Tuesday, July 29, 2008

The Speech

Barack Obama gave a speech to thousands of Germans in his recent world tour, and I wanted to pass along some analysis of it.  Here's a good summary from Newsmax:

As crowds cheered Obama globally, Americans here on the homefront were left wondering if the Illinois senator wants to be their president -- or the president of some other country. [And whether the major U.S. media would at least offer the pretense of objectivity. An MSNBC poll from last week found that 47 percent of the public thought the coverage of Obama's trip was "excessive."]

After Obama's speech to an estimated 200,000 Germans in Berlin, a columnist for Britain's Guardian newspaper began his review this way: "Barack Obama has found his people. But, unfortunately for his election prospects, they're German, not American."

Obama's speech to the Germans left much to be desired, from an American's perspective.

Of course, it didn't hurt the attendance (but was widely unreported) that there had been a free rock concert with several popular bands immediately before the speech.  Conspicuously absent from the stage during Obama's speech was an American flag.  His aides later insisted that was because he was only a visiting Senator, not the President, but there is no protocol that prevents any American official from flying an American flag at a foreign appearance.  His speech was filled with soaring rhetoric that was borderline anti-American:

And then there was his speech, in which he proudly proclaimed he was in Germany as a "a fellow citizen of the world."

And there was the spectacle of the presidential wannabe going to a foreign land to apologize about the United States.

Obama told his German audience he was sorry about his country because "I know my country has not perfected itself." [This comment was made in the former seat of Nazi power. A letter to editor published in Obama's hometown Chicago Tribune noted the irony: "While America may not be perfect, there is no reason to apologize to the Germans, architects of the Holocaust."]

As for America's role in saving Germany from the onslaught of Stalinist communism and the subsequent Cold War, there was nothing.

There was a rhetorical flourish about the Berlin Wall coming down, but nothing about the great American sacrifice, not to mention how our military might made President Reagan's call -- "Tear down this wall, Mr. Gorbachev" -- a reality.

There was a fleeting mention of the famous Berlin airlift of 1948 that President Truman ordered to thwart the Soviet blockade that sought to starve West Berlin.

As Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby wrote, "Obama seemed to go out of his way not to say plainly that what saved Berlin in that dark time was America's military might.

"Save for a solitary reference to 'the first American plane,' he never described one of the greatest American operations of the postwar period as an American operation at all. He spoke only of 'the airlift,' 'the planes,' 'those pilots.' Perhaps their American identity wasn't something he cared to stress amid all his 'people of the world' salutations and talk of 'global citizenship.'"

So, the speech ticked off Americans back home, even some in his usually adoring MSM.  How did it go over with his German audience?  Not well there, either.

Germany's Stern magazine carried the headline "Barack Kant Saves the World."

One of their columnists, Florian Güssgen, wrote: "The man is perfect, impeccable, slick. Almost too slick … Obama's speech was often vague, sometimes banal and more reminiscent of John Lennon's feel good song 'Imagine' than of a foreign policy agenda."

Slickness without substance seemed to be the enduring theme of his trip.

To top it all off, Obama canceled a visit to see wounded soldiers at an American base while he was in Germany.  As is customary for visiting officials, the Pentagon said he could visit as a Senator (with his official Senate staff), but not as a presidential candidate.  The idea here is to prevent wounded soldiers from being used as pawns in a photo op or campaign ad.  This is standard practice, and if Obama actually visited more wounded soldiers, he probably would have known that.  But, when he found out that none of his press entourage or campaign staff would be allowed on the visit, he declined.  He felt it was more important to work out at his hotel.

Lee Cary has more details and breakdown of many of the specific statements from the speech if you're interested. 

The point is that this trip flopped.  The Germans were less than thrilled, and it raised a whole new set of question marks for Americans.

There's my two cents.

Monday, July 28, 2008

Response To Comment About Global Poverty

An anonymous reader left the following comment:
While I agree with your assessment of the UN and its ability/inability to get things done on foreign aid and combat of world poverty, I disagree with your perspective on how unfair it is that the USA should have to bear a dollar amount in helping aid SOME attempt at foreign relations.

Your statistics for the US poverty rates clearly indicated that unemployment in America have been severely attacked by many congressional and presidential sessions over time, and though the numbers are not as staggering as we would hope, the overall percent is in a downward direction over time.

That said, the US, coupled with many other "Rich Nations" have all failed in foreign aid on the large scale to meet promised goals at UN and EU meetings. Take a look at the following link for detailed information as to where the US measures up in the aid of foreign nations

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#RichNationsAgreedatUNto07ofGNPToAid

Thats right, as of April 2008, DEAD LAST!!! That appauling. No wonder with US PR and reputation is at an all time low and no matter where we might vacation or "ehrm" WAR we look like a selfish nation bent on only our own sucess.

Now with all this said, I dont feel that the UN is the best "elected officer" for the foreign relations patrol, but the US does need to step up its game in aiding poverished countries. Perhaps not to the tune of $2500/person, but somethings should be done in order to turn this Self-Centered America reputation around. As of now, thats about all we are living up to with respect to foreign relations.

Obama is no godsend. Bush's war has been a less than appropriate use of funds as well. This is a war that started as 9/11 retaliation, then WMD and Saddam's removal and has now changed to a spread of freedom to Iraqi people. Its out of shear luck that it has actually worked out in the positive in terms of an overal success. It has done nothing but negative to further tank US reputation as a Self-Centered, oil hungry, capitolist driven society.

We have freedoms yes, and iy came with a price, but I dont believe that foreign relations should be viewed as Darwin views creation, a survival of the fittest.

The next president must have a plan for foreign relations, foreign aid and improving the dirtied US reputation.

There's my nickel's worth
I wanted to address these comments on a post rather than in a follow up comment, so here we go...

My point here is about prioritization. Let me try to explain a bit better.

You misunderstand the numbers I cited about poverty - the percentage of poverty has crawled down slightly, and the number of people itself has remained almost static. The point is that, for all the trillions of dollars spent to deal with poverty here in America, where there are as many opportunities as there are street corners (meaning that anyone who wants to make something of themselves can do so), there has not been significant progress. If we extrapolate the massive amount of money it would take to make even the same insignificant difference on a global scale, and even $845 billion wouldn't come close. Let's do the numbers.

With a population of 300 million people (and this is a generous number, because it's a snapshot of the current population rather than the population from 40 years ago) and a dollar amount of $9 trillion, that works out to $30,000 per person. Now, extrapolate that to 6.7 billion people on the world, and you have a total dollar amount of $201,000,000,000,000!!! I'm pretty certain that's a number that's way out of reach, even for America!

Now, remember, that amount of money would have to be spent to just make an insignificant difference...what do you suppose would need to be spent to make a significant difference? It's unimaginable. So, the idea that the U.S. can simply wave a magic dollar bill and make global poverty disappear is completely ludicrous.

On the other hand...

The extra $2,500-2,800 in taxes each American will be slapped with will make a significant dent in most people's checkbook registers, don't you think?

This is what I'm talking about when I say it's a matter of prioritization. This bill can't possibly make a difference to global poverty, but it will make a difference to American families trying to make ends meet. That's where we need to focus, especially in these uncertain economic times.

Now, to address your greater point - you say that America should pay a higher burden for global poverty. If you're referring to the concept of those who have been blessed much should give much, I agree with you. The website you reference has more information than I can possibly digest fully, much less comment on, but I would like to make some general points.

First, America is incredibly generous. As your website points out, it gives the biggest amount of money to aid global poverty, though the numbers show its percentage as very low. Fine. Would you rather have someone donate 1% of a billion dollars to charity, or 80% of $10,000 to charity? I think the answer is obvious. And, your website also points out the obvious fact that the American people give more than double what the government gives. I don't know about others, but that's what I mean when I say that America is the most generous nation on the planet. Without American aid dollars, how would any country recover from natural disasters? It would be a different world if America's generosity dried up!

In my humble opinion, the way that America can best help fight global poverty would be to export the things that made America great: tremendous work ethic, ingenuity, the freedom to succeed (which also means the freedom to fail), technological advancement, etc. Wherever these things spread, prosperity follows. Look at the world over the past few decades - every nation that has been defeated and subsequently liberated by America (i.e. Germany, Japan) has been re-established with some form of free democracy, and it has seen incredible growth and prosperity. The entirety of Eastern Europe is exploding right now because the Iron Curtain was thrown back, and they have been allowed to scratch their way out of poverty; some of our most die-hard allies are in Eastern Europe, where America is very popular.

And, you're missing the point of aid entirely. It's not to provide the solution, but rather the means to a solution. What happens to many lottery winners? They go bankrupt in just a few years. Why? Because they simply aren't equipped to handle the responsibility that comes with a vast amount of money. The same thing can happen to poverty-stricken nations. If vast sums of American aid money suddenly get dumped on them, it ends up being worse because they come to depend on handouts. The far better solution is to use that aid money to provide avenues for the people of those poverty-stricken nations to pull themselves out of poverty. By doing so, they will have learned and earned the things they need to properly handle that aid money.

See the difference? I guess it all comes back to the fish example: if you give a man to fish, you feed him for a day; if you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime. I'd rather provide aid in the form of teaching than giving.

Now, you make some other assertions that I feel must be addressed...

There is no "Bush's War". Don't forget, Congress not only gave Bush their approval to fight this war, but they actually required Bush to come back to them a second time so they could vote in favor of the war on the record. You can't change history just because it doesn't agree with your argument.

This war was also not a retaliation for 9/11 - that suggestion shows a shallow understanding of what this war is all about. Islamic terrorists have been attacking American targets for decades, but it is only when Bush took office that America decided to actually fight back. I suggest you look at my previous blog posts about the differences between fighting terrorism as a law enforcement policy rather than a military policy. It is the law enforcement strategy of the Clinton years that ignored numerous major attacks that led to the escalation that ended with 9/11. Since Bush implemented the military strategy, how many major attacks have we experienced? Zero.

The stated goal of Iraqi freedom and WMDs was always a part of this military action. Again, you can't revise history just because it doesn't agree with your argument! And, hindsight tells us there is no doubt about the tight connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda. No one ever suggested Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks, but there is no doubt that he was an active and major participant in Al Qaeda's training, financing, and supporting operations. There were WMDs, and he used them. Again, all these details can be found in my blog.

Victory in Iraq is not luck. It is the result of a brilliant strategy that has been even more brilliantly achieved through the proper equipping, training, and execution of the strategy by our incredible military men and women through their tremendous sacrifice. Don't shortchange them.

Do we really need to care what the world thinks of us? I thought we were supposed to teach our children to do the right thing, even if it wasn't what 'everyone else is doing' or what was popular. Does that not apply on a global scale? Real leadership means tough choices, and often tough love. America certainly hasn't gotten everything right, but I don't believe that there's nearly as much animosity toward us as you imply. The rest of the world knows that it's far better to be a friend of America than an enemy.

I hope that helps clear up some things. Again, thanks for your comments!

And, by the way, you don't get a nickel's worth of comment...it's my blog, and even I only get two cents! ;)

Donkey Congress Perfects Stalinism

The Democrat-controlled Congress has gotten so good at stifling debate and discussion that even Uncle Joe would be proud.  From Michelle Malkin:
Conservative stalwart Sens. Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint blew the whistle last week on a new report from the Congressional Research Service showing that 94 percent of bills passed in the Dem-controlled Senate have been rammed through without debate or vote.

Majority Leader Harry Reid apparently didn't get the memo from Speaker Pelosi about being the most honest and ethical Congress in history!  If he was concerned about honesty and ethics, why would he fear discussion and debate so much?

She references a CNS story with the following excerpt:

"The U.S. Senate has a nine percent approval rating, because the American people believe that much of our work is done in secret with no debate, no transparency and no accountability," Coburn told reporters at press conference Wednesday at the Capitol.

"This report shows that the reality is worse than the public's fears. Instead of encouraging open debate, I'm disappointed that Majority Leader Reid often chooses secrecy or demagoguery," he added.

Well, it's good to see that at least one Senator has noticed the historically-low approval rating of Congress!  Senator DeMint's office released a statement that included this:

It would surprise many Americans to learn that the 'World's Greatest Deliberative Body' passes the overwhelming majority of legislation without any debate at all. Democrats think they are entitled to pass bills without debate or votes, and they've tried to ram them through right before recess to pressure us to give up. But, Senators shouldn't fear debate on these important bills. It's in the best traditions of our republic to demand the Senate actually do its job and have a public debate on bills that expand government and increase the burden on taxpayers. Senator Reid can complain all he wants, but Republicans represent millions of Americans whose voices are being silenced by Democrat strong-arm tactics.

Wow, two whole Senators who are actually trying to represent their constituencies!  What an amazing concept!  Even the New York Times is noticing the effect these guys are having:

A product of Democratic frustration with the tactics of Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican and physician who has become the Dr. No of the Senate, the Tomnibus is a $10 billion collection of Coburn-blocked measures assembled by the Senate leadership in an effort to break his solitary grip on the legislative process.

Engineered by Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, the bill includes 35 of the most irresistible-sounding measures stuck on the docket, including the Mothers Act and the Protect Our Children Act.

There are items to commemorate "The Star-Spangled Banner" and to try to curb pornography, cut drug use and help victims of Lou Gehrig's disease.

Officially known as the Advancing America's Priorities Act, the catchall legislation includes a measure to improve life for victims of paralysis, which Mr. Reid calls the Superman bill in tribute to the late Christopher Reeve.

The obvious intent is to apply a little legislative Kryptonite and embarrass Mr. Coburn into dropping his procedural objections to the measures while highlighting his willingness to put roadblocks in front of bills that have support from all corners — a textbook case of what Democrats view as extreme Republican obstructionism.

Well, as they say, good luck with that.

"I am not a go-along, get-along guy if I think it is the wrong way to go," Mr. Coburn said, not stating anything his peers did not already know. "I am O.K. taking the consternation of my colleagues. I take my oath seriously."

In the Senate, Mr. Coburn has continued down his singular path, driving Democrats and some Republicans to distraction with his prolific use of the "hold" — the ability of a single senator to object to moving ahead on a measure without a debate. He currently has holds on nearly 80 bills, the most of any senator.

Reid whines about Coburn's lack of willingness to play nice rather than do his job:

"Why in the world does the Republican leadership allow itself to be bullied by the rogue far right of its caucus, which has perfected the art of stopping good bills that help good people?"

He forgot to actually mention 'the children' and 'the poor' in this statement.  He must have been in a hurry to get back to gouging the American taxpayer.

Coburn and DeMint (and probably a few others, but not many) are almost single-handedly saving American taxpayers billions of dollars by trying to force debate on these Democrat bills.  If this truly is the world's greatest deliberative body, then why is there no deliberation?  What are the Democrats trying to hide?  As far as I'm concerned, they should put holds on literally every bill until the Democrats deal with our energy crisis and illegal immigration.  Then perhaps we can talk about the little stuff.

Besides, there's something fundamentally wrong with Congress when the simple act of trying to determine the cost of a bill is being called extreme obstructionism, don't you think?


Thank you, Senators Coburn and DeMint!  You represent us well.  Keep up the good work.  If only there were 98 more of you...

There's my two cents.

Another Legislative Alert: E-Verify Is In Danger

The E-verify program is designed to make it very easy for employers to check the citizenship status of workers applying for jobs.  A key component of reducing illegal immigration is to have all employers use E-verify before hiring people (from what I understand, it's a simple phone call, but if anyone has personal experience, please enlighten me) to identify applicants who are not legal American citizens.  This program is looking down the barrel of a shotgun now.  From NumbersUSA:
The threat to the E-Verify system has increased in the U.S. House of Representatives.

We need your faxes and phone calls immediately this afternoon because the vote to weaken E-Verify could happen as early as tomorrow (Tuesday).

The news from your NumbersUSA Capitol Hill Team at this moment is this:

# The House Democratic Leadership is planning to bring the E-Verify re-authorization to the floor this week -- maybe even Tuesday. (E-Verify will automatically be killed as a program if it is not re-authorized by November.)

# The Leadership is leaning toward re-authorizing it for only 3 years instead of 10 years, so pro-illegal-immigration forces will have a chance sooner to kill or weaken it (in hopes that the American people aren't paying as much attention then).

# And the Leadership is also looking at several tricky funding rules to attach that would weaken the E-Verify program and perhaps make it easier to kill it next year through back-door, non-public actions.

Every Member of Congress needs to have staff inundated this afternoon and tomorrow with this message:

1. Re-authorize E-Verify this week for a minimum of 10 years and with NO strings attached.

2. E-Verify is the most effective tool to protect vulnerable American workers from unscrupulous businesses that hire illegal foreign workers to displace American workers or depress their wages. A vote to weaken E-Verify in any way is a vote to weaken protections of American working families during a serious economic downturn.

3. E-Verify is the main tool being used by an increasing number of states, counties and cities to keep businesses in their jurisdiction from mistreating American workers. To weaken the E-Verify program is to drive a stake into the heart of local government and communities trying to protect their quality of life.

The fact is that the pro-illegal-immigration Congressmen and lobbies are scared to death that an E-Verify movement is going to sweep the country and create a de-facto mandatory verification system that will ruin plans for amnesties and for importing millions more foreign workers to keep wages, working conditions and benefits as low as possible.

Nearly every institutional force in Washington D.C. wants E-Verify gutted.

Only the mobilization of you and hundreds of thousands of others in this grassroots network will put a stop to the gutting.
This program is one of the most useful tools in the fight to reduce illegal immigration, and it should not be gutted like this.  Once again, the Democrats have revealed their devotion to illegal aliens far more than American citizens, and need to get slapped down for it (proverbially, of course).  So get to it...!

There's my two cents.

More Senate Stupidity That Only American Citizens Can Stop

From Grassfire.org:

We have just received word that the Senate will vote TODAY on whether to abandon the debate on seeking solutions for America's current energy crisis, in favor of Harry Reid's omnibus spending bill!

There will be a Senate vote at 4 p.m. today to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 3297-Reid's massive $11.3 billion earmarking package that would focus on such issues as banning the interstate sale of primates, studying shipwrecks, and building a new greenhouse in Maryland rather than responsibly addressing America's energy crisis!

This should be viewed as a slap in the face to all Americans, and I'm urging you to take immediate action right now. 

Please [call your Senators and] also call Harry Reid's office as well, and express outrage that he would even consider moving from seeking solutions to America's energy crisis to his massive omnibus spending bill.

His number is: 202-224-3542

Call NOW...!

There's my two cents.

The Next (Global) Bailout Commences

I've blogged several times before (here, here, here, here, and here) about Barack Obama's bill to combat global poverty with your tax dollars.  The rubber has now hit the road, and the bill is going to be debated in the Senate in the near future.  Check out this story from WorldNetDaily (excerpts):
The U.S. Senate soon could debate whether you, your spouse and each of your children – as well as your in-laws, parents, grandparents, neighbors and everyone else in America – each will spend $2,500 or more to reduce poverty around the world.

The plan sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, is estimated to cost the U.S. some $845 billion over the coming few years in an effort to raise the standard of living around the globe.

S.2433 already has been approved in one form by the U.S. House of Representatives and now has been placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar for pending debate.

Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media has published a critique asserting that while the Global Poverty Act sounds nice, the adoption could "result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States" and would make levels of U.S. foreign aid spending "subservient to the dictates of the United Nations."

The plan passed the House in 2007 "because most members didn't realize what was in it," Kincaid reported. "Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require."

Kincaid pointed out that the plan not only commits the U.S. to the anti-poverty spending proposal, it also adopts for the U.S. the United Nations Millennium Development Goal, which includes a variety of treaties and protocols advocated by the U.N.
Now, let's take a look at reality.  We've been fighting a 'war on poverty' here in America for decades.  Guess what?  It hasn't worked.  Take a look at the history of combating poverty according to Duane Lester at All American Blogger:
"On January 8, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson declared "all-out war on human poverty and unemployment in these United States." This "all-out war" would last through the presidencies of Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush. We have spent billions of dollars fighting this war, and what have we achieved?"

He continued, "Very little. In 1964, there were 36 million Americans living in poverty, or about 19 percent of the population. In the 40 years between 1964 and 2004: ... poverty never measured less than 11 percent of the population. In 1983, under President Reagan, poverty registered 15.2 percent; in 1993, at the beginning of Bill Clinton's presidency, poverty was measured at 13.7 percent of the population. In 2004, under George W. Bush, a president often accused by the political Left as not caring about the poor, the poverty rate declined to 12.7 percent. Still, some 37 million Americans remain poor."

Despite that performance, "Obama is ready to take the fight global," said Lester.

"In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child," he wrote.
So, let's recap what this bill would do.  It would send almost $1 trillion of YOUR money (equaling roughly $2,500 per person, not household!) directly out of the country, where it would be spent on an utterly useless attempt at raising the standard of living for the entire world.  I recall hearing that the total amount of money the U.S. has spent on its own 'war on poverty' is upwards of $6 trillion, and, according to the statistics above, it has accomplished exactly NOTHING!  Now, let's apply some common sense...

If $6 trillion accomplishes nothing in a country of 300 million people, 95% employment, extreme wealth, and unlimited opportunity, what is $1 trillion going to accomplish for an entire planet of 6 billion people, rampant unemployment, extreme poverty, and brutal thug dictators that stifle all grass roots prosperity?

Let's be real, please!

On the other hand, during these uncertain economic times, a $1 trillion expense added to America's bottom line is going to hurt, as is the $2,500 punch ($5,000 for married couples) in the wallet of every taxpayer in this country!

To add insult to injury, this bill would force America to bow to the economic and legal whims of the United Nations, which is the most corrupt bureaucracy ever to disgrace the face of this planet.  It would allow other nations to sue Americans and America itself, it would put American liberty under the jurisdiction of foreign enemies who are hostile to us, and it would subject American prosperity, advancement, and leadership to the corrupt fist of the U.N.  It would force ridiculous burdens and regulations on America for everything from global warming to the thought police.  It would disarm American citizens.  It truly doesn't get any worse than this bill!

How does the Global Poverty Act sound now?  Not quite so innocent or benevolent, is it?

If you think it can't happen, you're dead wrong.  This Congress is spending your tax money more frivolously with each passing month, and you can bet there will be a lot of 'for-the-poor-children' sob stories to support this bill.  It's going to take some strenuous grass roots pressure to get this bill stopped, so get busy!

Call and e-mail your Senators, and demand that they understand what's in this bill before they take a vote on it.  Then feel free to educate them to the less savory points found in the bill while they're listening to you.  Then demand they oppose the bill, and tell them you'll be watching how they vote.  Then do it all over again the next day...and again...and again...

This Congress is atrocious, and it will take action as blatant as this to get this measure stopped dead in its tracks.  They should have named this the Make America A Slave To The World While Robbing America Blind Act - that's the effect it will have.  Its sole objective is to shackle America and force it to bow at the throne of the U.N.

Sounds like something Barack Obama would sponsor.

There's my two cents.

Friday, July 25, 2008

Fun & Frivolity: Tech Of The Future

To send you off into the weekend, get a load of this report about a new Microsoft product - a touch-sensitive screen. It's quite amazing, especially for Microsoft. I'm guessing it'll be a bit weird to suggest to friends and family that they reboot their kitchen table, but hey, times change, right?



Have a great weekend!

Barack Obamessiah, The Lightbringer

From Gerard Baker at the Times Online comes this hilarious satire lampooning the silliness of Obama's followers, who clearly believe that he is the Obamessiah.  No comment is necessary on my part at the end...just read and enjoy!

He ventured forth to bring light to the world

The anointed one's pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action - and a blessing to all his faithful followers

And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.

The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.

When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: "Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?"

In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.

And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world.

He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the

Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.

And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.

From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it.

And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child's very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.

And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.

From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass. The crowds of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered "Hosanna" and waved great palm fronds and strewed them at his feet.

In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold. And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace.

As word spread throughout the land about the Child's wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites.

And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child's journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over.

The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for.

And there were other wonderful signs. In the city of the Street at the Wall, spreads on interbank interest rates dropped like manna from Heaven and rates on credit default swaps fell to the ground as dead birds from the almond tree, and the people who had lived in foreclosure were able to borrow again.

Black gold gushed from the ground at prices well below $140 per barrel. In hospitals across the land the sick were cured even though they were uninsured. And all because the Child had pronounced it.

And this is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness to the truth so that you might believe. And he knows it is the truth for he saw it all on CNN and the BBC and in the pages of The New York Times.

Then the Child ventured forth from Israel and Palestine and stepped onto the shores of the Old Continent. In the land of Queen Angela of Merkel, vast multitudes gathered to hear his voice, and he preached to them at length.

But when he had finished speaking his disciples told him the crowd was hungry, for they had had nothing to eat all the hours they had waited for him.

And so the Child told his disciples to fetch some food but all they had was five loaves and a couple of frankfurters. So he took the bread and the frankfurters and blessed them and told his disciples to feed the multitudes. And when all had eaten their fill, the scraps filled twelve baskets.

Thence he travelled west to Mount Sarkozy. Even the beauteous Princess Carla of the tribe of the Bruni was struck by awe and she was great in love with the Child, but he was tempted not.

On the Seventh Day he walked across the Channel of the Angles to the ancient land of the hooligans. There he was welcomed with open arms by the once great prophet Blair and his successor, Gordon the Leper, and his successor, David the Golden One.

And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and singing: "Yes, We Can."




Great Democrat Ideas

I wanted to pass along a bunch of examples of great Democrat ideas.  Enjoy!

First, let's look at bailouts.  The House just passed the latest bailout bill, but no one really knows how much it will end up costing us taxpayers.

Even conservative estimates by the Congressional Budget Office say the cost for this bailout will run to $41.7 billion, with $16.8 billion offset by higher taxes. No one has any idea of the real cost. The most expensive provision gives the Treasury temporary authority to pour money into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The CBO says this could cost $100 billion, or it could cost "nothing." So it threw a dart at the wall and assigned a $25 billion price tag to the Fan and Fred bailout.

Likewise, the bill's $300 billion to refinance and insure distressed loans through the Federal Housing Administration will supposedly cost just a few billion dollars. That assumes few homeowners and lenders will sign up for the program because lenders will have to take a 10% haircut to be eligible. If no one needs this program, why is it there? If lenders do take advantage, they're bound to dump their worst loans on the feds. So as with the Fan and Fred bailout, the FHA guarantee will be either superfluous or much more expensive than we're led to believe.

Alongside these big-ticket items, we suppose the $4 billion tax credit for first-time home buyers, or the $4 billion in "community development" pork grants, or the $180 million for housing counseling are merely routine outrages.

This is a great idea - how about having taxpayers fund irresponsible decision-makers and slimy lenders?  And how about we do it over and over, with a blank check and no spending limits?  Thanks, Democrats.

And what about free trade with international allies?  Take Colombia, for example:

Colombia's leaders, especially President Uribe, had promised us that our three abducted citizens would be treated no differently than the many Colombian men and women who shared their fate. Colombia never wavered in this promise, and never cut any side deals with the guerrillas that could have freed their citizens at the expense of ours. This was not an easy act of solidarity, but Colombia remained true to its word.

That our Colombian partners made good on their promise in this instance is important enough, but this is not the exception; it is the norm.

More than a decade ago, with its country wracked by the worst insurgency in the hemisphere, with its economy contracting, and with its democratic state on the brink of failure, Colombia resolved to turn the tide. Its government and people set out an ambitious plan to secure and expand their country's democratic development, and they asked for our support - political, economic, diplomatic, and military. Starting under President Clinton, expanding under President Bush, and with bipartisan support in Congress all along the way, the United States has fully backed Colombia in meeting its bold promises of success. And the results speak for themselves.

Our Colombian partners said that they would win their fight against domestic terrorism and reclaim their country. Today they are.

They said they would combat social exclusion in Colombia by building the capacity and expanding the reach of their democracy. Today they are.

They said they would open their markets, trade freely and fairly, fuel economic growth, and create opportunities for social justice for all of their citizens. Today they are.

And our Colombian partners said they would protect the lives of all of their citizens, including trade unionists, and bring murderers and criminals to justice. Today violent crime has plummeted, law and order is expanding, and President Uribe's government has taken the courageous step of extraditing 15 major drug traffickers and paramilitary leaders to the United States to stand trial in our courts for their crimes against our citizens.

Colombia has done all of this - and more. And the United States has supported them every step of the way.

This agreement would remove tariffs to level the playing field for American goods going to Colombia, cement the relationship with a good friend and ally in a region decidedly hostile to the U.S., and reinforce the idea to the rest of the world that America is a reliable partner that can be counted upon.  Despite all this, the Democrats are blocking the trade agreement with Colombia.  What a great idea!

It doesn't get much more Democratic than San Francisco, home of one of the oldest and most liberal sanctuary policies for illegal immigrants.  Unfortunately, we see time and time again that Americans pay the price for Democrat policies like sanctuary cities.  In this particular case, a man and his two (adult) children were gunned down with an AK-47 because of road rage.  The murderer was an illegal alien associated with the Central American MS-13 gang, with at least three previous arrests.  He was free because of San Francisco's safe sanctuary policy.  This brilliant Democrat idea costs the lives of Americans every day.

Let's not forget abortion.  Most certainly a Democrat idea, this is one of the key precepts of liberalism.  It has recently been discovered that the WIC (yes, the Women, Infant, and Children organization) has a link on its website directing people to Planned Parenthood.  Apparently, the federal government is suggesting that poor minority women take care of the "I" and "C" part.  So much for being the party of minorities, huh?  Great idea, Democrats.

When talking about great Democrat ideas, we certainly can't forget about national security.  The current national terror alert system has issues:

The new system, which is to be the main way the department communicates regular threat information to local and private sector officials, has had a troubled history. The department scrapped a $91 million system, dubbed the Homeland Security Information Network or HSIN, after reports found that the program lacked critical security and structural functions that made it unworkable.

Okay, that's life.  Sometimes things don't work out quite like we planned.  But get a load of the Democrats' suggestion:

Responding to warnings in a government audit, congressional Democrats are calling on the Homeland Security Department to suspend a new threat alert system until the program is retooled to meet state and local needs.

What a great idea!  If the terror alert system needs fixing, let's just throw it away and remain vulnerable!  Can we really trust Democrats to control the security of America?  No.

Let's finish with oil.  Here's some perspective from a Texas man:

Out here in West Texas we love our guns, we support our troops, and we treasure our freedom. We are an independent bunch and -- pardon me, Senator Obama -- fiercely but not bitterly so. We are proud to have our own things to do with as we choose to, as free people of the freest nation in the history of the world.

We also walk around on top of oil: yes it's far beneath us, but it's there. And all these aspects of West Texas come together to our astonishment and anger over the fact that our independence is limited by an intrusive federal government that tells us what oil we can and can't access through drilling, and ultimately makes us dependent upon other nations for our own fuel supplies.

This dependence is made worse by the fact that it is arbitrary: that is, we don't have to rely on foreign sources of oil because we lack our own but because our government has chosen foreign importation over domestic production.

The two main culprits here are Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who are currently enjoying a 9% favorable approvable rating among the American people. Perhaps you will remember Reid as the man who boldly declared we had lost the war in Iraq a year ago: the war we are clearly winning today.

Reid, and his cohort Pelosi, mock Republicans like McConnell, Cornyn, and Hutchinson for their belief that we can "drill our way out of this energy crisis." But why can't we drill out way out? Is oil that much different than other commodities? It is traded on the futures market and its elevated prices currently result from a demand that promises to be greater than future supply. Gold is a commodity, what would happen to it if we suddenly realized it is more plentiful than needles on a pine tree? I can tell you what would happen -- the value of an ounce of gold would plummet: its value is directly linked to its scarcity.

the opposition to drilling in ANWR is usually cited in terms of the damage it would do to the caribou. In all honesty, how out of whack can things get? My friends and I shoot animals as big as caribou in our part of the country every year. We shoot deer, elk, bear, antelope, and aoudad, yet guess what happens without fail? Every few years the hunting seasons are lengthened because the animal populations are still so great that they require more thinning. Add to this the fact that the caribou around the current Alaskan pipeline are thriving and the arguments against drilling in ANWR go from ridiculous to asinine.

I am worried about having politicians in office who are more concerned about hoofed creatures than they are about human beings.

We need to drill here and we need to drill now, as Newt Gingrich, McConnell, Cornyn, Hutchinson, and others who value America's independence assert. It's not a question of whether the oil is or isn't there -- we know it's there -- the question is whether we as a people will muster the wherewithal to tell politicians like Reid and Pelosi to remove the Congressional ban on drilling because America, rather than the Democrat Party or the caribou, comes first.

Just what part of "drill now" do they not understand?

I love it!  And yet, the Democrat idea remains that of increased taxation, increased regulation, increased socialism (by nationalizing the oil industry or by stealing oil profits with a 'windfall profits' tax), and continued shunning of America's vast and waiting natural resources.  Hurt the economy?  Check.  Hurt national security?  Check.  Pander to a mythical environmental problem?  Check.  Another great Democrat idea.

Fortunately for America, the ice is getting thinner.  Michael Franc at the Heritage Foundation writes about the Rep movement in the House to force debate on energy:

For the first time in a while, House Republicans are on the offense on an issue of national importance: removing obstacles to the production of more American energy.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey abruptly shut down his committee indefinitely rather than allow Republicans to offer an amendment to open more areas to drilling for new sources of oil and natural gas. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid concur. According to the New York Times, she and Reid "appear intent on holding the line against calls to approve drilling in areas now off limits."

Obey fears that the amendment, by drilling advocate Rep. John Peterson (R., Penn.), would win. As many as eight of the committee's Democrats have supported similar amendments in the past, while only a couple of the committee's Republicans (who represent well-heeled suburban districts) have stood with the environmental lobby.

Franc goes on to talk about how the Republicans have finally found an issue that resonates with a mass of voters, and their insistence on standing firm appears to be causing the Dem leadership fits, especially since there are likely to be a fairly high number of Democrat defections to support the GOP's bills.  Pelosi has made it clear that she will not allow any debate on any bill that would open up more drilling.  In response, the GOP has brought up discharge petition after discharge petition in an effort to force Pelosi to allow a vote.  This is a strategy that could work, especially if the American people get behind it and call their Reps.

And the public is starting to get it.  Even the Washington Post is questioning why Pelosi won't even allow debate.  It's almost unbelievable, but they say:

When they took the majority, House Democrats proclaimed that "bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the Minority the right to offer its alternatives." Why not on drilling?

When the WaPo takes aim, you know the situation is dire!  Hot Air reports on some trends that likely have Dems lying awake at night:

The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC poll underscores what many of us already know about the most critical issue in this election — and it's not Iraq.  Energy and fuel prices dominate the electoral choice for voters this fall, thanks to the sharp cost increase in just about everything connected with transportation.  And while Democrats have an edge in this area, it has sharply eroded:

Congress will likely break for the summer without passing legislation to curb high gasoline prices. But Americans are fashioning their own energy policy, founded on conservation and support for more production.

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC news poll finds that energy — including gasoline and utility costs — ranks as the economic issue that voters say affects them the most personally. ….

Polls indicate voters trust Democrats over Republicans, by substantial margins, to do a better job on energy. The Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that 42% of respondents preferred Democrats for dealing with energy policy, versus 22% favoring Republicans.

The poll indicated that Democrats' edge on the issue may be slipping; the July poll gave Democrats a 20-point advantage on the issue, versus a 28-point lead in a January poll by The Wall Street Journal and NBC News.

If Congress does break for the summer without a debate on energy, expect those numbers to slip much farther. Americans want to start using more domestic supplies, and not just for price relief in the next few years. They have finally begun to realize that sending hundreds of billions of dollars overseas and inflating the price of oil benefit those whose don't like Americans.

Hot Air points out that the Dems are so afraid of this issue coming up for votes that they have been stonewalling every bill that has come up just on the chance that Reps will attach an amendment to open up this debate.  As such, the Congress is essentially shut down until one side gives in.  It would be the first time in 60 years that Congress has entered its summer recession without passing any of the necessary appropriations bills for the next year.  That's how scared they are of this issue!  The Reps are finally starting to get it through their thick heads, too.  Constant phone calls and e-mails from constituents like you and me can put this thing over the edge.

By the way, now we've found oil off the coast of Alaska, too.  Let's go get that, too!

Now, let me make myself clear.  I am not condemning all Democrats.  I am condemning the Democrat leadership, who have become the standard bearers for the far Left fringe of radical society.  It is this leadership that has pushed these radical, destructive, despicable policies.  I firmly believe that normal, everyday American citizens who happen to affiliate themselves with the Democrat party are generally pretty disgusted with a lot of these things, too.  I think the problem is simply that of deception - the leadership is supremely good at misrepresenting themselves and their true colors.  Normal people don't want to believe that anyone could possibly want all of these 'great' ideas, so when the Dem leadership tells them these things aren't true, they want to believe them.  Sadly, the Dem leadership has shown itself to be completely comfortable with saying one thing and doing another, and many Democrats from the rank-and-file don't seem inclined to look past the facade.

I'm sorry if that offends some of you, but I challenge you to prove me wrong.  If you're a Democrat and you oppose some or all of these policies, then you oppose the leadership of your own party.  There's nothing wrong with that - I vehemently oppose a lot of what the Republican party has become nowadays.  I'm not shy about that at all.  In many cases, they suck, and I'm happy to call them out on their stupidity just as much as Democrat stupidity.

Here's the key thing you have to ask yourself - if the leadership of your party has gone off the deep end, why do you continue to support them?  Why send them money?  Why vote for the very people who push the policies you don't like?

This is the thing that gets me.  It's no secret that the Republican party leadership has lost its base.  The reason for that is that McCain and many of the big-government types don't represent many of the policies that the base believes in.  This will probably result in low Rep turnout in November, and it will be decidedly unenthusiastic.  The only way McCain can win is by stealing votes from Obama.  That same phenomenon hasn't happened with the Democrat party - its base continues to march in lock step.  There are only two conclusions I can see to explain this.  Either the Democrat base is happy with their leadership and wants those policies, or they simply don't know what their leadership really stands for.  Either way, it's bad news.

Feel free to prove me wrong...if you can.

There's my two cents.

Obama's Change

Barack Obama talks constantly of hope and change. While pinning him down on an exact definition of both the hope part and the change part is a bit like nailing water to the wall, we can at least make some solid guesses based on things like his voting record and previous statements. Without further ado, here's a good guess at the kind of change Obama stands for:



The Wall Street Journal put out a devastating common sense piece by Karl Rove yesterday about this subject, as well. Rove points out that it's okay for candidates to change positions on important issues because voters do, too. The key thing that matters to voters is why the candidate changed position: have the facts changed? does the candidate admit to the change? is the change reasonable, or calculating?

First, he addresses McCain's 'flip-flops':
Sen. McCain has changed his position on drilling for oil on the outer continental shelf. But because he explained this change by saying that $4-a-gallon gasoline caused him to re-evaluate his position, voters are likely to accept it.

Mr. McCain flip-flopped on the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. He'd voted against them at the time, saying in 2001 that he'd "like to see more of this tax cut shared by working Americans." Now he supports their continuation because, he says, letting them expire would increase taxes and he opposes tax hikes. Besides, he recognizes that the tax cuts have helped the economy.

Mr. McCain fesses up to and explains his changes.
Barack Obama is another story entirely:
Sen. Obama has shifted recently on public financing, free trade, Nafta, welfare reform, the D.C. gun ban, whether the Iranian Quds Force is a terrorist group, immunity for telecom companies participating in the Terrorist Surveillance Program, the status of Jerusalem, flag lapel pins, and disavowing Rev. Jeremiah Wright. And not only does he refuse to explain these flip-flops, he acts as if they never occurred.

Then there is Iraq. Throughout 2006 and early 2007, Mr. Obama pledged to remove all U.S. troops, even voting to immediately cut off funds for the troops while they were in combat. Then, in July 2007, he started talking about leaving a residual U.S. force, in Kuwait and elsewhere in the region, able to go back into Iraq if needed.

By October, he shifted again, pledging to station the residual U.S. troops inside Iraq with two "limited missions of protecting our diplomats and carrying out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

Last week, writing in the New York Times, Mr. Obama changed again. He increased the missions his residual force would perform to three: "going after any remnants of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces." That's not all that different from what U.S. troops are doing now.

And just how many U.S. troops would Mr. Obama leave in Iraq? Colin Kahl, an Obama adviser on Iraq, has said the senator wants to have "perhaps 60,000-80,000 forces" in Iraq by December 2010. So much for withdrawing all combat troops.
But not only does he appear to be changing positions based on the audience or simple expediency rather than a logical reason, he won't even admit the changes:
Mr. Obama acts as if he is a paradigm of consistency. He told a Georgia rally this month that "the people who say [I've been changing] apparently haven't been listening to me." In a PBS interview last week he said, "this notion that somehow we've had wild shifts in my positions is simply inaccurate."
Rove again points out the interview I mentioned recently where Obama said that if he knew in 2007 what he knows now about the surge, he still would not have supported it for purely political reasons.

Rove concludes that Obama runs the serious risk of appearing to the American voters as an opportunistic, expediency-driven politician rather than an inspiring leader, and that could lead to the question of whether or not he is the change they want.

This is dead on, and the numbers prove it. Obama's current trip through the Middle East was the MSM's major effort to present him as a tough, capable leader, and they've done their best to spin him as such. But, for all of their efforts -- which have been significant, mind you -- he is not seeing any gain in the polls, while more than half (55%) view Obama as a risky choice for President. Even more disturbing for Obama is the fact that McCain is actually gaining ground in some key swing states.

Obama has changed so many times on so many issues that not even the adoring coverage of the MSM can completely hide it forever, and the American people are starting to catch on. It's going to be tough for him to maintain the facade for another four long months, but if he doesn't, McCain has a very realistic chance in November.

Change? Without a doubt. The only question is: what change, exactly?

There's my two cents.

Thursday, July 24, 2008

Obama Loves The Troops...No, Really, He Does...

Get a load (and I mean a LOAD) of this:

Evidently, if you're a soldier in Afghanistan and there are no cameras around to record how much you love the troops, you can blow them off if you are Barack Obama.

Blackfive got an email yesterday from a soldier in Bagram, Afghanistan that tells what happened when Obama visited the base

I wanted to share with you what happened. He got off the plan[sic] and got into a bullet proof vehicle, got to the area to meet with the Major General (2 Star) who is the commander here at Bagram. As the Soldiers where lined up to shake his hand he blew them off and didn't say a word as he went into the conference room to meet the General. As he finished, the vehicles took him to the ClamShell (pretty much a big top tent that military personnel can play basketball or work out in with weights) so he could take his publicity pictures playing basketball. He again shunned the opportunity to talk to Soldiers to thank them for their service. So really he was just here to make a showing for the American's back home that he is their candidate for President. I think that if you are going to make an effort to come all the way over here you would thank those that are providing the freedom that they are providing for you. I swear we got more thanks from the NBA Basketball Players or the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders than from one of the Senators, who wants to be the President of the United States. I just don't understand how anyone would want him to be our Commander-and-Chief. It was almost that he was scared to be around those that provide the freedom for him and our great country.

And Hot Air has news that Obama actually dropped a scheduled meeting with soldiers in Germany so that he wouldn't miss his big speech
The message here is that thousands of screaming German fans at the Tiergarten take precedence over visiting Americans serving their country at Rammstein and Landstuhl.  Maybe one of the networks following Obama could interview a few of the soldiers about how they perceive that set of priorities from Obama.

And in an update, we discover it wasn't "scheduling problems" that made Obama miss his date with the troops
Obama canceled a previously-planned stop to visit thousands of American service personnel, including troops wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan being treated at Landstuhl, so he could hold a political rally for Germans and go shopping in Berlin. Now that's a nice set of priorities for a man who wants to become Commander in Chief.

I guess unless he can use troops as props in his little propaganda shows, they mean nothing to him.

And this guy wants to be their leader??  This deliberate snub shows you just what he thinks of the men and women who sacrifice daily by being literally a world away from their families, some of whom have been maimed and killed to protect our freedoms.  They are props.  They are photo ops.  They are items, things to be used and discarded on a whim.  They are not worthy of even the basest courtesy, such as a handshake.

Rather than visiting wounded and homesick soldiers, Barack Obama goes shopping.

This man is despicable.

There's my two cents.

Bailout Madness Update

The House passed the insanity yesterday.  From Michelle Malkin:

Here's the link for the roll call vote on the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008/Fannie and Freddie rescue, a.k.a. the latest in an endless series of massive federal mortgage bailout bills. It passed 272-152:

Oy.

Nancy "14 percent approval rating" Pelosi cheerleads for herself and her bailout cronies and prays for a public opinion boost.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke on the House floor this afternoon in support of the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008. The legislation passed by a vote of 272 to 152. Below are her remarks:

"Mr. Rangel, Mr. Frank, Mr. Neal, and Chairwoman Waters have brought us a comprehensive package on housing policy reforms that will help lift families facing foreclosure and stem the continuing drop in home values around the country.

"I also wish to acknowledge the contributions of Treasury Secretary Paulson. Secretary Paulson played a constructive role and helped the President reached this agreement after opposing many parts of this legislation. I'm so pleased that the White House issued the statement this morning that the President would not veto this bill.

"Under Chairman Barney Frank's leadership, the House last year, just three months after Democrats took the majority, passed a bill very similar to the one the House is voting on today and the Administration said it will not oppose. Mr. Frank and members of the committee foresaw that there was a need for legislation.

Thank President Bush for removing the obstacles to this latest slush fund bonanza.

The Associated Press, naturally, gripes that it isn't enough.

"This isn't going to be the catalyst for a better housing market," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com. "It may staunch some of the downturn, but it's going to have a very modest positive impact."

The highlights of the bill include: $300 billion to provide more affordable mortgages to troubled homeowners, nearly $4 billion in grants to help communities fix up foreclosed properties and a $7,500 tax credit for first-time homebuyers.

Call your Senators and tell them that this bailout is unacceptable.  Do it today, because they're likely to move fast on this latest entitlement and reward for irresponsible behavior.  These people all suck.

There's my two cents.




Link Roundup

It's been a while since I've done one of these, and for that I apologize.  They take a considerable amount of time to put together, which I just haven't had lately.  But, I promised I'd work these back in, so here we go.

In the good ol' USofA:
Election commentary:
War on Terror:
Around the World:
Enjoy!