeed! And a fine sense of priority, too, don't you think?

Well, maybe he delegated the oil spill to one of his underlings. He's got all those unconstitutional czars running around, so maybe one of them is doing something about this in Obama's absence. How about it, EPA czar? Uh, don't hold your breath:

Apparently Lisa Jackson figures that if Interior Dept CoS Tom Strickland could go white-water rafting while the oil spread, she can go raise money for the Democrats:

As the Obama administration struggles to contain the massive oil spill threatening the Louisiana coast, one of its top environmental officials will be the featured attraction at a fundraiser for Senate Democrats next week in Manhattan, at which donors are promised they can speak to her about their “issues of concern.”

I have an ‘issue of concern:’ the Governor of Louisiana is shouting at the federal government to sign off on emergency sand berms to keep the oil away from wetlands; and the administration is dithering.

I'm guessing Louisiana and other gulf states might be swinging a little more toward the red this November...

There's my two cents.