An Atta-boy to Clinton and Coburn

It strikes me as peculiar saying this since the last time I was in complete agreement with Hillary Clinton was back when she found out that her no-account husband had embarrassed himself, the country and her with his goings on with a young intern named Monica and then she proceeded to give him complete hell for it. That being said, Hillary did indeed get this one right too the other day when she made a visit to Pakistan in her role as Secretary of State.

When questioned by a group of Pakistani journalists regarding the United States’ irritation with the Pakistani government for not using enough resources to find and eliminate enemy Taliban/Al Queda terrorists operating in their country near the Afghanistan border she said, “I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are, and couldn't get to them if they really wanted to”.

Now this statement has caused a minor uproar in Pakistan and even with some of the namby-pamby diplomat types here in the United States. Hillary, in an admittedly rare candid and truthful moment, simply stated a fact without sugar coating it. Evidently this is not something that is done by diplomats, but I say good for her to tell it like it is on this one! Thumbs up for HRC. Now if only we could get two in a row from her!

Also, I read an article during lunch today in the NY Times that was probably not meant to be necessarily complimentary towards Senator Tom Coburn, but which I found to make me admire the man greatly. Tom Coburn is a family doctor from Oklahoma and a Republican. He is not a party man though. He regularly frustrates the Republicans and absolutely infuriates the Democrats because he refuses to vote for any spending bills that aren't absolutely necessary and Constitutional. He has been nicknamed “Dr. No” accordingly. Senator Coburn has little love for Washington D.C., and heads home each weekend to be with his family and go to church where he is a deacon.

He realizes he is there to serve his constituents by making sure congress is not spending money foolishly. He is adept at using every trick in the book to delay, hinder, and neuter such bills, thus drawing the ire of most of his congressional colleagues but endearing himself to us working Americans. He has been quoted as saying, “If we wiped out the entire Congress and sent common people who have no political experience, we would get far better results than we have today.” My sentiments exactly and more than enough cause for me to give Dr. Coburn a big thumbs up!

Intelligent Design Expelled

My baby brother, Timmy Paine, came to live with us temporarily as he moved to this state to begin a new job and set up his own home here. As I have not seen him in several years, it has been good to catch up on many things with him. Well last night he made some of his patented special popcorn and rented Ben Stein’s movie, Expelled. Then my sweet wife, baby daughter, Uncle Timmy, the dog, and I all sat down to watch it. Being a huge fan of Ben Stein anyway, I had great expectations, and I was not disappointed. Now this movie came out in 2008, but is very relevant and topical today.

Basically in this movie Ben Stein meets and interviews many scientists and professors that are both for and against intelligent design theory. He further goes on to report how many of these world class scientists that do espouse or even look at the possibility of intelligent design in their research or teaching have been excommunicated from academia and are made out as pariahs in the scientific world.

This, I found extremely interesting and yet sad, as I thought the purpose of science was to do research and experimentation and go to wherever the data took you in your conclusions. Instead, there are many people, particularly in academia, that have a preconceived notion and refuse to even acknowledge the possibility of any contrary evidence that goes against their seemingly political/anti-God agenda, despite the fact that there are HUGE holes in many of their theories that intelligent design does indeed help to explain.

For instance, most of the anti-intelligent designers are ardent subscribers to Darwinian theory. Never mind the fact that there are monumental holes in much of the macro-evolution theories that Darwin espoused in his work. To point out those flaws and suggest anything even tangentially associated with intelligent design is to become an apostate to science for these closed-minded “scientists”. Many of these “apostates” are then black-listed from teaching or getting research grants for any university after having come out of the “God-closet”.

With my exceptionally limited knowledge, even I can poke serious holes in Darwinism, let alone these world class scientists that offer up plausible explanations that debunk the more, shall we say, questionable parts of his work. Now I will buy evolution on a micro scale. That is to say, I see how a single species can change and improve via natural selection etcetera over time to become a more evolved and better version of the same species; however, you cannot convince me scientifically that all living species were propagated from one single species that in turn climbed out of the primordial soup when lightning struck it and gave a single cell its life.

For the amino acids and proteins necessary to form in the proper sequence so that one single living cell can come into being just by happenstance and chance, the odds approach near infinity. For this to happen repeatedly to form a complex organism that lives, breathes, and reproduces reaches the point of being completely inconceivable. Further, where is the transitional fossils between species if this actually happened? It takes a greater leap of faith, in my mind, to see how a trilobite, Tyrannosaur and tiger all evolved from a common ancestor.

This begs the question then; if sheer chance didn’t initially create life which flourished into all of its diversity and complexity, then who or what did? There certainly and, to my mind, undeniably is an absolute design to the complexity of our life forms, our ecosystem, our planet, our solar system, and our universe.

To those of us of faith, God and His intelligent design of all answers those questions in harmony with science. Those that deny intelligent design as even a possibility and stubbornly subscribe to the flawed theories of Darwinism are the ones that seemingly cling to something bordering on a false religion.

Were Charles Darwin alive today forming his theories, instead of a time around the civil war, and had modern knowledge of molecular biology, chemistry, and even the existence of something as fundamental to genetics as DNA, I suspect that even HE would no longer be a Darwinist. But perhaps I am just being stubborn in my beliefs….

The Taking Over of the American Economy

I was horrified to learn that one of the key people that was responsible for the housing finance crisis, Congressman Barney Frank who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, is now set to introduce legislation this week to further expand government’s ever-increasing and intrusive tentacles into our economy. He came to the conclusion that legislation was needed after meeting with a treasury official of the Obama administration. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geitner said he would support and encourage this legislation with the full backing of the Obama administration.

Basically, Congressman Frank’s bill, if passed, would allow the government to take over and run any financial institution that it deemed was in serious financial trouble and was too big to fail because of the negative repercussions that failure would have on our economy. In essence, our federal government wants the power legislatively to do what they have already un-Constitutionally done previously. They want the ability to seize a private company and have complete control of its day to day and longer term operations. According to reporting from the New York Times yesterday, it was stated that , “The measure would make it easier for the government to seize control of troubled financial institutions, throw out management, wipe out the shareholders and change the terms of existing loans held by the institution.”

The New York Times further stated that, “Some economists believe the mammoth size of some institutions is a threat to the financial system at large. Because these companies know the government could not allow them to fail, the argument goes, they are more inclined to take big risks.” THAT is precisely one of the key problems with this type of legislation. It removes the onus from the various financial institutions to make responsible loans. The can afford to engage in unwise or risky ventures, because they know that ultimately if they were to collapse financially then the shock waves this would cause for the U.S., and indeed the world, economy would be horrific. The thought therefore goes that the US Government would not allow them to fail. Hey, it sure seemed to work for GM and Chrysler. Or did it?

Never mind that by Obama’s usurpation of these private companies, firing the executives, reneging on vested interests to shareholders, and then making Democratic contributors (United Auto Workers Union) the beneficiaries of the federally reorganized car companies was un-American, but it was also un-Constitutional. Now the federal government wants legislative cover to do this again, for our own good should the need arise.

If private companies knew that they were on their own and foolish or risky behaviors taken by executives could result in the bankruptcy and dissolution of their companies, I guarantee there would be a lot less likelihood of such actions. Most people are not going to engage in behavior that they could reasonably expect to come back to harm them personally. This would also make share-holders more accountable in their investments towards poorly managed companies. If ones knows that regardless of how a company is run, the federal government will always be there with tax payer money to bail it out should the need arise, then there is no incentive to not take foolish risks for potential large gains, no matter how ill-advised they might be.

T. Timothy Ryan, the president of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, said that those on “Wall Street were concerned that the administration’s plan would remove many of the bankruptcy protections given to lenders of large institutions”. So once again, our congress and President are looking for ways to further socialize our economy and remove private property rights from investors and business owners all for “our own good.” After all, Obama, who has never run a company or held an executive position in any form in his entire life certainly is more qualified on how to run the world’s most powerful and productive economy in history. At this rate, by the time Obama leaves office I suspect we will have the equivalent GDP of Latvia.

It is amazing how our government can seemingly get away with such blatantly socialistic and anti-American actions with very little outrage from the American people. I imagine Hugo Chavez is probably admiring Obama from Caracas with a twinge of jealousy right about now.

March of the Czars

I wanted to address one other pet peeve of mine that seemingly gets little attention in the media. President Obama has appointed an enormous amount of “czars” to certain important posts with most of them being accountable only to him. Now Obama lawfully can set up his own administration and fill his cabinet with his choice of people that he chooses to appoint. Why he thinks it is necessary to have these extra-Constitutional czars to head up pet projects for him rather than have his own cabinet administer to these functions is beyond me.

Granted, other presidents have also used this tactic, as denoted by asterisks below, but none have ever come close to the level of abuse of this unconstitutional practice like President Obama has.

Many of these czars seem to head areas that overlap existing cabinet positions, so the whole practice seems counter-productive and inefficient to me, not that I expect efficiency and common sense from our federal government nowadays anyway. What is the purpose of these czars though? Is it so Obama can have these unaccountable people enact his agenda through back-channel means without having to deal with the hassles of congressional oversight? One wonders…

Through various means I count 33 czars in the Obama administration, based on media reports from reputable sources that have identified the official in question as a czar. In addition, President Obama has said that he will create the position of cyber czar. Also there have been media reports that there could be a health insurance czar and a copyright czar. When and if those positions are filled, that would bring the total to 36. Now since czar isn't an official job title, the number is somewhat in the eye of the beholder but all of the below listed have either been called such or would reasonably meet the definition of a czar as used in past administrations.

Please note: positions that also existed under previous administrations are indicated with an *.

1. Afghanistan Czar - Richard Holbrooke

2. AIDS Czar * - Jeffrey Crowley

3. Auto Recovery Czar - Ed Montgomery

4. Border Czar * - Alan Bersin

5. California Water Czar - David J. Hayes

6. Car Czar - Ron Bloom

7. Central Region Czar - Dennis Ross

8. Climate Czar - Todd Stern

9. Domestic Violence Czar - Lynn Rosenthal

10. Drug Czar * - Gil Kerlikowske

11. Economic Czar * - Paul Volcker

12. Energy and Environment Czar - Carol Browner

13. Faith-Based Czar * - Joshua DuBois

14. Government Performance Czar - Jeffrey Zients

15. Great Lakes Czar - Cameron Davis

16. Green Jobs Czar - Van Jones (This self-avowed communist has since been forced to resign because of his radicalism and extremist rhetoric)

17. Guantanamo Closure Czar - Daniel Fried

18. Health Czar * - Nancy-Ann DeParle

19. Information Czar - Vivek Kundra

20. Intelligence Czar * - Dennis Blair

21. Mideast Peace Czar - George Mitchell

22. Pay Czar - Kenneth R. Feinberg

23. Regulatory Czar - Cass R. Sunstein *

24. Science Czar - John Holdren

25. Stimulus Accountability Czar - Earl Devaney

26. Sudan Czar - J. Scott Gration

27. TARP Czar - Herb Allison

28. Technology Czar - Aneesh Chopra

29. Terrorism Czar - John Brennan

30. Urban Affairs Czar - Adolfo Carrion Jr.

31. Weapons Czar - Ashton Carter

32. WMD Policy Czar - Gary Samore

33. Safe Schools Czar – Kevin Jennings

Further, most of these “czars” are extremists in one sense or the other that would probably have a tougher time being appointed were they to go through congressional confirmation processes, and that is saying something considering how far left our congress is currently. Many of these czars are self-avowed communists, anti-capitalists, extreme environmentalists, and typically anti-American in their sentiments.

Take for example, Obama’s choice for Safe Schools Czar, Kevin Jennings. According to Liberty Counsel, Jennings’ homosexual "partner" states that Jennings was a leading member of Act Up, a militant homosexual group that invaded St. Patrick's Cathedral during a Mass in 1989, harassing the congregation and desecrating the Sacraments. Act Up was responsible for many other outrages, including throwing the ashes of dead AIDS victims onto the White House lawn. Now Obama wants him working for the White House. Many of Obama’s czars are of this caliber of person.

Lastly, for someone who campaigned with the promise of having an absolutely transparent administration to the people, it sure strikes me as being incongruent to then turn around and appoint these people in such “czar” positions. One has to wonder what nefarious purpose many of these people play, as the federal government seemingly attempts to consolidate ever-more power in the running of our day to day lives under the Obama administration. I guess we will just have to wait and see…

The Health Care Conundrum

Over the past few months I keep returning to this same topic in my personal and blog conversations and arguing with people that just aren't tuned into reality. It baffles me how people can think that the federal government can overhaul and run one sixth of our nation's economy via our health care system and expect to have an improved outcome for everyone.

WHERE has the government EVER ran any department or program and achieved efficiency and cost savings for all? If any semblance of a health care plan is passed of the type which is currently being discussed, we can all expect our doctor/hospital visits to resemble a trip to the DMV. Uh, personally, no thanks!

The arguments in favor of a complete overhaul are ridiculous to begin with.

First, it is claimed that there are 50 million uninsured Americans out there. That number is actually a lot closer to 12 million, but I will accept the erroneous figure for the sake of the argument. Now if Obama care is passed, we would ostensibly be adding 17% more people to the health care rolls while at the same time dictating to doctors what their fees can be for taking care of their patients. This will inevitably cause huge disincentives for those wishing to enter the medical field and ultimately result in fewer doctors. Simple economics would suggest that if you add more potential patients that need to be administered to by fewer doctors available, then you will result in much longer waiting times for treatment. Rationing of medical care will be the inevitable result.

Don't take my word for it though. Look at Canada, Britain, France, and Germany as examples of this. In fact, it is ironic that some socialized medical system countries like Britain have finally come to their senses and realized that their medical care is broken and are making attempts to privatize while we wish to jump into that very pit of which they are trying to climb out.

Next, Obama and the Democratically-controlled congress want a "public option" to be a part of this bill. They claim that a federally tax-payer subsidized option will provide competition with private insurers and thus bring down costs. Sounds good except that is a lie, and they KNOW it!

Again, the federal government has no incentive to administer the public option efficiently. If they need more money to support the otherwise-uninsured Americans, they simply can raise taxes, print more money, or borrow it from China. Private insurers don't have those options, and will consequently not be able to compete with the federal government financially, and will eventually fold up shop.

Their customers will then have no other choice but to go to the public option plan. Eventually, the undercutting of prices will force all insurance companies out of business and place everyone on the public option. President Obama has said this himself, in a rare candid moment as senator, that a public option is what he wants and that it will incrementally over the course of ten to fifteen years put everyone under governmental health care control. And THAT is what this is really all about! Control! It certainly is not about better health care for everyone, as the facts are all completely against that even being a possibility.

Then there are the moral issues involved with this. Never mind the un-Constitutionality of socializing 1/6th of our economy in a critical sector, but certain drafts and suggestions for this monstrosity Obama-care bill have suggested that abortions will be covered at tax payers expense. Further, it was also suggested that there not be exceptions for those doctors that conscientiously objected to perform abortions. The government, if this provision was left in tact, would FORCE doctors to perform such procedures whether they wished to or not. What would that do to Catholic hospitals? If forced to perform abortions, one would have to assume that the Catholic church would shut down the hospitals. Since the Catholic hospital system makes up a very significant percentage of our health care network, this would really increase rationing of medical services.

All of this debate was promised by President Obama to be televised on C-Span and open for discussion with complete transparency. What has happened instead is that Senator Max Baucus, Harry Reid, and Speaker Pelosi and their committees have crafted and fashioned this monstrosity almost completely behind closed doors. Obama has wanted votes on this with no time for the public to read the bill, let alone the congressmen and senators who are supposedly voting on it with full knowledge of the contents therein to read it. Why the secrecy if this is such a good thing for the American people? Further, if this is such a great plan, why have the Democrats in congress put provisions in the bill to exempt themselves from being covered by whatever final plan they spit out for us?

The fact is that as more people learn of the specifics proposed, the lower the support for this evil plan is manifested.

Now don't get me wrong. I think there are absolutely changes that must be made, but socializing the entire system is unequivocally the wrong way to go about doing it. As a civilized society, we absolutely have a moral obligation to take care of those people that cannot take care of themselves. We do NOT, however, have an obligation to take care of the lazy or those that do not want to take care of themselves.

The Democrats have said that the GOP should come up with alternatives then. Well, the fact is that they have and their plan is actually a good one for a change. It actually addresses the problems at hand instead of trying to install a massive power grab over our nation's health care.

The GOP plan has several key elements that actually would reduce costs for insurance and thereby make it more affordable for everyone so that those people that wish to be insured but cannot afford it currently will finally be able to cover their families.

The GOP plan proposes to remove pre-existing condition clauses for starters. It also allows insurance companies to compete for customers across state lines, thereby increasing free market competition and thus lowering prices. The plan allows for transferability of one's insurance when they leave a job for another job. It also dictates that serious tort reform be enacted. This will remove doctors from the burden of practicing preventive medicine by ordering unnecessary tests etc. just so that they are covered in case of a frivolous law suit. This alone will drop insurance costs drastically, particularly for the OB-GYN doctors. (Of course the trial lawyers association is a HUGE Democratic constituency and special interest contributor, hence the Democrats lack of desire to pursue any meaningful tort reform). These ideas and the rest contained within the GOP plan will actually reduce costs and not remove the power from We The People.

Of course, as a consequence of the last election, the Democrats have filibuster-proof majorities in congress, so if they all stick together they can pass this evil legislation and doom America with unfunded billions in expenses for decades to come. Which brings up a good point. If the Democrats are so sure of the good behind Obama-care, why do they not just pass it instead of trying to get Republicans on board too?

I think its because even some of the blue dog "conservative" Democrats know the bill to be a lie. They know that if they were to vote in favor of it, they would be shown the door in their respective districts come the next election cycle. The Democrats want Republicans on board so they can claim bipartisanship on this mess and thereby deflect any blame from them alone when things spiral downhill. Of course by then, it will be too late to undo the damage, and the government will already have control of your health care, which is really what this conundrum is all about anyway.

The Nobel Peace Prize Committee Selection Process

This FINALLY makes everything clear!

SENATOR Barbara Boxer In Her Own Words

Arrogance and Elitism

I remember seeing on C-Span a few months back this very incident and being amazed at the arrogance and audacity of "Senator" Barbara Boxer yet again. A friend forwarded this letter on the subject of this latest incident purportedly written by a National Guard aviator, Jim Hill. While http://www.snopes.com/ is unable to verify the veracity of the author of the letter, the points made in it are all valid nonetheless. I therefore, wanted to share it with you all to further illustrate the elitism of "Senator" Boxer. Unfortunately this is the norm for most in congress, particularly for those on the Democrat side of the aisle, it would seem. Anyway, enjoy....


Many of us witnessed the arrogance of Barbara Boxer on June 18,
2009 as she admonished Brigadier General Michael Walsh because he addressed her as "ma'am" and not "Senator" before a Senate hearing.

This letter is from a National Guard aviator and Captain for Alaska Airlines named Jim Hill. I wonder what he would have said if he were really angry. Long fly Alaska !!!!!


Babs:


You were so right on when you scolded the general on TV for using the term, "ma'am," instead of "Senator". After all, in the military, "ma'am" is a term of respect when addressing a female of superior rank or position. The general was totally wrong. You are not a person of superior rank or position. You are a member of one of the world's most corrupt organizations, the U.S. Senate, equaled only by the U.S. House of Representatives.

Congress is a cesspool of liars, thieves, inside traders, traitors, drunks (one who killed a staffer, yet is still revered), criminals, and other low level swine who, as individuals (not all, but many), will do anything to enhance their lives, fortunes and power, all at the expense of the People of the United States and its Constitution, in order to be continually re-elected. Many democrats even want American troops killed by releasing photographs. How many of you could honestly say, "We pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor"? None? One? Two?

Your reaction to the general shows several things. First is your abysmal ignorance of all things military. Your treatment of the general shows you to be an elitist of the worst kind. When the general entered the military (as most of us who served) he wrote the government a blank check, offering his life to protect your derriere, now safely and comfortably ensconced in a 20 thousand dollar leather chair, paid for by the general's taxes. You repaid him for this by humiliating him in front of millions.

Second is your puerile character, lack of sophistication, and arrogance which borders on the hubristic. This display of brattish behavior shows you to be a virago, termagant, harridan, nag, scold or shrew, unfit for your position, regardless of the support of the unwashed, uneducated masses who have made California into the laughing stock of the nation.

What I am writing, are the same thoughts countless millions of Americans have toward Congress, but who lack the energy, ability or time to convey them. Regardless of their thoughts, most realize that politicians are pretty much the same, and will vote for the one who will bring home the most bacon, even if they do consider how corrupt that person is. Lord Acton (1834 - 1902) so aptly charged, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Unbeknownst to you and your colleagues, "Mr. Power" has had his way with all of you, and we are all the worse for it.

Finally Senator, I, too, have a title. It is "Right Wing Extremist Potential Terrorist Threat." It is not of my choosing, but was given to me by your Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. And you were offended by "ma'am"?

Have a fine day. Cheers!

See the following posting for Babs in her own words....

Asses and Camels

Over five thousand years ago, Moses said to the children of Israel "Pick up your shovel, mount your asses and camels, and I will lead you to the promised land".

Nearly 75 years ago, Roosevelt said, " Lay down your shovels, sit on your asses, and light up a camel; this is the promised land".

Now Obama has stolen your shovel , taxed your asses, raised the price of camels, and mortgaged the promised land.

God help us!

Republicans vs. Democrats; The Lesser of Two Evils

The Heritage Foundation took data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and from the White House and found that while spending was out of control during George W. Bush's administration, the problem has been exacerbated astronomically under President Obama, even by his own more favorable numbers. It is estimated that thanks to the nonsensical spending that began under the Republicans in their attempt to morph into Democrats, and now the spending by the actual Democrats that unless hugely drastic changes are made, we will have 82% of our GDP going just to service our debt by 2019.

Let me assure you that we will go the way of the Soviet Union if this is not changed RIGHT NOW! This is definitely not "change I can believe in" but rather "chains I can believe in". For that matter, I am scared if someone tells Obama what comes after "trillions".

The Angry White Liberal

Here is an excellent article that captures the truth of the mood on the left, including many of my left-wing blogger friends' attitudes. You all know who you are! :) Cheers!

The Angry White Liberal
He's Back

by Matthew Continetti of The Weekly Standard

We've spent the month of August talking about alleged right-wing rage, but it's really time we started discussing the Angry White Liberal. When things aren't going his way, the Angry White Liberal wails and gnashes his teeth, rends his garments, and hurls invective at the opposition. His rhetoric and prose is so heated, it's gotten to the point where you need to put on oven mitts before opening the paper. He is so convinced of the righteousness of his positions that he lashes out uncontrollably at anybody who disagrees with him. For the Angry White Liberal, dissent is anathema. Antagonism is illegitimate. Only conformity to prevailing liberal opinion is enough to still his rage.

It's been awhile since the Angry White Liberal was spotted in the wild. He's been in hiding since 2006, when the electorate started handing victory after victory to the Democratic party. For a while there, whenever a liberal surveyed the political scene, it looked as though the country had finally come to its senses. Americans no longer deigned to elect conservatives to high office. In 2008 voters fell for the dulcet tones of a young, charismatic liberal senator from Illinois. A "new progressive era" was about to begin. James Carville's latest book, published earlier this year, promised to explain "how the Democrats will rule the next generation."

Then something bizarre began to happen. As Barack Obama's presidency unfurled, his approval ratings fell. The public showed skepticism at his major initiatives. The federal government bailed out GM and Chrysler over widespread public opposition. The costly economic stimulus bill appeared not to be working. The climate-change legislation that the House of Representatives passed on a party-line vote was D.O.A. in the Senate. And even though "health care" is not the top voter priority, even though the budget deficit stands at more than a trillion dollars, President Obama decided that this was the moment to remake one-sixth of the American economy.

The more Obama talked about health care reform, the further his numbers dropped. The country seemed caught in a time-warp. We'd been catapulted back to 2005, when another president attempted a major overhaul of the American welfare state. Then, too, the president deferred to Congress to come up with a plan. Then, too, as the president crisscrossed the nation, warning of the dangers of out-of-control entitlement spending, the public increasingly tuned him out. The innate conservatism of the American people--an instinctual resistance to sudden changes in existing social arrangements--came to the fore.

Such resistance became pronounced over the summer of 2009, when Congress went into recess and the people's representatives returned home to deal with actual people. Some of the constituents who showed up at the congressional town hall meetings behaved rudely. Some were kind of nutty. But, for better or worse, every oddball represented three or four or ten regular people who don't want to see another trillion dollars in federal spending, higher taxes, and page after page of mandates, not to mention likely cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. Regular people, in other words, who recognize that the unanticipated outcomes of government activity often outweigh the wished-for ones, and that the unanticipated consequences of the Democrats' current proposals may include (a) the end of the private health insurance market and (b) government rationing of health services.


The Angry White Liberal reaction? Outrage and calumny. Protest, which a few years ago was the highest form of patriotism, is now considered artificial, dishonest, misinformed, cynical, and mean-spirited. "An ugly campaign is underway," Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer wrote in USA Today on August 10, "not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue. . . . Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American."

Meanwhile, Harry Reid referred to the town hall protestors as "evil-mongers." Senate finance committee chairman Max Baucus preferred "agitators." Congressman Eric Massa, Democrat of New York, accused Iowa Republican senator Charles Grassley of "treason" for criticizing the health care plan.

The King of the Angry White Liberals, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, wrote on August 14 that Grassley is "flat-out despicable." Resistance to the Democrats' plans, Krugman continued, amounts to an "outpouring of hate," the result of "the paranoia of a significant minority of Americans and the cynical willingness of leading Republicans to cater to that paranoia." (For the record, more Americans disapprove than approve of Obamacare.)

Time magazine columnist Joe Klein wrote that, "to be sure, there are honorable conservatives, trying to do the right thing"--thanks, Joe!--but the typical opponent of health reform is a "nihilist" and a "hypocrite" exploiting "cynicism about government" in a "disinformation jihad" aimed at the "tight, white, extremist bubble" that is the GOP. On the Rachel Maddow Show on August 19, star


Times columnist Frank Rich warned that the current debates surrounding health care resemble the "walk up to the Kennedy assassination."

Washington Post scribe Harold Meyerson, straight off the barricades, angrily denounced Baucus, who "persist[s] in the charade of bipartisan negotiations" despite the "increasing rigidity, insularity, and extremism of today's Republican party." When Whole Foods CEO John Mackey wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed advocating sensible, market-based improvements to health insurance law, the response from the left was to organize a boycott of his grocery chain. Pretty rigid, insular, and extreme.

Charges of racism are never far from the Angry White Liberal's lips. In a July 22, 2009, Huffington Post entry--the website is a sort of pressure cooker for liberal rage--the "award winning columnist, author and Chicago radio talk show host" Ray Hanania wrote that:

Although the Republicans and their so-called "Blue Dog" conservative Democrats claimed they oppose President Obama's health care plan because it would increase the nation's debt, the real reason is driven by racism and the fact that the majority who would benefit from health care reform are minorities, the poor and families burdened by uninsured health challenges.

How so? Explains Hanania, "I know this is true because these same conservatives were silent when President George W. Bush ratcheted up the nation's deficit to record highs without even a whimper." Ah.

On the Diane Rehm Show in August, Newsweek's Eleanor Clift speculated that opposition to Obamacare was an expression of the "racism" that was "latent" in the 2008 campaign. Bewildered by a few cases in which a voter had safely, legally, and constitutionally brought a firearm to an anti-Obama care rally, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne noted that "guns were used on election days in the Deep South during and after Reconstruction to intimidate black voters and take control of state governments." Guns also were used in the invasion of Normandy. What's Dionne's point, except to imply that the gun-carriers (and, by extension, adversaries of Obamacare) are just like Bull Connor?

The Angry White Liberal finds it simply incomprehensible that somebody might honestly and in good faith disagree with the Democrats' efforts. On August 14, blogger Steve Benen wrote on the Huffington Post that the "far-right apoplexy is counter-intuitive." After all, "Why would people who stand to benefit from health care reform literally take to the streets and threaten violence in opposition to legislation that would help them and their families?"

Forget Benen's exaggerated claim of threatened violence. Note, instead, that Benen cannot conceive that someone might actually think the costs to the Democrats' program outweigh the unrealized and perhaps unachievable benefits. Hence he divides Obama's critics into five camps: the "partisans," the "tin-foil hats," the "greedy," the "dupes," and the "wonks." The "wonks," we are told, compose the "smallest of the groups." In Benen's view, then, millions of opponents of health care reform have no reasonable grounds for their opinion. That may satisfy the liberal's attitude of intellectual superiority. But it's also awfully condescending.

The Angry White Liberal directs his fury not only at conservatives. Another target is the Obama administration itself. After all, the White House has been unable to convince a majority of Americans that liberals are right and their health care reform is necessary. Comedian Jon Stewart opened a recent Daily Show by saying, "Mr. President, I can't tell if you're a Jedi--10 steps ahead of everything--or if this whole health care thing is kickin' your ass." In the Washington Post, Robert Kuttner blamed Obama's economic team, which is "far too cozy with Wall Street." For columnist Richard Cohen, Obama's "klutziness" has hampered reform. MSNBC host Ed Schultz said the White House was "dazed and confused." His colleague Rachel Maddow thinks the Democrats are "too scared of their own shadow."

All this vituperation, this unrelenting urge to discredit opposing views, builds and builds. It's uncontainable. Inconsolable. First the Angry White Liberal blames conservatives, then Democrats, then Obama . . . before you know it, he'll be blaming the entire country for the failure to pass "comprehensive health care reform." Everyone, that is, but himself.

Matthew Continetti is associate editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

Obama's Ten Worst "Accomplishments" Thus Far

I am utterly amazed that there are those individuals out there that actually think President Obama has done a great or even a fair job since having taken office in late January this year. Evidently I measure his accomplishments with a far tougher scale than those on the left do, because to date I have not found anything that I can recall that is worthy of being called an accomplishment for our greatest of all nations.

Everything done to date seems to be done for Obama's own self-aggrandizement or in the attempt to tear down our nation by ignoring its exceptionalism with regards to ALL OTHER NATIONS of the world. In that vein, I can give a laundry list that is by no means even all that comprehensive of the "accomplishments" he has achieved so far in his first nine months in office. This list is a top ten worst for only his foreign and national defense policies. (I will write a domestic top ten list later in order to keep this posting down to less than twenty pages.)

1. Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
Obama said during his campaign that he would shut it down immediately upon becoming president. Evidently he still has not figured out where to send all of the absolute evil human debris that resides within its confines. He has suggested that we send many of these worst offenders to our own maximum security federal prisons and afford these enemy combatants American Constitutional rights. When that drew an uproarious and angry response he backed down... for now.

2. Theatre-based Missile Defense
Obama unilaterally disbanded this program, despite the huge gains made in the effectiveness of it, as we were getting ready to deploy the first installation in the Czech Republic and Poland so as to protect our European allies and our own military bases against rogue nations launching a missile strike against us. Instead, Obama chose to alienate our allies and leave our bases far more vulnerable to such an attack.

3. North Korea
Not only did Obama's shutting down of our theatre missile defense system show weakness to Kim Jong Il and his North Korean regime, but he has done nothing to hold North Korea accountable despite their continuation of launching missiles over Japan and other allies in the region. Instead, Obama continues the foolish and dangerous process of talking and appeasement adopted by Bush in his second term.

4. Iran
Not only has Obama done nothing to hold Iran accountable for its continuing nuclear weapons program, despite the fact that their President Ahmadinejad has stated repeatedly how they wish to wipe Israel off the face of the map, but he also gave no moral support or even cared to chastise the evil mullah theocracy over the election fraud they perpetrated this last summer despite the rising up of the Iranian citizens in protest over this. That was a huge opportunity missed and shows the Iranians not to count on the United States to support them in their desire to achieve freedom.

5. Prosecution of those trying to protect us
Obama has sat by, and indeed likely instructed his attorney general, Eric Holder, to look into prosecuting the Bush administration lawyers that reviewed and gave best faith advice to the executive branch on the lawfulness and validity of using extreme interrogation techniques (NOT TORTURE) to obtain intelligence from a few high-level terrorists. Obama/ Holder even have held out the possibility of prosecuting the CIA and other official interrogators for "abusing the civil rights and torturing" these vermin, even though they were legally vetted to do so by the justice department. Never mind that invaluable information was obtained, particularly from Kahlid Sheik Mohammad, by water boarding that prevented future attacks, so said former VP Cheney. When challenged on this by the Obama administration, Cheney requested that they declassify the documents then proving that he is correct. Obama will not do this, yet they will declassify other secret documents in order to prosecute those responsible for the terrorist's interrogations.

6. Mirandizing terrorists
It has been reported and confirmed that the military and other federal personnel have been ordered to give some captured terrorists on the battlefield their Miranda rights, thereby treating them as criminals in a police action, instead of enemy combatants that choose not to follow the Geneva Convention and abide by those rules against targeting civilians and hiding amongst their populations. Instead Obama wants to provide them with our own civil and Constitutional rights so that they may use our system of jurisprudence against us. This is the height of foolishness.

7. Nuclear Weapons
President Obama has said he wants to work with Russia to reduce nuclear weapon stockpiles. While this sounds like a good idea initially, I suspect that there will not be a very good, if any, verification mechanism put into any such treaty that is drafted. No mind though, as Obama will want to unilaterally disarm the United States of its nuclear arsenal. It does not matter that North Korea, China, and soon-to-be Iran and other such enemies will not ever follow suit. No one ever goes to pick a fight with the biggest and strongest kid on the block, but evil kids will certainly pick on defenseless kids, and all of Obama's eloquence and desire to just get along will not save us from it.

8. Gays in the military
Obama promised, but as of yet has not enacted a new policy of allowing openly gay Americans to serve in the U.S. military. Now I personally really don't care if a person is gay; however, it destroys morale and unit cohesion for openly gay members of the military to be serving alongside those that aren't. This is particularly true in close living quarter such as on-board ships or in combat zones. The desire to achieve some social engineering objective while actively undermining and weakening our military in the process is shameful.

9. Obama's World Apology Tour
It would seem that Obama, like his wife prior to his inauguration, is not very proud of his own country. Any time he is overseas, at the UN, or has access to the world stage, it would seem that Obama goes out of his way to apologize for America, its freedoms, and its capitalism. He does not acknowledge that we are indeed the only superpower and best bastion of freedom left in this world. He routinely rejects our exceptionalism as individuals and as a nation so as to put us on a "level playing field with the rest of the world." This does not make us friends on the international arena or gain us respect from our enemies. It shows his foolishness and naivety as the boy-president tries to neuter our country in his own image. I wonder to whom else he will bow down to next?

10. Afghanistan
Finally, Obama promised to draw down our troops in Iraq and surge to fight the "real war against terrorism" in Afghanistan (even though they changed the terminology there too so that we no longer use "the war on terror" thereby "angering" our enemies). Until two weeks ago, Obama met with General McChrystal (the man in charge of the Afghanistan theatre of operations) only ONE time since his coming to office. He has ignored the General's call for more troops in order to protect our forces and Afghani civilians while routing the Taliban and Al Queda in order that Obama may "deliberate" on the need for such action. Meanwhile, as Obama "deliberates" more of our troops and civilians are unnecessarily killed while Obama finds time to rush off to try and secure the Olympics for his city of Chicago or to receive his absolutely un-earned Nobel Peace Prize. Evidently he found the time for those things while our people and friends continue dying needlessly.


Herein lies my top ten list of foreign affair and national defense debacles that President Obama has managed to amass in his first nine months in office. May God protect us in the remaining 3 years and 3 months left of Obama's abysmally failing presidency, because the Lord knows that President Obama sure won't lift a finger to protect us.

Nobel Prize: Final Thoughts

I just wanted to add a few more comments on the topic of our Nobel-prize-winning President. The more I read and heard about this topic last week, the more absurd the whole thing became.

First, nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize were due into the committee the first week of February. This means Obama was in office TWELVE DAYS when he was nominated for the prize. What on God's green earth did he do up to this point in his administration, let alone in the first twelve days to warrant the peace prize? Of course this absolutely proves beyond even a shadow of a doubt that the prize is purely political and awarded to those who pay lip-service to the left-wing agenda of the world.

Want proof? Ronald Reagan was responsible for the United States winning the cold war and thereby freeing hundreds of millions of people from the tyranny of living behind the iron curtain where their freedoms were minuscule and given to them in small doses by an evil statist government. Why not a Nobel Prize for Reagan in their liberation and ascendancy to peace and freedom?

For that matter, why not a Nobel Prize for George W. Bush for one of the very few things that he did do right? It was through his courage and leadership that caused the downfall of a very evil despot and his two sons so that millions of Iraqi's can now live in freedom and have a chance to form their own destiny. I guess since the war was "just about oil" to the left, this makes the newly-won freedom of these people irrelevant.

Now that this is off my chest, I will move on, but don't ever tell me about the honor and prestige of having won a Nobel Prize or expect it to have any meaning to me and a good percentage of the world's population that now knows better.

Lord Obama and the Nobel Committee

I heard on the radio this morning on the way into work that it was announced today that President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. My first thought was, "FOR WHAT?" and then I remembered that the Nobel Prize committee stopped actually having serious criteria for their awards long long ago. No sooner did I blurt out my wonderment at the award than did the news announcer say that they awarded him the prize for changing the political atmosphere so that peace in the world MIGHT be able to move forth in the future.

I haven't read anything on this story yet, but simply wanted to post my initial thoughts on the subject. Needless to say, the Nobel Prize committee has once again shown that their prizes are now meaningless and serve only to further a radical left-wing world agenda. How could they pass up many other worthy people that have actually done great work in trying to bring about real peace in our world otherwise?

I do recall when the prize was a great honor many years ago and had a lot of meaning for years of difficult work on the part of the recipient being rewarded by the presentation of the prize.

Nowadays, they give the Peace Prize to human scum such as the late terrorist Yasser Arafat despite the fact that he continuously rejected any considerations offered to be given to the Palestinians by Israel in the hopes of attaining a true peace.

And then there is the asinine awarding of the Peace Prize to former Vice President Al Gore for his largely subjective and highly dubious work on global warming. Never mind the fact that one strains to see how that work relates to world peace, but most of Gore's work has been debunked or put into serious doubt by many world renowned scientists that are far more qualified to comment on the debate then the inventor of the Internet was.

Anyway, Obama will be celebrated and cheered for this new non-accomplishment and the left will all continue to feel good about themselves while meanwhile nothing substantive or of any great use or importance will have been done, yet again. The whole thing smacks of a ridiculous parody of a silly Saturday Night Live skit in my mind.

Bryce Canyon Fall Trip

My family and I have been blessed with the opportunities over the years to travel around the country and to see many of the beautiful places within the United States, and even Canada. One of my favorite places on earth, and indeed a place we have now returned to for the third time a few weeks ago, is Bryce Canyon National Park in the southern end of Utah.



It truly is a beautiful and magical place. It was especially fun this time because my sister and her terrific husband went with us to enjoy God's handiwork. It was spectacular with the cool autumn air and the leaves on the trees beginning to turn a myriad shades of yellow, orange and red as we drove.

My only regret was that we didn't have much time to enjoy down there and unfortunately no time to do any hiking. My wife, daughter and me did manage to hike some of the trails last time down here and it was fantastic, even though we were worn out at the end of the day. Not real sure I could do that now due to various medical issues and being greatly out of shape accordingly. Anyway, the trip was fantastic in its beauty and in shared times with family, and it just don't get any better than that!

The Day ObamaCare Died - Sung by Barack Obama

No explanation necessary on this one!

Congressman Alan Grayson and His Incivility

I find it ironic and sadly amusing how many of my left-leaning friends are disgusted with the lack of civility being shown in political discourse lately... but only when it occurs on the Republican side of the aisle. Sadly that same standard doesn't seem to be applied to Democrats.

When Congressman Joe Wilson rudely spoke up during President Obama's speech to congress and shouted out, "You lie!" at him (Wilson has since been proven correct in that statement by the way) everyone was understandably unhappy with Congressman Wilson. That was not the venue to make such a statement, regardless of the veracity of it, and the fact that Obama's previous comments leading up to that outburst were confrontational and belligerent towards the right.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, AND the Republican minority leadership, immediately insisted that Congressman Wilson apologize to President Obama. He did so. Speaker Pelosi then insisted that Wilson apologize to his fellow representatives in the House. He rightly refused to do this since the offense was not aimed at them.

Now Congressman Grayson has the temerity to say that the Republicans want the sick to die with their health plan. This is very bad form and hardly civil to say the least. The Republicans do have a plan (see www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare) that is far better than the Obamacare mess being proposed in the House. It actually will reduce costs for many millions of Americans WITHOUT having to socialize one sixth of our economy to do it.

Grayson, when challenged about his rude and untrue comments, said that the Republicans are "knuckle-dragging neanderthals".

A request was made to Speaker Pelosi to call Grayson on the carpet and have him offer an apology. She said no. So while previously Nancy Pelosi was nearly in tears because of Republican incivility, evidently it is just politics as usual when it is her "team" that commits the error.

I sure am glad that Pelosi was going to restore civility and clean up the House of Representatives during her tenure as Speaker. Seeing as how THAT is not going to happen, perhaps it is time for a new Speaker of the House to be elected in 2010. Even if the Democrats win the house again in 2010 they should seriously consider removing this far left hypocritical woman and replacing her with someone a little more… honest.