It's The Strategery, Stupid

Mark Steyn (via Andy McCarthy) reminds the Right about the greater perspective that we must keep when it comes to fighting DemCare:

The best thing about Mark Steyn's guest-host stint on Hannity last night — other than Jonah's joining him on the panel — was that Mark asked some pointed questions of two brilliant political strategists, Dick Morris and Karl Rove, that seemed rooted in Mark's theory that, on health care and all it entails, "The Dems are thinking strategically; the Republicans are all tactics." For my money, I think the theory is being borne out: Democrats have their eyes on a different end-game than our guys do: namely, the establishment of permanent, European-style socialism in the U.S. Our guys are focused on converting Obama radicalism into big-time electoral success in the next election cycle. The Dems have already factored in that likelihood and are betting — over the long haul — that even if the GOP cuts deeply into Dem majorities or takes over Congress (and even takes over the White House in 2012), Republicans will lack the commitment (and perhaps the numbers) to roll back what the Left is accomplishing now.

That is, our guys are focused myopically on a battle the Democrats have already figured they can afford to lose. The real battle is: What do you do when you get back in power? Do you have a plan for how to undo what is being done? Do you frame the coming elections in a way that converts victory into a mandate not only to stop what Obama is doing but to undo what he has done?

I'm hearing a lot from our side about making big gains in the upcoming elections. That's not strategy or victory. You have to have a plan for what those gains would translate into. Democrats, by contrast, have a real plan for how what they're doing today will sustain Big Government, and themselves, over the long term, regardless of occasional electoral losses.

This is a very succinct way of saying what we've discussed often here - that liberalism creeps its way forward, one small step at a time, rarely moving backward.  The Democrats know that even if they don't get the full-blown public option in this round, if they can still enshrine some sort of government control or influence over the health care system, they will have a wide open doorway to come back in a year or two (or whenever they regain the majorities in Congress) and take another crack at it.  They're willing to take the gamble because they don't believe Republicans will actively roll back anything.  Given their track record over the past few years, it's not a bad gamble, which is why we absolutely must hold our GOP representatives' feet to a white-hot fire over the next couple years, especially if we do manage to take back the reigns of power.

I'd love to see some rock-ribbed conservatives campaign on rolling back DemCare and implementing some policies that actually will reduce costs and improve quality, like tort reform and buying insurance across state lines.  I suspect it would be a winning combination.

Regardless, we've got to push our elected reps to think long-term, implement policies that will not just stop the advance of liberalism, but actively push it back.  It is truly the difference between short-term tactics and long-term strategery.

There's my two cents.

Extreme Tree Huggers

Hoooo-kaaaaay...

I thought it was a joke. I thought it was a parody.

No. No it is not. It is very real. This, ladies and gentlemen, is what happens in the absence of believe in the real God — extreme tree huggers create their own. Man always creates gods to replace the real One.

Behold. And laugh.

Like I said, hoooooo-kaaaaaay...! This is why I use the term 'wacko'.

But there is a much more serious component to this, as I've blogged before:

So why is it that so many people completely disregard evidence in favor of the flavor of the moment? It just doesn't make sense to me, and I've been struggling to find an explanation for it for quite some time. Well, some dots finally connected in my mind recently, and I've been debating about whether or not to post it since it's a theological thing, and I'm no expert theologian. But, I'm going to swing out and do it, and hope that if nothing else, it makes you think. Check this out:

God's eternal power and character cannot be seen. But from the beginning of creation, God has shown what these are like by all he has made. That's why those people don't have any excuse. They know about God, but they don't honor him or even thank him. Their thoughts are useless, and their stupid minds are in the dark. They claim to be wise, but they are fools. They don't worship the glorious and eternal God. Instead, they worship idols that are made to look like humans who cannot live forever, and like birds, animals, and reptiles.

So God let these people go their own way. They did what they wanted to do...They gave up the truth about God for a lie, and they worshiped God's creation instead of God.

That's an excerpt from Romans chapter 1. Sounds strikingly like the current crop of environmentalist wackos, doesn't it? They claim to be enlightened scientists sounding the alarm on imminent global warming, yet they ignore plain evidence to the contrary. They don't worship God, but rather animals and trees, as evidenced by their willingness to destroy property, jobs, and human lives to 'protect' nature. And, given their own admissions that dealing with global warming is a 'moral issue', they admit to worshiping the creation rather than the Creator.

After watching the video, I'm more convinced than ever that my initial dot-connection was correct. Watching the video above would be ludicrous if it wasn't so serious.

Regardless, this is the mindset that we're dealing with when it comes to environmentalist wackos, and we would be foolish to forget that. Logic need not apply, and evidence just doesn't matter.

There's my two cents.

Teetering On The Cliff

Rasmussen:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 25% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-six percent (46%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -21 That's the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for this President.

Why the sudden surge?  I'm sure you've guessed it:

For the second straight day, the update shows the highest level of Strong Disapproval yet recorded for this President. That negative rating had never topped 42% before yesterday. However, it has risen dramatically since the Senate found 60 votes to move forward with the proposed health care reform legislation. Most voters (55%) oppose the health care legislation and senior citizens are even more likely than younger voters to dislike the plan.

It's interesting to note that more people strongly disapprove of Obama than everyone who approves to any degree (46%-44%).  Losing seniors and independents is bad, bad news for the ballot box next year.  Hot Air notes that it may get worse:

Normally, weekends tend to be more sympathetic to Democrats on polls.  Two of the three days of this survey were Saturday and Sunday, before Reid got his cloture vote.  The bump Monday perhaps shows some of the reaction to that, but more will be coming in the next couple of days.

Despite this, Obama's top adviser is predicting a 'good result' for Democrats in 2010.  Yeah, good luck with that.  The tens of millions of American 'Nazis' who don't want DemCare might have other ideas.

There's my two cents.

Economic Recovery Not Exactly As Advertised

Bloomberg:

The economy in the U.S. expanded in the third quarter at a slower pace than anticipated as companies curbed spending and cut inventories at an even faster pace, reductions that have set the stage for acceleration in growth.

The 2.2 percent increase in gross domestic product from July through September compares with a 2.8 percent gain previously reported by the Commerce Department in Washington.

And that 2.8% was actually down from the initial estimate of 3.5%.  My, how things look less rosy as the actual data comes in!

Ace of Spades posts this humorous treatment:

Obama's Huge Unprecedented 3.5% Growth Rate Revised Down to Equally Huge and Equally Unprecedented 2.2%

As I expected, the number was revised down. First to 2.8%, which is exactly what I thought it would be revised down to, but now again down to a mere 2.2%.

3.5% wasn't really gangbusters in the first place, but o, did they prance with it like a dog with a tennis ball in its mouth."

The NYT spins a lot here. The headline the article that 3Q is weaker than thought, but don't actually address the downward revision until the eighth paragraph.

Instead they choose to begin:

The nascent economic recovery was weaker than expected in the third quarter, the government said Tuesday, held back by slow business construction and dwindling inventories.

While the results tempered some of the enthusiasm about the speed of economic renewal, analysts still foresee steady, and stronger, growth in the fourth quarter, as exports rise and an improved jobs market encourages consumer spending.

...and then they bore you for the next five paragraphs with insdery-stuff about the housing market.

You know -- exactly how they used to play Bush's good growth numbers, pretty much, just the opposite. First, start out with some broad generalizations warning of "storm clouds on the horizons," then yap about some less grabby numbers for a while, and then note that Bush's initial 3.1% GDP quarterly growth was revised up to 3.8%, after the audience had been successfully lost.

Ah, you can always count on AoS to liven things up!  But yeah, it is pretty amazing how things go in opposite directions depending on who's in the White House, isn't it?

On a more serious note, Hot Air adds this:

The third-quarter growth looks a lot more anemic than advertised by the Obama administration, especially when one considers the gimmicks that temporarily boosted its performance.  Most troubling is Commerce's poor performance in analyzing economic conditions.  If they're so incompetent as to miss this figure by 37% (1.3 from 3.5 is slightly over 37%), then clearly they need some fresh talent.  If they got pressured into stating overly cheerful numbers, it's something else entirely.  That would be something Congress should investigate … if we had an independent Congress at all.

Which we don't.  Elections have consequences...

Anyway, now is a good time to review the three components of GDP:

Look, you can try to cover up 10% unemployment all you want with a phony GDP number of 3.5%, you can go out there and say you saved the economy, but there are no jobs.  Obama is gratified, but by his own benchmark his economy is still failing.  Now, let me see if I can put this GDP number into context for you, 'cause it's phony.  It is a fake number.  Gross domestic product needs to be understood as the sum of three things:  consumption by consumers, investment by business, and spending by government, CIG.  Consumption, investment, spending by government.  So they say the total GDP went up 3.5%.  But was there any new consumption by consumers?  No.  Was there any new investment by business?  No.  Was there spending by government?  Yes.  That's the G.  The increase is in G, spending by government. 

So, even if the GDP numbers rose, is it really a sign of recovery (or a positive thing at all) if the only increase was the amount of federal spending?

No.

It's smoke and mirrors.  That's all Obama's got.  He's just trying to string along as many suckers as possible, gaining control of whatever he can along the way while the suckers are still drinking the Kool-Aid.  At some point the game will be up for good, but if he's grabbed too much power for the liberal Left by that point, it won't matter since no one could do anything about it.  That's why we've got to stop the runaway train now, and blowing a hole in this kind of slanted 'news' is a big part of that effort.

There's my two cents.

A Daring Idea For Doctors

Eric Erickson at RedState puts forward a very intriguing idea:

I hate to ask others to do what I can’t but I think only doctors can still stop this now as well as laythe groundwork for a constitutional challenge.

About 3 weeks ago I met with some Richmond area doctors. They are apoplectic, and a few have signed petitions. Some have called their legislators. We have two senators in Virginia who will vote with the plan, but have been so quiet, so absent, and unavailable for public comment…

…but the message they are getting, from senate staffers, and the general scat from the Administration, is that they are rich and spoiled doc-brats. Shut up.

So the tendency, since doctors are rarely politically active (unlike lawyers), is to back away, knowing they can do little as individuals.

But how about as a bloc?

I mentioned this to my group, and they looked at me as if I’d suggested they take up chiropracty. Still, the idea here is on the table.

I told them if as few as twenty or thirty of them went public on local media and declared a strike, say for a week, 2 weeks, except for emergency care, within a few hours, maybe days their number would double, triple.

And with another day there would be at least ten more cities declaring as well.

I lied. I didn’t know any of these things to be true, and realized it would be these doctors, not me, putting it on the line if they did come out and declare.

Doctors are the one group that have a vested interest and legal complaint, legal-constitutional complaint, over this health care package. They can sue.

I think they can get all kinds of media, with the people, their patients closing ranks behind them, 20 to 1. If “Doc So-and-So says it’s bad, it’s bad.”

Your thought?

Sounds like a good idea to me. This is precisely the kind of thing that will get attention, and it is attention that will break through the fog of the legacy media and hope-n-change Kool-Aid and wake some people up.

There's my two cents.

The Entrenchment Of Power Begins Already

Wow, they didn't even wait until DemCare is passed into law:

If ever the people of the United States rise up and fight over passage of Obamacare, Harry Reid must be remembered as the man who sacrificed the dignity of his office for a few pieces of silver. The rules of fair play that have kept the basic integrity of the Republic alive have died with Harry Reid. Reid has slipped in a provision into the health care legislation prohibiting future Congresses from changing any regulations imposed on Americans by the Independent Medicare [note: originally referred to as "medical"] Advisory Boards, which are commonly called the “Death Panels.”

It was Reid leading the Democrats who ignored 200 years of Senate precedents to rule that Senator Sanders could withdraw his amendment while it was being read.

It was Reid leading the Democrats who has determined again and again over the past few days that hundreds of years of accumulated Senate parliamentary rulings have no bearing on the health care vote.

On December 21, 2009, however, Harry Reid sold out the Republic in toto.

Upon examination of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment to the health care legislation, Senators discovered section 3403. That section changes the rules of the United States Senate.

To change the rules of the United States Senate, there must be sixty-seven votes.

Section 3403 of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment requires that “it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” The good news is that this only applies to one section of the Obamacare legislation. The bad news is that it applies to regulations imposed on doctors and patients by the Independent Medicare Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels.

Section 3403 of Senator Reid’s legislation also states, “Notwithstanding rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a committee amendment described in subparagraph (A) may include matter not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Finance if that matter is relevant to a proposal contained in the bill submitted under subsection (c)(3).” In short, it sets up a rule to ignore another Senate rule.

It's stuff like this that prompted the Dems to rush this abomination through. Just think - if we'd had weeks or months to read, digest, and analyze this bill rather than just a few hours, we might have spotted this and thrown up the red flags.

Here's an interesting exchange between Sen. Jim DeMint and the Senate Democrat leadership:

DEMINT: But, Mr. President, as the chair has confirmed, Rule 22, paragraph 2, of the standing rules of the Senate, states that on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting. Let me go to the bill before us, because buried deep within the over 2,000 pages of this bill, we find a rather substantial change to the standing rules of the Senate. It is section 3403 and it begins on page 1,000 of the Reid substitute. . . . These provisions not only amend certain rules, they waive certain rules and create entirely new rules out of whole cloth.”

The Senate President disagreed and said it was a change in procedure, not a change in rules, therefore the Senate precedent that a two-thirds vote is required to change the rules of the Senate does not apply.

Senator DeMint responded:

DEMINT: and so the language you see in this bill that specifically refers to a change in a rule is not a rule change, it’s a procedure change?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: that is correct.

DEMINT: then i guess our rules mean nothing, do they, if they can re define them. thank you. and i do yield back.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: the senate stands adjourned until 7:00 a.m. tomorrow.

That’s right. When confronted with the facts, the Senate Democrats ran for cover. The Senate Democrats are ignoring the constitution, the law, and their own rules to pass Obamacare.

To quote the Declaration of Indepedence:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

This, Ladies and Gentlemen, is one of those causes. When the men and women who run this nation, which is supposedly a nation of laws not men, choose to ignore the laws and bribe the men, the people cannot be blamed for wanting to dissolve political bands connecting them to that government.

The bottom line:

To get around the prohibition on considering amendments to that particular subsection of the health care legislation, the Senate must get two-thirds of the Senate to agree to waive the rule. In other words, it will take a super-majority of the people the citizens of our Republican elected to overrule a regulation imposed by a group of faceless bureaucrats and bean counters.

This is the Democrats getting caught red-handed entrenching the power of the federal government to dictate health care decisions that will affect the lives of every American via death panels. It may or may not be explicitly unconstitutional, but it is pretty underhanded regardless.

How's that hope and change working out for you now?

There's my two cents.

Pelosi: Brainless In San Francisco

Gateway Pundit:

"We continue to work with all members of the caucus and with the Administration to build on the recovery package and other initiatives to help create jobs and grow our economy after years of mismanagement by the Bush administration."

Nancy Pelosi
On the Failing Pelosi-Obama Economic Policies
December 2, 2009

That's odd.
Barack Obama and the Pelosi Democrats have nearly doubled the US unemployment rate in less than one year.

Not even after 9-11, Hurricane Katrina, the Clinton Recession, the Iraq War, etc. did Bush come close to what the democrats managed to do in one year.

And, President George Bush never did this either…

Obama tripled the national deficit his first year in office and he's off to a record-setting start in fiscal year 2010.

Is it really brainlessness, or is it doublespeak?  My vote would be both.

There's my two cents.

More Grossity From The Wacko Green Left

The evidence is mounting that green environmentalist wackos apparently have an inherent obsession with grossness:

Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups have pushed manufacturers such as Kimberly-Clark (Cottonelle) and Procter & Gamble (Charmin) to stop using wood from virgin forests to make tissue products.

Mountains of paper are dumped every day into recycling bins in homes, offices, factories and schools. Use that to make toilet paper, the activists said.

Time to roll off the big number: If each American family would buy one recycled roll just one time, it would save 400,000 trees, allegedly.

The problem, though, is that each time paper is shredded during the recycling process, its fibers get shorter. The shorter the fiber, the less soft the tissue. And Americans, though indicating in surveys that they embraced green initiatives, also said they don't want to sacrifice comfort.

Sheesh.  What's with these people?

There's my two cents.

Stimulus = Slush Fund

Have you heard anyone on the Right claim that Obama's stimulus bill was nothing more than a slush fund to support the Left's favorite pet projects and constituent groups?  The Washington Examiner reports (via Gateway Pundit) on something that pretty much proves it (emphasis mine):

The Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia is one of the nation's most respected economic and regulatory think tanks and has a Nobel prize-winning economist on staff. The econometric analysis was done using data provided by Recovery.gov -- the government website devoted to tracking the stimulus data -- as well as a host of other government databases.

The Mercatus Center analysis ... found that Democratic congressional districts received on average almost double the funding of Republican congressional districts. Republican congressional districts received on average $232 million in stimulus funds while Democratic districts received $439 million on average.

Why?  Is it that Republican districts are more wealthy and thus less in need of stimulus money?

...[an] analysis of the $157 billion distributed by the American Reinvestment and Recovery act, popularly known as the stimulus bill, shows that the funds were distributed without regard for what states were most in need of jobs.

"You would think that if the stimulus money was actually spent to create jobs, there would be more stimulus money spent in high unemployment states," said Veronique de Rugy, a scholar at the Mercatus Center who produced the analysis. "But we don't find any correlation."

Additionally, Mercatus found that stimulus funds were not disbursed geographically with any special regard for low-income Americans. "We find no correlation between economic indicators and stimulus funding. Preliminary results find no statistically significant effect of unemployment, median income or mean income on stimulus funds allocation," said the report.

"We found that there is a correlation [relating to the partisanship of congressional districts]," de Rugy said. Her regression analysis found that stimulus funds are expected to decrease by 24.19 percent if a district is represented by a Republican.

And, as icing on the cake:

...the Mercatus analysis shows that a majority of the funds allocated went to public rather than private entities -- nearly $88 billion to $69 billion. While some of the money given to public entities may eventually filter down to the private sector, it's much less transparent how money given to public entities is spurring economic growth and job creation.

Case closed.

There's my two cents.

Speaking Of Being Bought Off...

Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell offered this statement on the subject.  I've highlighted my favorite parts:

"Tonight marks the culmination of a long national debate. Passions have run high. And, that's appropriate because the bill we are voting on tonight will impact the life of every American. It will shape the future of our country. It will determine whether our children can afford the nation they inherit.  It is one of the most consequential votes any of us will ever take. And none of us take it lightly.

"But make no mistake: if the people who wrote this bill were proud of it, they wouldn't be forcing this vote in the dead of night

"Here are just some of the deals we've noticed:

"$100 million for an unnamed health care facility at an unnamed university somewhere in the United States — the bill doesn't say where — and no one will even step forward to claim it.

"One state out of 50 gets to expand Medicaid at no cost to itself — while taxpayers in the other 49 states pick up the tab.

"The same Senator who cut that deal secured another one that benefits a single insurance company – just one insurance company – based in his state.

"Do the supporters of this bill know all this?  Do they think it's a fair deal for their states, for the rest of the country?

"The fact is, a year after this debate started few people could have imagined that this is how it would end — with a couple of cheap deals and a rushed vote at one o'clock in the morning.  But that's where we are.

"And Americans are wondering tonight: How did this happen?

"So I'd like to take a moment to explain to the American people how we got here, to explain what happened — and what's happening now.

"Everyone in this chamber agrees we need health care reform. The question is how?

"Some of us have taken the view that the American people want us to tackle the cost issue, and we've proposed targeted steps to do it.  Our friends on the other side have taken the opposite approach.

"And the result has been just what you'd expect.

"The final product is a mess — and so is the process that's brought us here to vote on a bill that the American people overwhelmingly oppose.

"Any challenge of this size and scope has always been dealt with on a bipartisan basis.  The senior Senator from Maine made that point at the outset of the debate, and reminded us all how these things have been handled throughout history..

"The Social Security Act of 1935 was approved by all but six members of the Senate.  The Medicare and Medicaid Acts of 1965 were approved by all but 21.  All but eight senators voted for the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

"Americans believe that on issues of this importance, one party should never be allowed to force its will on the other half of the nation.  The proponents of this bill felt differently.

"In a departure from history, Democrat leaders put together a bill so heavy with tax hikes, Medicare cuts and government intrusion, that, in the end their biggest problem wasn't convincing Republicans to support it, it was convincing the Democrats.

"In the end, the price of passing this bill wasn't achieving the reforms Americans were promised.

"It was a blind call to make history, even if it was a historical mistake — which is exactly what this bill will be if it's passed.  Because, in the end, this debate isn't about differences between two parties, it's about a $2.3 trillion dollar, 2,733-page health care reform bill that does not reform health care and, in fact, makes its price go up.

I'm not terribly impressed with how McConnell conducted the opposition to this bill, seeking to 'fix' it for weeks before finally attempting to kill it (alas, too little too late).  However, this statement is dead on, and these questions and facts should be plainly put to anyone who supports DemCare.

From just the past couple years of watching politics closely, I've become cynical enough that I'm not one bit surprised at the Left's brute-force attempts to take over vast swaths of America, the bald-faced lies used to push that takeover, nor the depths to which they have sunk in order to accomplish the takeover.  I am, however, still completely amazed at the fact that so many Democrat citizens would allow their political leadership to use these means to accomplish these ends - if they wouldn't, then they wouldn't have elected such leaders, and even if they had they wouldn't still be showing majority support for their elected leaders' actions, right?  I have a hard time believing that most non-elite/non-politician Democrats would sanction this stuff, thus the only remaining conclusion is that there is a staggering amount of ignorance in this country which allows the Washington elite to get away with this absolute and total crap.

I believe that we are seeing enough distress in the country that real hardship is jerking lots of people out of that fog of ignorance, but the question remains whether or not we can hold off enough of the damage that will be done by radical Leftist policies like DemCare for long enough that we can put some real grown-up conservatives in office to correct things...or if we will have passed the point of no return by the time they arrive.  Obama originally wanted DemCare by August, but we've at least forced another 4-5 months into it; if we can keep this up, maybe there's hope yet.

What worries me when I think about the state of the nation my generation will hand down to my children is:

What if we can't?

There's my two cents.

DemCare Lurches Forward Again

So, why did Dem. Senator Ben Nelson cave, and why was it so odious?  Let's set the stage a bit:

On Thursday, Sen. Ben Nelson told a Nebraska radio station that the tax increases in the Senate health care bill were "not acceptable," especially given the economic climate.

Here was what Nelson had to say when asked about tax increases in the bill just two days ago (you can listen here, around the 9 minute mark):

"The problem with the legislation is, it is complex, and it is further complicated by tax increases as a means of funding extending coverage, to people who currently have it. There is no free ride here. If you're going to extend coverage, obviously, there has to be some mechanism to raise the money. The way in which money is raised is not acceptable. If there isn't a way to raise the money in tight times, I think you have to look at a scaled back version."

The problem is that the final outcome that Nelson ended up supporting includes major tax increases, including on new taxes on things like indoor tanning salons.  What gives, Senator?  Oh, I see, you've been bought:

Nebraska will receive $100 million in assistance for its state Medicaid program under provisions negotiated by Sen. Ben Nelson (D) in the Senate's healthcare reform bill.

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

Nelson managed to win a share of the section of the manager's amendment on Equitable Support for Certain States, which will provide Nebraska, along with Massachusetts and Vermont, support in paying its share of additional costs to Medicaid in the health legislation.

Nelson is already experiencing a stiff backlash from his home state, including the Governor.  His re-election bid is in 2012, so it'll be interesting to see how that plays out.

Michelle Malkin reports on the aptly named Cash for Cloture deals that bought Harry Reid his 60 votes.  Here's a top-level summary - hit the link for details:

GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell alluded to all this backroom dealing on the floor early this morning before the cloture vote, but lamely refused to name names on the Senate floor.

Screw Senate collegiality. Let the sun shine in.

1. Sen. Ben Nelson's "Cornhusker Kickback." The CBO says the Nebraska Democrat sellout's special Medicaid expansion subsidy will initially cost an estimated $100 million.

2. New England's Special Syrup. Vermont and Massachusetts will get similar (though less generous) special treatment by the feds in covering Medicaid expansion costs. Combined with Nebraska's tab, the exclusive clique's payoffs will cost taxpayers $1.2 billion over 10 years. At least.

3. Corruptocrat Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd's Christmas wish: Hospital helper. He's plunging in the polls and in need of a little bacon to bring home.

A $100 million item for construction of a university hospital was inserted in the Senate health care bill at the request of Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who faces a difficult re-election campaign, his office said Sunday night. The legislation leaves it up to the Health and Human Services Department to decide where the money should be spent, although spokesman Bryan DeAngelis said Dodd hopes to claim it for the University of Connecticut.

4. "Some insurers are more equal than others" tax exemption. The WSJ reports that nonprofit insurance companies will be exempt from a new, nearly $7 billion tax to pay for Demcare. Democrat Sens. Ben "Blank Check" Nelson and Carl Levin of Michigan pushed hard for the tax exemption, which will exempt insurers in their states.

5. The Frontier freebie. Several lucky states will see an increase in Medicare payments to hospitals and doctors, the NYT reports, — "where at least 50 percent of the counties are 'frontier counties,' defined as those having a population density less than six people per square mile. And which are the lucky states? The bill gives no clue. But the Congressional Budget Office has determined that Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming meet the criteria."

6. More Democrat hospital bennies. Also via NYT: "Another provision of the bill would increase Medicare payments to certain "low-volume hospitals" treating limited numbers of Medicare patients. Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa and chairman of the Senate health committee, said this 'important fix' would help midsize Iowa hospitals in Grinnell, Keokuk and Spirit Lake. Another item in Mr. Reid's package specifies the data that Medicare officials should use in adjusting payments to hospitals to reflect local wage levels. The officials can use certain new data only if it produces a higher index and therefore higher Medicare payments for these hospitals. Senate Democrats said this provision would benefit hospitals in Connecticut and Michigan."

7. Bernie Sanders' socialized medicine sop. He wanted a public option. Instead, he got socialized medicine satellite clinics funded to the tune of at least $10 billion. In his remarks early this morning before the cloture vote, he gloated about the funding as a crucial step toward universal care.

8. Fla.-Pa.-NY Protectionism. Via Politico: "Three states – Pennsylvania, New York and Florida – all won protections for their Medicare Advantage beneficiaries at a time when the program is facing cuts nationwide."

And these are just the ones we know about.  Remember, this bill is well over 2,000 pages, and Reid put out a new version just a couple days ago.

In the process of the brief debate, we saw the usual slanderous attacks from Democrats, calling anyone who opposes DemCare Nazis and so on -- never mind that they're insulting a significant majority of the nation (55-60%, depending on the poll) by doing that -- and some fairly decent comebacks from the GOP.  But, it all played out as expected, with every Democrat either falling dutifully in line on their own or by being bought off.  If there's one thing you can trust an elected Democrat to do, it is to cave or be bought off.  That's on top of raising taxes and rampant spending, of course.  You can count on them for that, too.

Another thing that really puts the lie to the notion of 'pro-life' Democrats (like Nelson), or perhaps just their ability/willingness to stand on moral principles is that the new bill will still require that monthly abortion fee from you, the American taxpayer.  Nice work, guys, you really showed America how it's done.

After taking a whole lot of heat from the Right, some credit must be given to RINO Senators Snowe and Collins, who both voted against DemCare this time around.  This at least prevents Obama and the Dems from using the word 'bipartisan' and forces the Democrat party to accept 100% ownership of this debacle, so that will certainly help in the next couple of elections as Americans begin paying higher taxes while seeing only declining services.  Of course, Snowe could have killed the Senate bill outright several weeks ago and did not, so giving her credit for this particular vote is kind of like giving someone credit for vomiting on the hardwood floor rather than vomiting on the Berber carpet - slightly more forgivable, but in the end it's still a tremendously nasty mess that someone is going to have to clean up.

More to come.

There's my two cents.

Monumental Insignificant Climate Change Agreement Reached

I'll have a lot more to post about the Copenhagen climate change circus in the next few days, but I wanted to give you what seems to be a good overview of the key points for you to know:

In case you're wondering why China snubbed Obama this morning, it's simple. They want to cheat on their emissions caps and he doesn't want to let them, so he quite reasonably insisted that they join everyone else in submitting to international emissions monitoring. The result: Histrionic Chinese claims of the "huge offense" caused by his speech followed by a walkout.

But now everyone's back at the table and the world has, at the eleventh hour, been saved. Sort of.

Leaders here concluded a climate change deal on Friday that the Obama administration called "meaningful" but that falls short of even the modest expectations for the summit meeting here…

The accord drops the expected goal of concluding a binding international treaty by the end of 2010, which leaves the implementation of its provisions uncertain. It is likely to undergo many months, perhaps years, of additional negotiation before it emerges in any internationally enforceable form…

The deal came after a dramatic moment in which Mr. Obama burst into a meeting of the Chinese, Indian and Brazilian leaders, according to senior administration officials. Chinese protocol officers noisily protested, and Mr. Obama said he did not want them negotiating in secret. The intrusion led to new talks that cemented key terms of the deal, American officials said.

The catch here is that if these measures to check up on participating nations aren't legitimate, then the whole thing will be worthless.  Fortunately (and a bit surprisingly, at least to me), some members of Congress are saying rather loudly that if China and India aren't on board, then we're not playing, either.  So, the major result of the Copenhagen circus is...a non-binding agreement to meet again and do something about this in the future.

Ooooh, good job.  I hope it was worth all of the carbon emissions to fly all these people on their private jets to Copenhagen for that.  I'm sure the Danish prostitutes appreciated the stimulus to their economy, though.

There's my two cents.

Senate Passes Key Hurdle To Killing America

Due to some much-anticipated (and very long awaited) circumstances all tying together over the weekend, I finally got the opportunity to wipe our computer, cleansing it of the electronic irritant that is Windows Vista and begin putting it back together with XP.  As such, I'm a little behind on blog posting, and may remain so for another day or two.  Thanks in advance for your patience.

In the meantime, the Senate held a vote in the wee hours of the morning over the weekend (because they didn't want to keep hearing from all of us pesky voters), passing a key procedural hurdle in the quest to destroy the American health care system.

Michelle Malkin has the recap:

If you are a normal person, today was a day for family, faith, football, and holiday get-togethers.

While you've been busy this Sunday before Christmas, the Senate has been hurtling toward a cloture vote on Demcare.

As I noted early this morning, the Senate will proceed to a cloture vote on the Reid-Baucus-Dodd-Harkin amendment at 1:00am Eastern this morning.

GOP Sen. John Thune is now on the floor shining light on all the Democrats' broken promises. RedState's Dan Perrin outlines the extraordinary measures needed to kill the bill.

***

I noted this in my lead story thread, but I'll repeat it here: CBO now says Nelson's Cornhusker Kickback will cost $100 million for Nebraska. Vermont and Massachusetts will also benefit from similar deals. Combined, the three-state kickback will cost taxpayers $1.2 billion over 10 years.

A full rundown of all the Cash for Cloture deals here.

Can we extend this, please: "Federal Government Closed on Monday."

On Sunday morning, I posted Nebraska Dr. Becky Hollibaugh's letter roasting her sellout Democrat Sen. Ben Nelson.

I'm just shocked -- SHOCKED -- that all of these Democrats who were talking tough a couple days ago have now caved and fallen in line.  Nelson outright sold his vote like Landrieu did a couple weeks ago (more on that later) and McCaskill somehow missed the fact that DemCare will cost taxpayers trillions of dollars.  It's just another proof that, since they don't actually stand on any core principles, every elected Democrat can be bought.  The only question is their price tag.  This is why I never believe it when Democrats talk tough about breaking with their party on key votes.

More details and analysis of the DemCare battle will be forthcoming.

There's my two cents.

It's Now Or Never On DemCare!

Philip Klein sums up the state of DemCare:

If Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid hasn't secured 60 votes by midnight Saturday, he won't be able to meet the ambitious deadline of passing a health care bill on Christmas Eve.

The reason is that in order to trigger the chain of events leading to a Christmas Eve vote, Reid would have to file cloture on his "manager's amendment" -- containing all of his final negotiated changes to the bill -- by the end of tomorrow.

Once Reid files that amendment, it will set up the key cloture vote on Monday at 1 a.m., requiring the support of 60 Senators to pass. While that would technically give him all of Sunday to win over Sen. Ben Nelson or any remaining holdouts, Reid would not be able to make any further changes to the bill in order to accommodate any Senator.

While a lot of people are focusing on Christmas Eve, the key vote will be that first cloture vote on Monday. If he gets 60 votes on that, the rest of the process will be a mere technicality.

So, while it sounds dramatic, the future of the nation's health care system may be decided in the next 34 hours.

So, the time is literally now. Here are a couple other key things to keep in mind as you contemplate whether or not to call your Senators (again). First, that only 34% of Americans think that passing DemCare as it stands now would be better than starting the whole process over. Second, that there is, as of now, still no actual bill to be voted on.

Pick up the phone today.

There's my two cents.

Fun & Frivolity: It's Football Post-Season Time!

Ah, December! That magical time of year when we get to see a showcase barrage of the best football in game after game after game of scintillating athletic talent. Truly nothing beats it.

Of course, for college football lovers like me, this is probably going to be a bit of a dull year. The lower tier bowls have propagated like jackrabbits, and there are a ton of .500 or barely over .500 teams playing in them. Most won't be worth watching, unless your particular team is participating. Even the BCS system looks to be a bit disappointing, with the most fascinating subplot being buried by the cowardly BCS (putting the two non-BCS conference teams against each other, thus eliminating the possibility of actually determining if they were better than the 'big boys'). But, I'm sure some of these games will provide tremendous entertainment and excitement - it's just that kind of sport.

The NFL, on the other hand, always delivers, and this year there are still (as of now) two undefeated teams hoping to make history. I'd love to see a Colts-Saints clash of the titans, especially since the Colts are now officially my second favorite team (I had to pick someone decent to follow...the Chiefs are depressingly hopeless right now).

Anyway, it's post-season football time, and that means it's time to tip the hat to some real men of sports genius:

Have a great weekend!

The Big Energy Lie

RedState kicks off this post by blowing apart some of the most common energy lies:

The Big Energy Lie goes something like this:

The United States has only 2-3% of the world’s oil reserves, but consumes 25% of global production.

Those words have been uttered by our Dear Leader as well as his Secretaries of Energy and Interior. The idea justifies “progressive” Administration policies ranging from “green jobs” to Cap and Trade to foreign affairs.

And they are deliberately designed to mislead.

Let’s study the fraction that results in that paltry 2-3% number.

The Numerator - U.S. Reserves

Geologists and engineers make estimates of petroleum resources, the total potential future recoverable quantity of oil and/or gas. Right now, the U.S. has considerable potential resources in places like the Outer Continental Shelf, ANWR and the Colorado Oil Shale. Reserves, on the other hand, is the term applied to that subset of resources that have been proven to exist by drilling and can be recovered with existing technology. Since we’ve made a policy decision to keep ANWR and 85% of the OCS pristine, those resources will never be “promoted” to reserve status. Until and unless someone figures out a way to exploit the oil shale profitably (and secures the blessings of the sate and the Feds), those resources will not be counted as reserves, either.

(I don’t know the numbers off the top of my head for oil, but for gas, the U.S. has reserves on the order of 200 trillion cubic feet, and annual production of roughly 20 trillion cubic feet. Natural gas resources are about 2,000 trillion cubic feet. Every year, if things go right, we should drill enough new wells to turn resources into reserves to replace production. And at the current rate of gas production, we’ll be able to do this for another 100 years or so.)

As an analogy, imagine a multi-millionaire who owns lots of illiquid assets — houses, cars and boats — but only has $250 in his checking account. Do we consider him poor? Reserves are analogous to ready cash; resources are akin to total assets. Our example millionaire is cash poor by his choice; the U.S is relatively reserve-poor because we, as a nation, have decided not to fully exploit our resources.

Another factor — U.S. public companies must report their estimates of reserves to shareholders and to the Securities Exchange Commission. Almost all companies undergo a thorough audit of their estimates by third party engineers at least once a year. These reserve estimates tend to be conservative in nature as the companies prefer to avoid the bad press associated with reserve writedowns.

So we have a fraction with a numerator that is skewed to the small side — for several reasons.

The Denominator - Global Reserves

Here, the concept is the same, but the effect is different.

Some 70% to 80% of Global Reserves are owned by NOCs — state owned National Oil Companies. The regimes that control these reserves have zero transparency in reporting. They have an incentive to lie aggressively represent the reserves they own. Most of them use the cash from oil to support their populations with generous welfare, subsidies and social programs. Bigger reserves mean that they’re more stable internally and more powerful geopolitically.

So we have a fraction with a denominator that is probably an artificially large number — for several reasons.

And, dividing a small numerator by a large denominator gives a tiny fraction. So tiny that it implies that the country’s domestic energy situation is hopeless; furthermore, we cannot reasonably expect it to be otherwise.

It’s a giant lie.

And it really comes home at times like this:

Despite Kyoto, despite Copenhagen, despite the New Green Economy and despite the Democratic Party, world oil demand is expected to increase by 0.8 to 1.5 million barrels a day in 2010, depending on the source of your forecast. That kind of increased demand could lead to a substantial increase in oil prices; when demand exceeds production capability by just a little bit, the price reaction is usually pretty strong.

What has the Obama Administration done to prepare for such an eventuality?

Nothing. Well, nothing positive.

• In February, Interior Secretary Salazar extended the comment period on the 2010-2015 five-year offshore leasing plan by six months and has not taken any additional action.

• Likewise, the Administration has failed to make progress on Lease Sale 220 offshore Virginia that was planned for 2011. It’s estimated that the Sale 220 area could contain 1.14 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 130 million barrels of oil.

• Sec. Salazar cancelled oil and natural gas leases on 77 parcels of federal lands in Utah, then announced that 60 of them would be removed from development–eight permanently and 52 indefinitely.

• The administration’s fiscal 2010 budget contains at least $80 billion in tax increases on the U.S. oil and natural gas industry. These increases will depress investment in new domestic oil and natural gas projects, weakening the nation’s energy security and doing nothing to defray the impact of higher world oil energy prices on America.

Even as the climate change community is starting to realize that clean, abundant, domestic natural gas is part of the solution, the Administration promulgates policies that delay and discourage domestic production. It’s time to encourage domestic oil and natural gas production to benefit all Americans by raising supply levels, creating well-paying jobs, and improving the nation’s energy security.

Even worse, the entire Democrat party insists that the U.S. do nothing to develop our own natural resources, nor move closer to independence from foreign oil, nor anything that would lower costs for Americans. And yet, look at what the other major players in the oil game are doing:

Not only is China investing in places like Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, Venezuela, and Argentina, but it is in the U.S.’s backyard, looking towards usurping the U.S. supply of Canadian oil sands. China is a good customer for Canada, as Canada fears that the U.S. may introduce a low carbon fuel standard[ii] or other legislation that would restrict our purchases of oil sands from Canada[iii]. China is also looking at a possible purchase of leases in the Gulf of Mexico where Devon Energy is looking to sell its U.S. leases.[iv] The sale of these offshore leases requires the approval of the Mineral Management Service in the U.S. Department of Interior. China is willing and able to be at the forefront of any misstep other countries make to gain a foothold and secure oil and gas supplies, and the U.S. seems to be giving it elbow room.

...

While the Bush Administration initiated steps to bring on new leases of oil and gas, both offshore in the Gulf of Mexico and on public lands that are endowed with billions of barrels of shale oil, the Obama Administration has slowed the progress by extending the comment periods and providing other obstacles.

These policies are energy and economic suicide, and could also manifest in the form of national security issues down the road. It must be stopped, and some true grown-ups need to be put back in charge of the country.

On a related note, 68% of Americans favor increased offshore drilling.

As usual, the Democrats in Congress are horrendously out of touch with American citizens, and their failure will become our problem.

There's my two cents.

Bankrupt, But Still Spending Madly

Hot Air Greenroom:

Since Obama has taken office, our national deficit has more than quadrupled. Earlier this year, as part of the stimulus package, Congress set a statutory debt limit. The limit was $12.104 trillion — and we've now exceeded it.

The latest calculation of the National Debt as posted by the Treasury Department has – at least numerically – exceeded the statutory Debt Limit approved by Congress last February as part of the Recovery Act stimulus bill.

The ceiling was set at $12.104 trillion dollars. The latest posting by Treasury shows the National Debt at nearly $12.135 trillion.

A senior Treasury official told CBS News that the department has some "extraordinary accounting tools" it can use to give the government breathing room in the range of $150-billion when the Debt exceeds the Debt Ceiling.

Were it not for those "tools," the U.S. Government would not have the statutory authority to borrow any more money. It might block issuance of Social Security checks and require a shutdown of some parts of the federal government.

Well gee, it's a good thing the government has some breathing room, because I'm pretty sure there will be a lot of hyperventilating Americans reading this.

Meanwhile, Obama continues along his merry little way, signing a new spending bill. This one is going to cost us around $1.1 trillion. So that brings our national debt up even more. And as always, it's in the name of stimulating the economy.

This is a dangerous game that Democrats are playing. And one that we have to stop next year. The thing is, we can't afford to keep spending like there's no tomorrow. ... If we keep this up, we'll bankrupt ourselves, and we won't be the number one superpower in the world anymore. You think the economy's bad now? How will we fare when the government literally has no money anymore? Everything will fall apart. Everything.

I think Barack Obama's favorite word is 'trillion'.  He sure throws it around a lot.  Unfortunately, it's always in reference to taxpayer money being spent.  He can't be troubled to send money to his family in Kenya -- where they live on $12 a year -- but he's veeeeery generous with your money.  Oh yes, definitely very generous.

This is what happens when irresponsible people get elected into positions of responsibility.  Elections have consequences, and this is what our elections over the past few years have given us.  I have no doubt that there will be at least a partial correction next year, but will it be enough?  And will it be soon enough?  That is the question.

I think it's safe to say that as long as liberals are allowed to run government, there will be no end to the mad spending, no matter what.

There's my two cents.

While You Weren't Looking, The House Just Passed Another Stimulus

I've emphasized the part that makes this so easy to understand:

Albert Einstein famously defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” So after a $787 billion stimulus that was supposed to create (not merely save) 3.3 million net jobs but instead saw 3.4 million net jobs lost, House Democrats this week have doubled down by (barely) passing yet another $150 billion stimulus bill. Of course, if deficit-spending created jobs and growth, then the staggering $1.4 trillion deficit in 2009 would have already overheated the economy.

The new stimulus bill is offensive on a number of levels. Most of it’s provisions — such as highways ($28 billion) mass transit & Amtrak ($9 billion), education jobs funds ($38 billion) — we’re already funded by the last stimulus, only a quarter of which has been spent thus far. Why not just move that spending up? These plus the extension of other stimulus provisions like the state Medicaid bailout and COBRA health benefits further make a mockery out of the Democrats’ guarantee that the $787 billion stimulus represented one-time spending that would not be extended.

President Obama is employing the gimmick of “offsetting” some of this spending with TARP savings. It’s a sham. Imagine a family secures a new credit card with a $10,000 credit limit to pay for emergency car repairs. The final repair bill comes to $8,000, so the family charges the final $2,000 for a new television while arguing that it is from car repair “savings” and thus will not add to their household debt. The Obama administration is clearly adding $150 billion that would not otherwise have been spent and added to the debt, even as they play accounting games.

The American people understand that stimulus spending does not work. Rasmussen reports that 62 percent of Americans oppose the new stimulus, and 51 percent agree that more jobs would be created by repealing what’s left of the $787 billion monstrosity. Even Council of Economic Advisers Chairwoman Christina Romer has written that tax relief is a much more effective stimulus than new spending. However, by passing a new stimulus bill every few months, the Obama White House is setting itself up to claim credit whenever the recession inevitably ends. The question is how much debt they will accumulate in the meantime.

The longer we watch the Obama administration, the more obvious it becomes that the only solution they have for anything is to spend more of your taxpayer dollars. That's why he's cratering in the polls - he campaigned as a new thing, responsible, and centrist, and he's revealed himself to be a radical Left-wing, tax-and-spend liberal hack.

We've got to end this runaway spending train before he buries this country under an irreparable mountain of debt. If he hasn't done that yet, of course.

There's my two cents.

Barack Obama Rocks Copenhagen's World...

...by recycling an old speech:

Just do as he says, or you must want to kill the world:

“The time for talk is over, this is the bottom line: We can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward. We can do that and everyone who is in this room will be part of an historic endeavor or we can choose delay,” he said, predicting: “We will back here making the same stale arguments, year after year, perhaps decade after decade, all until the danger of climate change grows until it is irreversible.”

Where have we heard this before?

"The time for talk is over," [Obama] added. "The time for action is now, because we know that if we do not act, a bad situation will become dramatically worse. Crisis could turn into catastrophe for families and businesses across the country."

Yep, the speech Obama just gave in Copenhagen is basically the speech he gave last February to push through the Stimulus Plan, that foul piece of legislation which has turned into a paradigm of big government gone bad.

Let's bring that Stimulus mojo to the whole planet, because the time for talk is over. For everyone except Obama, that is.

The audacity of his hypocrisy of saying one thing and doing another is matched only by his enthusiasm to spend your tax dollars to fund all of his wishes and desires around the entire world.

There's my two cents.

Laughing At The Left

I completely agree with Quin Hillyer on this outstanding column:

If the consequences for this great nation of ours weren't so serious and the policies preferred by the left weren't so dangerous, one would really laugh, almost uncontrollably, at the beliefs and (il)logic of American liberals. Based on things they have actually said or done, here are some of the things they really, truly seem to believe.

They believe we can spend our way out of debt. They believe taking money from one part of the economy to give to another part somehow makes the economy bigger. They believe people who have never run a business can run a business better than people who have spent their whole lives running businesses. They believe that what appears to be a 20-year spike in global temperatures (a spike itself that hundreds of scientists dispute) can mean doom for a planet whose temperatures have swung much more widely for 6 billion years -- but that an eight- or ten-year flattening or even drop in temperatures can be ignored because it doesn't comport with the "models" based largely on the previous 20 years. They believe that punishing "developed" nations for carbon consumption is a good idea even if it means that developing countries without the same environmental controls will take over the production/manufacturing forced away from the developed countries. So, somehow, in the name of saving the environment from carbon emissions, they would create even more carbon emissions (and other, real pollution) elsewhere -- and call it progress.

They believe that teenage girls who aren't allowed to get even minor cosmetic surgery without a parent's permission should nevertheless be able to procure an abortion without a parent's permission. They believe that would-be parents should have the "choice" to kill their babies, but not the choice of where to send their children to school. They believe that when it comes to advising about abortions, nobody should interfere with the doctor (abortionist)-patient relationship -- but when it comes to caring for the elderly, anonymous bureaucrats should dictate to doctors what sorts of treatment are cost-effective enough to be "approved."

They believe it is unconstitutional for a legislature to mention Jesus but perfectly okay to mention Allah. They think it is offensive for mass-market movies to exhibit Christian sensibilities, but that it is perfectly okay for primetime TV shows on the public airwaves to have eighth graders decide which is the sexiest from among of contestants on MILF (Mothers I'd Like to ****) Island. They believe it disqualifies an appellate judicial nominee to joke one time about praying "please God, no more Souters" on the Supreme Court, but that it doesn't disqualify a Supreme Court nominee to repeat in multiple prepared speeches that "inherent physiological or cultural differences… may and will make a difference in our judging." They believe it is disqualifying for a judicial nominee to have quoted Thomas Aquinas about a Catholic duty to be good and active citizens while speaking to a Catholic high school. They believe explicit words in the Constitution protecting contracts, and gun ownership rights, and property rights against government seizure, are to be ignored; but that wholly invented "rights" that cannot be found in any words of the Constitution, but that merely "extend" from "emanations" from "penumbras" of other judicially created "rights," are somehow sacrosanct and essential parts of the Constitution.

They believe that when a white skinhead threatens a black man, it is a sign of a vast racist conspiracy; but that when paramilitary-garbed New Black Panthers with a weapon, spouting racial epithets, stand right in front of a polling place, it is no violation of civil rights at all -- even after a judge has already moved to issue a default judgment against the Panthers. They believe that blacks are suffering racial discrimination when black voters themselves choose to hold non-partisan elections. They believe white firefighters can be denied promotions specifically because they are white, and that Asian students can be denied admission to college because they aren't black, but that black students who want to attend racially integrated private schools should be sent back to de facto segregated public schools in the name of "fairness."

The Left thinks it is good diplomacy to insult our allies while kowtowing to our enemies and bowing to problematic rivals. They tried everything in their power to stop Ronald Reagan's Cold War policies and yet now claim to have been part of a decades-long, bipartisan consensus on Cold War efforts. They think Afghanistan is a "war of necessity" until they are in charge of it, after which it becomes a war that must be stopped, one that was inherited from bad Republicans. They oppose missile defense because they say it will never work, and then when it works they oppose it anyway. They think that American imperialists are worse than foreign Communists. They think American servicemen should be prosecuted for (allegedly) punching a jihadist-terrorist in the stomach while capturing him -- and in a military court, without civilian due process rights -- but that foreign terrorist suspects are too good for military justice and instead deserve Miranda rights and other domestic American civil rights.

They support jail sentences for mere paperwork violations of environmental laws, even of foreign environmental laws or regulations, but they think even violent criminals should be let free if police make unintentional mistakes in paperwork or procedure.

They also think it is dangerous to the point of being an existential threat for ordinary citizens to challenge office-holders at town hall meetings, but perfectly okay for those same powerful office-holders to call their critics "un-American." They believe in the secret ballot for Mexicans, but not for American workers who are considering unionization. They say, against all evidence, that far more ballots are kept from being cast due to utterly unspecified "intimidation" than are cast fraudulently in the names of people who actually go nowhere near the polls, of dead people, and even of pet dogs …and of dead pet fish!!!

And, finally for now (this could go on for page after page), get this: They actually think most Americans agree with them. Now that isn't just laugh-inducing; it's worthy of a roll-on-the-floor, guffaw-til-you're-blue-in-the-face, uncontrollable laughing fit.

Amen, Quin. Well said.

There's my two cents.

Bursty Stuff

Below are some quickie bursts that are worth pointing out for your information.

Fistgate
As if the previous stuff we've learned about Barack Obama's 'safe school czar' wasn't bad enough, it gets still worse: now we learn that Kevin Jennings has recommended a book that romanticizes the rape of a 13-year old girl, another that endorses gay sex between first graders, and other books for kids with images of men having sex while boy scouts watch. Nice.

Congress focuses on priorities
College football and TV audio on commercials, that is. Isn't it great to know that Congress only takes on serious issues that are really, really important?

Muslims move in
Um...does it concern anyone else that a mysterious Muslim group with unknown sponsors has purchased the building right next to Ground Zero for a mosque?

Dems kill scholarships for poor students in DC
The omnibus bill that Congress just passed contained a provision that removed funding for scholarships for poor kids in Washington DC. What's that about standing up for the underprivileged, the poor, and the little guy?

Teleprompters for Obama!
Yep, it's true - since Barack Obama took office, the teleprompter industry has seen a huge boom in business. Of course, there's also the danger of a backlash against using teleprompters...

More bowing
Gateway Pundit: Barack Obama flew Air Force One through a blizzard to join the junk scientists in Copenhagen today and save the world. After delivering his listless speech and promising rainbows and unicorn rides the president left the stage and bowed to some green delegate in the crowd. He couldn’t help himself.

And so it goes...

There's my two cents.