Buy health insurance or go to jail

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance. Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold."

All is well in Obama land!

That fist-pumping stuff makes the indoctrination even worse.
I must point out the obvious, but what if they were singing about GWB?
The outrage would be deafening.

800-lb Gorilla? What 800-lb gorilla?

I am uncertain what to make of this stupidity and inability to ever acknowledge the 800-lb. gorilla in the room. My exasperation continues to grow.

The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy Rises Again

President Obama charged that Republican leaders are engaged in a vast right-wing conspiracy to kill health care reform in order to repeat the 1994 mid-term takeover of Congress, which followed the defeat of President Clinton's reform plan.

I used to think that Democrat demonization of Republicans (and vice versa) was no more than politics, but now that the Dems have absolute unassailable majorities in the House and Senate and also control the White House, their attempts to blame Republicans for the health care fiasco is just spiteful. The Dems cannot accept electoral victory with grace. They keep kicking even when their opponent is unconscious on the mat. It is completely dishonorable.

Uber Liberal Camille Paglia Vents

Normally, I don't enjoy reading Camille Paglia, Maureen Dowd, or the plethora of other left-wing pundits and writers, but I force myself to do so anyway to try to understand their thinking. In the article below, Camille Paglia vents her frustration at the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats. She expresses pretty much what I feel as a conservative. (Ignore the part where she claims that Democrats control all three branches of government - I think she took a momentary leave of her senses.) I quote the first half of the article only because the second half is drivel about art and culture.

Obama's healthcare horror

Heads should roll -- beginning with Nancy Pelosi's!

By Camille Paglia

Aug. 12, 2009 |

Buyer's remorse? Not me. At the North American summit in Guadalajara this week, President Obama resumed the role he is best at -- representing the U.S. with dignity and authority abroad. This is why I, for one, voted for Obama and continue to support him. The damage done to U.S. prestige by the feckless, buffoonish George W. Bush will take years to repair. Obama has barely begun the crucial mission that he was elected to do.

Having said that, I must confess my dismay bordering on horror at the amateurism of the White House apparatus for domestic policy. When will heads start to roll? I was glad to see the White House counsel booted, as well as Michelle Obama's chief of staff, and hope it's a harbinger of things to come. Except for that wily fox, David Axelrod, who could charm gold threads out of moonbeams, Obama seems to be surrounded by juvenile tinhorns, bumbling mediocrities and crass bully boys.

Case in point: the administration's grotesque mishandling of healthcare reform, one of the most vital issues facing the nation. Ever since Hillary Clinton's megalomaniacal annihilation of our last best chance at reform in 1993 (all of which was suppressed by the mainstream media when she was running for president), Democrats have been longing for that happy day when this issue would once again be front and center.

But who would have thought that the sober, deliberative Barack Obama would have nothing to propose but vague and slippery promises -- or that he would so easily cede the leadership clout of the executive branch to a chaotic, rapacious, solipsistic Congress? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whom I used to admire for her smooth aplomb under pressure, has clearly gone off the deep end with her bizarre rants about legitimate town-hall protests by American citizens. She is doing grievous damage to the party and should immediately step down.

There is plenty of blame to go around. Obama's aggressive endorsement of a healthcare plan that does not even exist yet, except in five competing, fluctuating drafts, makes Washington seem like Cloud Cuckoo Land. The president is promoting the most colossal, brazen bait-and-switch operation since the Bush administration snookered the country into invading Iraq with apocalyptic visions of mushroom clouds over American cities.

You can keep your doctor; you can keep your insurance, if you're happy with it, Obama keeps assuring us in soothing, lullaby tones. Oh, really? And what if my doctor is not the one appointed by the new government medical boards for ruling on my access to tests and specialists? And what if my insurance company goes belly up because of undercutting by its government-bankrolled competitor? Face it: Virtually all nationalized health systems, neither nourished nor updated by profit-driven private investment, eventually lead to rationing.

I just don't get it. Why the insane rush to pass a bill, any bill, in three weeks? And why such an abject failure by the Obama administration to present the issues to the public in a rational, detailed, informational way? The U.S. is gigantic; many of our states are bigger than whole European nations. The bureaucracy required to institute and manage a nationalized health system here would be Byzantine beyond belief and would vampirically absorb whatever savings Obama thinks could be made. And the transition period would be a nightmare of red tape and mammoth screw-ups, which we can ill afford with a faltering economy.

As with the massive boondoggle of the stimulus package, which Obama foolishly let Congress turn into a pork rut, too much has been attempted all at once; focused, targeted initiatives would, instead, have won wide public support. How is it possible that Democrats, through their own clumsiness and arrogance, have sabotaged healthcare reform yet again? Blaming obstructionist Republicans is nonsensical because Democrats control all three branches of government. It isn't conservative rumors or lies that are stopping healthcare legislation; it's the justifiable alarm of an electorate that has been cut out of the loop and is watching its representatives construct a tangled labyrinth for others but not for themselves. No, the airheads of Congress will keep their own plush healthcare plan -- it's the rest of us guinea pigs who will be thrown to the wolves.

With the Republican party leaderless and in backbiting disarray following its destruction by the ideologically incoherent George W. Bush, Democrats are apparently eager to join the hara-kiri brigade. What looked like smooth coasting to the 2010 election has now become a nail-biter. Both major parties have become a rats' nest of hypocrisy and incompetence. That, combined with our stratospheric, near-criminal indebtedness to China (which could destroy the dollar overnight), should raise signal flags. Are we like late Rome, infatuated with past glories, ruled by a complacent, greedy elite, and hopelessly powerless to respond to changing conditions?

What does either party stand for these days? Republican politicians, with their endless scandals, are hardly exemplars of traditional moral values. Nor have they generated new ideas for healthcare, except for medical savings accounts, which would be pathetically inadequate in a major crisis for anyone earning at or below a median income.

And what do Democrats stand for, if they are so ready to defame concerned citizens as the "mob" -- a word betraying a Marie Antoinette delusion of superiority to ordinary mortals. I thought my party was populist, attentive to the needs and wishes of those outside the power structure. And as a product of the 1960s, I thought the Democratic party was passionately committed to freedom of thought and speech.

But somehow liberals have drifted into a strange servility toward big government, which they revere as a godlike foster father-mother who can dispense all bounty and magically heal all ills. The ethical collapse of the left was nowhere more evident than in the near total silence of liberal media and Web sites at the Obama administration's outrageous solicitation to private citizens to report unacceptable "casual conversations" to the White House. If Republicans had done this, there would have been an angry explosion by Democrats from coast to coast. I was stunned at the failure of liberals to see the blatant totalitarianism in this incident, which the president should have immediately denounced. His failure to do so implicates him in it.

As a libertarian and refugee from the authoritarian Roman Catholic church of my youth, I simply do not understand the drift of my party toward a soulless collectivism. This is in fact what Sarah Palin hit on in her shocking image of a "death panel" under Obamacare that would make irrevocable decisions about the disabled and elderly. When I first saw that phrase, headlined on the Drudge Report, I burst out laughing. It seemed so over the top! But on reflection, I realized that Palin's shrewdly timed metaphor spoke directly to the electorate's unease with the prospect of shadowy, unelected government figures controlling our lives. A death panel not only has the power of life and death but is itself a symptom of a Kafkaesque brave new world where authority has become remote, arbitrary and spectral. And as in the Spanish Inquisition, dissidence is heresy, persecuted and punished.

Surely, the basic rule in comprehensive legislation should be: First, do no harm. The present proposals are full of noble aims, but the biggest danger always comes from unforeseen and unintended consequences. Example: the American incursion into Iraq, which destabilized the region by neutralizing Iran's rival and thus enormously enhancing Iran's power and nuclear ambitions.

What was needed for reform was an in-depth analysis, buttressed by documentary evidence, of waste, fraud and profiteering in the healthcare, pharmaceutical and insurance industries. Instead what we've gotten is a series of facile, vulgar innuendos about how doctors conduct their practice, as if their primary motive is money. Quite frankly, the president gives little sense of direct knowledge of medical protocols; it's as if his views are a tissue of hearsay and scattershot worst-case scenarios.

Of course, it didn't help matters that, just when he needed maximum momentum on healthcare, Obama made the terrible gaffe of declaring that, even without his knowing the full facts, Cambridge, Mass., police had acted "stupidly" in arresting a friend of his, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. Obama's automatic identification with the pampered Harvard elite (wildly unpopular with most sensible people), as well as his insulting condescension toward an officer doing his often dangerous duty, did serious and perhaps irreparable damage to the president's standing. The strained, prissy beer summit in the White House garden afterward didn't help. Is that the Obama notion of hospitality? Another staff breakdown.

Both Gates and Obama mistakenly assumed that the original incident at Gates' house was about race, when it was about class. It was the wealthy, lordly Gates who committed the first offense by instantly and evidently hysterically defaming the character of the officer who arrived at his door to investigate the report of a break-in. There was no excuse for Gates' loud and cheap charges of racism, which he should have immediately apologized for the next day, instead of threatening lawsuits and self-aggrandizing television exposés. On the other hand, given that Cambridge is virtually a company town, perhaps police headquarters should have dispatched a moderator to the tumultuous scene before a small, disabled Harvard professor was clapped in handcuffs and marched off to jail. But why should an Ivy League panjandrum be treated any differently from the rest of us hoi polloi?

Generic Congressional Ballot

Public unhappiness with the congressional legislative agenda is increasingly being reflected in the generic Congressional preference numbers. Today the Rasmussen poll found support for Republican Congressional candidates at its "highest level in recent years." Republican candidates have a five-point lead over the Democrats, 43-38 percent, which indicates a rapid turnaround from Election Day 2008 when the Democrats had a six-point lead in the Congressional preference poll and trounced the Republicans across the board.
And what exactly is causing this turnaround? Government health care, cap and trade, cash for clunkers, the porkulus bill, and various bailouts, which add up to astronomical deficit spending, the likes of which have never been seen in the history of any nation, any time, and anywhere.
From a strategic standpoint, it would have been very easy for the Democrats to build a long lasting majority by going very slowly on these issues. They had the Republicans against the ropes with little hope of recovery, but the Democrats have moved so brazenly and blindingly fast (as they are wont to do), it has shaken the nation to its boots, thereby breathing new life into the Republican party and its chances in 2010 and 2012.

A most deceptive graph

This is a graph from the New York Times, a huge Obama cheerleader.
On the surface, it appears that Obama's share of the deficit is minuscule.
The red portion may be fairly attributed to 8 years of the Bush administration.
The yellow portion "extension of Bush policies" appears to blame Bush, but who is extending the policies? Yes, that's right, the Obama administration.
The green portion is the stimulus bill (aka porkulus bill), but the graph suggests that's not Obama either, but it was Obama and the Dem congress that passed it.
The blue portion is blamed on the recession, which may be in part due to lower tax revenue, but who know what other inconvenient numbers they have thrown in there?
So the Obama portion of this graph is actually the sum of the yellow, green, and gray portions after only half a year in office, and that is assuming that the NY times haven't jiggled the numbers in other ways (which they have be caught doing in the past).

Obama's astonshing statements

On his recent trip to Ghana, President Obama lectured other African nations about how to attract business and how government affairs should be conducted. "No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top." Obama's astonishing statements never cease to amaze me. The U.S. corporate tax rate is 35 percent (at the federal level). It's the second highest of all the OECD countries. It's higher than France and Sweden. If you add the state rate, that's an average of 40 percent.

This again bears out my theory that for Obama, words only have weight in a certain time and place. After the time frame has passed or he has left a location, the words are no longer of importance and should not be held against him in another time and place.

Future Posts

Now that we have an official discussion page, I will no longer be posting political stuff here. However, I will continue to post other things of unique interest to me and I will continue to occasionally add to the Mini Diary section and so forth. As usual, I will update my link on the discussion page when I have made an update on this page.

Car of the Future

I gotta get me one of these.

Funny money

On Monday, Yumi and I took Robin to her regular appointment with a child psychologist in Taylorsville. When the appointment was nearly over, the topic of health insurance came up. Our doctor, whom I surmised to be a California liberal based on our past visits, was roused out of his lethargic boredom from a string of what I supposed were boring appointments. Here is the gist of our conversation.

Doctor: Many of the nation's health care problems would be solved by a national health insurance program.
Alan: I am not against such a program as long as we can pay for it.
Doctor: It's all funny money in Washingtion anyway, so why not do it?
Alan: Our national debt is already at astronomical heights and ...
Doctor: Well, it was the Republicans who got us into this mess and we have to work through it.
(Alan thinks: It's always the other guys fault. No matter that the Democrats ran congress and added to the debt for 40 straight years, then two years before the current situation, and currently continue that legacy.)
Doctor: Just cut spending across the board by 50%, and let everyone get by on less, just like we do with our personal finances.
Alan: I can see the advantage of that.
Doctor: Yeah, right, well anyway, Next!

The doctor, seeing the contradiction of these two astounding statements, ended the appointment. What I derived from this conversation is what I have always thought about far left liberals. It's always pie-in-the-sky stuff without a lick of reality. Funny money, indeed. If it were that easy we would have been running the money printing presses 24/7 for centuries now. And as for the government getting by on 50% less, do I really need to delve into the possibility of that?

First rate health care for the elite, second rate for the masses

Congress and Obama are rushing through a health insurance bill that will force everyone into the same plan. Well, not everyone, since public employees and those on public pensions may not be required to participate in the public option (what a misnomer that is!). Congress, Obama, and government worker unions have no intention of relying on second rate socialized medicine, which is being designed for those who are without influence in the Democratic Party. Last night, Barack Obama, during the ABC News infomercial, refused to commit to treating his own family under the "public option," insisting that he "always wants them to get the very best care." That statement tells me everything I need to know about the health care bill. Since Barack is special, he gets to write his own exception into law along with Democrats in Congress.

Update:
Another suggestion by President Obama was also revealing. He suggested at a town hall event Wednesday night that one way to shave medical costs is to stop expensive and ultimately futile procedures performed on people who are about to die and don't stand to gain from the extra care. Obama said families need better information so they don't unthinkingly approve "additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care." He also added: "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller." So who is going to decide that? Government, of course! A bureaucrat will be sitting in his/her office and see the request for a procedure. This bureaucrat will then open a big thick tome of rules and regulations and make a decision based on criteria set for in the big thick volume. Nope! That patient does not qualify. He/she is one year past the highest allowable age for such procedures. Request denied!
One may ask, "how is that different that current circumstances?"
The answer is "none," of course, so why do we need to speed bazillions for no improvement?
The exception is that the bureaucrat is currently an insurance company that can be sued, whereas the bureaucrat probably cannot be sued.

Obama does not understand Iranian protests

It is becoming apparent to me that Obama and his advisers don't understand what is really happening in Iran. The protests are not just about the election, they are about liberty and getting out from under the heavy foot of the Mullahs. Iran is a mere distraction to Obama who is focused on transforming America into who knows what. Obama should make a strong statement in support of the protesters who are looking for freedom and valid elections. Obama's faith in words and dialogue is greatly misplaced in this case. The Mullahs will not be talked out of power or talked out of nuclear arms. The best chance for solving the situation in favor of freedom may be slowly slipping away.

The Walpin Firing

The controversy concerning the firing of Inspector General Walpin is beginning to pick up some steam. Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill authored legislation in 2008 requiring a President to give Congress 30 days' notice of a proposed firing of an Inspector General, and the cause for such a firing. Barack Obama co-sponsored the bill, but amazingly (or not) he has now broken the very law he co-sponsored by firing Inspector General Gerald Walpin. The law was original intended to keep the Bush administration from firing people who were acting in a manner inconvenient for the administration, but now B. Obama has put is own foot in the very trap set for the Bush Administration. Neverthess, I think he will not suffer much from this episode. The media is not interested in harming Obama and will consequently sweep the matter under the rug.
Overall, Obama continues to disappoint group after group who supported him. He has a several more to go, but he still has plenty of time for that. One group he has coddled is the UAW, on whom he bestowed 55% ownership of GM.

Czarist USA

The practice of naming a powerful White House aide a "czar" has been around since President Reagan named a drug czar in 1982 to help stop illegal drug trafficking. I don't know exactly which presidents have named which czars, but I am fairly certain no president has named as many as Barack Obama. Somehow, it gives me a very uneasy feeling to have so many mini-dictators governing this and that in our democracy.

Here is a list of czar named by Pres. Obama.
Regulation Czar: Cass Sunstein
Weapons Czar: Ashton Carter
Green Czar: Van Jones
Climate Czar: Carol Browner
Autoworker Czar: Ed Montgomery
Border Czar - Former Federal Prosecutor: Alan Bersin
Car Czar: Steven Ratner
Energy and Environment Czar: Carol Browner
Health Czar: Nancy-Ann DeParle
Urban Affairs Czar: Adolfo Carrion Jr.
Economic Czar: Paul A. Volcker
Government Performance Czar: unnamed
Great Lakes Czar: Cameron Davis
Executive Pay Czar: Kenneth Feinberg
Cyber Security Czar: Rod A. Beckstrom
Federal Technology Czar: yet to be named but very likely coming soon.

We Missed The Second Coming!

We Christians must have missed the Second Coming. Newsweek report Evan Thomas reports on Hardball that He is already here.

THOMAS: ... Obama is 'we are above that now.' We're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we're not just provincial. We stand for something - I mean in a way Obama's standing above the country, above - above the world, he's sort of God. He's-

MATTHEWS: Yeah.

THOMAS: He's going to bring all different sides together.

As Grandma Haacke used to say, "Good Lordy!"
When one is wandering around in left field looking up at Obama in the sky, one is bound to get beaned on the head with a fly ball. Maybe then Thomas will wake from his trance.

Kudos to Obama for

slapping Brokaw up the side of the head.

Brokaw: What can the Israelis learn from your visit to Buchenwald? And what should they be thinking about their treatment of Palestinians?

Obama: Well, look, there's no equivalency here.

Finally, a politician who does not automatically accept the premise of the question.

King Abdullah grows 12 inches

King Abdullah amazingly grew 12 inches in just a few short months.
Short people around the world are wondering how he achieved such a feat at his age.
When Pres. Obama bowed to King Abdullah at their previous meeting, the White House explained that Obama was attempting to accommodate the King's short stature. In yesterday's meeting, Obama did not bow because the King is now of sufficient stature to obviate bowing.

I do believe that Obama tries too hard...

I do believe that President Obama tries too hard to find common ground and to be liked by everyone. This leads him to make silly statements.

President Obama stated that the U.S. could be considered one of the largest Muslim countries in the world, but our Muslim population is actually quite low. For example, Noah Pollak lists dozens of countries with higher Muslim population than the U.S.

At least he doesn't invent new words like President Bush did, he just invents new 'facts.'

Time Shortage

As you can see to the right, work is piling up (for which I am grateful, actually, in this economic environment), Yumi and Mary are heading off to Japan for a short visit, and I am still trying to squeeze in exercise time. So I am unable to post things on a regular basis, but I still watch the national and international scene with great interest (and some opinions, naturally).

Logic Tortured

A congressman asked Attorney General Holder the following question.
Are Navy SEALS subjected to water boarding as part of their training being tortured?

Holder: No, it's not torture in the legal sense because you're not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally, all we're trying to do is train them --

Lungren: So it's the question of intent?

Holder: Intent is a huge part.

Lungren: So if the intent was to solicit information but not do permanent harm, how is that torture?

Holder: Well, it... uh... it... one has to look at... ah... it comes out to question of fact as one is determining the intention of the person who is administering the waterboarding. When the Communist Chinese did it, when the Japanese did it, when they did it in the Spanish Inquisition we knew then that was not a training exercise they were engaging in. They were doing it in a way that was violative of all of the statutes recognizing what torture is. What we are doing to our own troops to equip them to deal with any illegal act -- that is not torture.

Ignoring the fact that Spanish Inquisition, the Chinese, and the Japanese were not subject any torture laws, it seems that what is being tortured here is logic.
If Navy Seals are not being tortured, how is it that detainees are being tortured using the exact same method? I think what Holder is trying to say is that it is a question of intent to harm, but neither the terrorists nor the Navy Seals are harmed by the method. So I can't accept that water boarding is torture. If water boarding is deemed to be torture, then maybe we should just ask the terrorist "Pretty please, just tell us what you know." The terrorist says "No." Interrogator says "Ok. You can go."

GOP Obituary?

I have seen many news reports and talking heads pronounce the GOP essentially dead and furthermore claim that the party must reformulate itself more toward the center. That formulation has never ever worked for the GOP, and a prime example of that is McCain.
However, looking at the latest Rasmussen poll, the obituary appears to be premature.
The Dems have been is power for only 5 months and already the public perception is swinging strongly in the GOP's favor.

The economy question is most striking. With the Dems printing and spending money like, well, errr, Democrats, the cumulative point swing is 12. The release of the torture documents produced a swing of 10 points on National Security. The threat of higher taxes produced a swing of 11 points. With a year and half to go to midterm elections, the Dems would be wise to reconsider some of their policies.

Empathy and the Law

President Obama has said that his main criterion for selecting a SCOTUS judge would be "empathy." Making judgments based on empathy can only lead to lawlessness, i.e., ignoring the law to judge in favor of a preferred group. Nevertheless, we all know that such "empathy-based judgments" have alread occurred - not so much with SCOTUS, but in lower circuit courts. If one does not like the law, one should work to change the law. The role of the courts is to make judgments soundly based in the law or to otherwise determine the constitutionality of a law. If the law is constitutional and one still does not like the law, one should attempt to change the constitution. Empathy should play no role.

Specter gets backbenched

I find myself amused at the treatment Specter is getting from the Democrats.
It is reported that Specter has been stripped of his seniority and he will now be treated as the most junior senator. I saw the press conference where the Dems assured Specter that he could keep his seniority, but now that he has switched, Reid is treating him like dirt.
Specter started out as a Dem long ago, but switched parties to run for some office in Philadelphia. Congresspersons :) occasionally switch parties, but most do it for political opportunity rather than political conviction. Specter is an opportunist that the Republicans are glad to be rid of (despite public statements to the contrary), and it appears the Dems don't trust him either.
He has been put on the junior varsity squad, the B team, the 5th quarter squad, and I am amused to see it.
I think he will lose the next election, whether it be in the Democrat primary or in the general election. I think the voters will not be amused by his fickleness.

Obama Supporters Ask "Why?"

Environmentalists outraged at good news

Steve Hayward, author of "Index of Leading Environmental Indicators" writes

Elizabeth Rosenthal reported in the New York Times of a recent estimate from the Smithsonian Institution research in Central America suggesting that “for every acre of rain forest cut down each year, more than 50 acres of new forest are growing in the tropics on land that was once farmed, logged or ravaged by natural disaster. . . The new forests, the scientists argue, could blunt the effects of rain forest destruction by absorbing carbon dioxide, the leading heat-trapping gas linked to global warming, one crucial role that rain forests play. They could also, to a lesser extent, provide habitat for endangered species.” The next sentence, however, has a drearily predictable beginning: “The idea has stirred outrage among environmentalists,” not because it might be untrue, but because it might blunt support for “vigorous efforts to protect native rain forests.”

Never let good news get in the way of one's agenda!

Getting Thrashed

My one victory in the tournament shown below was erased because my opponent withdrew from the tournament. The best I could do a tie for last. After analyzing my games using a computer, I was amazed to find that each of my opponent's moves was confirmed to be the best move. The possibility of this happening by chance on each and every move is essentially zero. So it appears my opponents were using a computer. Technically, it is against the rules to use a computer. I am getting wiped out in my other tournament games as well, so I suspect the same thing is happening. I will finish out my commitments in the other tournaments, but I think I will not play any more correspondence chess. If I wanted to play against a computer, I would just play against my own computer. Click on the image to enlarge.

Making Conservatism a Crime

It appears that many liberals and many in the Obama administration are not satisfied with an electoral victory, they want to send conservatives to prison. The recent push to criminalize essential policy differences has led President Obama to hint that he is open to the idea of bringing criminal charges against the Justice Department lawyers who wrote opinions that support waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods that could legally be used on al Qaeda detainees. So Obama is contemplating having lawyers prosecuted because s/he wrote a legal analysis with which the current administration disagrees. This is outrageous. Whether one agrees with the legal opinion written by the lawyers is immaterial. It is the naked attempt to criminalize the opinion that is astonishing.

The Real Pirates

Click to enlarge.

PC Police Gone Wild

So pirates should now be referred to as "voluntary coast guard."

Most Polarizing President Ever

Bush was often criticized for his my-way-or-the-highway politics, but Obama has already surpassed Bush is polarizing the country.

Note that Carter initially had good support from Republicans, and Nixon initially had good support from Democrats. Carter served only one term and Nixon didn't finish his second term.

Anarchy! Yes we can!

It seems even anarchists look to Obama as a comrade of sorts, but these anarchists have Obama all wrong. Obama doesn't want to overthrow any government. He wants to vastly expand its size and power.

Politicizing the Department of Justice

The Bush administration was often accused of politicizing the Justice Department (in many cases, the Bush administration was just doing the exact same thing the Clinton administration had been doing).

Today, the Washington Post reported that Attorney General Holder has rejected the legal opinion of the Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) that the D.C. voting rights bill pending in Congress is unconstitutional. The new OLC is led by deputies selected and appointed by the Obama Administration. The current OLC reached the same conclusion that the OLC has since the early 1960s, i.e., that the bill is unconstitutional.

Holder was apparently unhappy with that conclusion and he asked the Solicitor General's office whether it "could defend the legislation if it were challenged after its enactment." Holder didn't ask whether the bill was constitutional, but whether a non-frivolous argument could be made in defense of its constitutionality. The SG's office concluded that one could be made.

This shows that Holder is keenly aware that the bill is unconstitutional, and Holder is sworn to uphold the Constitution, but he reversed the OLC decision based only on advice that a contrary view of the Constitution is not frivolous, which has little to do with constitutionality. It appears that Holder is aiming for political ends that favor his view of the world. Of course, we will hear nothing about politicization of the Obama DOJ from the media.

Daniel Hannan Body Slams Gordon Brown

This is from the European Parliament. Many members of the EP are not happy with Britain's endless spending. What Daniel Hannan says about Britain could soon be said about the USA.

Tea Parties

If you haven't heard about the tea party movement going on, it's because the media is studiously avoiding any coverage whatsoever. Heaven forbid any anti-Obama stuff be shown on TV! Meanwhile, an Acorn-sponsored bus tour of AIG executive homes gets huge coverage.
The following photo-shopped picture made me laugh.

The Spoken Word

I have come to the conclusion that for Obama the current spoken word is the only thing that matters. Yesterday's spoken word does not matter, tomorrow's spoken word does not matter, history does not matter, action does not matter, and intentions do no matter. Only his current utterance has any significance.

Consider this statement by Obama today. "It's with a budget that leads to broad economic growth by moving from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest."
These are wonderful spoken words, but the facts are so contrary to his pronouncement, it causes one to consider if Obama is even living on the same planet.
The chart below is from the CBO and includes the White House's own estimates!

Save and invest? I don't see it even in his own administration's numbers!

So the backlash begins

The GOP has taken the lead in the generic party preference poll. Dems traditionally lead this poll by large margins, so this change is quite astounding. I think it shows considerable dissatisfaction with the performance of Congressional Dems, and maybe even Obama, since his poll numbers are also falling.



A few points about the AIG bonus hullabaloo. Sure, the bonuses are despicable under the circumstances. However, the bonuses are contractual bonuses and AIG has no choice but to pay them. Barney Frank is demanding the names of the bonus recipients. AIG leadership is in the wrong here, not the bonus recipients. The show being put on by the Dems in congress is to cover for the fact that they allowed Treasury to spend the money without any strings whatsoever, so the bad accountability lies with Congressional leadership. Also, Senator Dodd inserted a provision in the TARP bill that permitted the payment of such contractual bonuses, and now that the crap has hit the fan, he is trying to cover his fanny by saying that Congress will tax the money back into the Treasury. If Congress can tax specific private citizens by name, then is anything we own safe?

Update:
CNN states:
Dodd acknowledged his role in the change after a Treasury Department official told CNN the administration pushed for the language.
Dodd, a Democrat, told CNN's Dana Bash and Wolf Blitzer that Obama administration officials pushed for the language to an amendment designed to limit bonuses and "golden parachutes" at those companies.
"I agreed reluctantly," Dodd said. "I was changing the amendment because others were insistent."

So now Dodd is squirming. Yesterday, he said he had no idea how the language got into the bill. Today, having been caught in a lie, acknowledges that he put the language in the bill, but he blames it on the Obama administration. A simple "I apologize. I made a mistake" would be sufficient and everyone would forgive and forget, but Dodd's pride will not allow him to do so. Will a Democrat ever take responsibility for a mistake? If it were a Republican, the Democrats would be demanding a resignation at this point.

Recent Interesting Articles

I have read the following interesting articles lately.

Utah: Where the con is on
Utah Mormons have at least one glaring fault. They are gullible, and overly trusting.

Where's the Global Warming?
Is the Boston Globe wising up? Even this lefty newspaper is having its doubts.
The last paragraph is a zinger!

Gay Marriage vs. Democracy
Gay marriage could have already been a reality if only its proponents would change strategy. The last line in this article sums it all up. Their penchant for compulsion via courts rather than persuasion via campaigning and winning elections is hurting their cause.

Democrats kick a sleeping bear

Democrats had their way in the election.
They have their way in creating legislation.
They merely have to go about their business doing what they have always wanted to do.
Now, for what reason I cannot imagine, Obama and the DNC are going on the offensive against Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh's influence was drifting downward, but the Democrats could not leave well-enough alone. They have whacked the beehive and kicked a sleeping bear. The Democrats have called attention to Limbaugh and now his audience will likely grow due to those tuning in to see what all the fuss is about. Limbaugh has now challenged Obama to a debate of the issues, but Obama would be foolish to accept such a win-win situation for Limbaugh.

First Victory

Here is the game score of my first victory.
I had the white pieces. My opponent was winning and I believe he mistakenly resigned. He should take my f pawn en passant with a very sharp attack.

I am not doing as well in my other games.

Chess Tournaments

I have had the itch to play chess lately. So I have joined a few online tournaments.
The first one has started. There are only five players in this one. I don't know what TER means in the fifth column from the left, but the important number is the Rating column, which tells everyone the strength of the player. I have the second highest rating in this tournament. Can you guess the countries of the participants from the flags? In order from the top they are Russia, Chile, USA, Hungary, and USA. Note the reflection time in the upper right hand corner of the table. Each player has 20 days of thinking time and each move must be made within 2 days of the opponent's previous move.
Click on the image to enlarge.



Update:
A second tournament has started. I have the fifth highest rating, so this tournament will be extremely tough. The countries are, in order from the top, USA, USA, Wales, USA, Australia, Ukraine, and Russia.

I don't know about you, but I care.

I think Chuck Schumer is a very skillful politician and he has been very effective for the Democrats. Nevertheless, he is a condescending blowhard. Note the phrases "chattering class" and "American people don't care." Such are the linguistic signals that politicians unwittingly send about how they really think.

Sloppy Journalism

I really am getting weary of journalistic malpractice that goes on in our current media.
Another example today is the AP article with the following.

Iraq wraps up election with major violence

Jan 31 10:20 AM US/Eastern

BAGHDAD (AP) - Iraq's provincial elections have wrapped up without any reports of serious violence.

I am posting this at 11:45pm MST, so the AP has left this glaring 'error' out there for nearly 12 hours. Reuters and AP always have an adverse knee jerk reaction to any good news out of Iraq.

A few pokes at hypocrisy

I suppose at one time or another we are all guilty of hypocrisy, but we are less likely to accept it from politicians. Here are a few of the latest examples I have noticed.
1. The Republicans are calling the stimulus bill a Democrat porkapalooza. By some estimates, only 12% is stimulus and the rest is pork destined for Democrat special interest groups (including the highly suspicious group ACORN). OK, so for the Republicans, if it is such a bad stimulus bill now, why wasn't it a bad stimulus bill a month ago when Bush was president?

2. During the campaign, Obama claimed "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times . . . and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK." OK, then why does Obama keep the Oval Office warm enough to grow orchids (David Axelrod: "You could grow orchids in there.") I guess Obama meant your home, not his.

3. Gorebal Warming: Al Gore has made a living at fear mongering about global warming. He has a huge home that uses three times the amount of electricity than the average American home. He jets around the world (often in private jets) without the slightest care about his carbon footprint. Recently, he bought a 100-foot houseboat complete with a gas-guzzling hugely-polluting jet ski. He says the houseboat runs on bio diesel and that he will be adding solar panels, so he has named his boat "Bio Solar 1" (or BS-1, for short). Again, I guess Gore is concerned about your carbon footprint, but not his own.

More of the same

Change? Nope. More of the same in this case.
The Washington Times notes that many of the recipients of federal bailout funds are also major political donors. Stimulus? I don't think so. It's a transfer of wealth that Democrats love, but not the kind their constituents expect. It moves taxpayer money from the politically unconnected to the politically connected. Yep! More of the same!

A broken promise already

Obama promised on many occasions to never have a lobbyist in his administration.
Already, during his first week in office, Obama has broken that promise by nominating a good ol' boy for deputy secretary of defense, William Lynn, who has been a lobbyist for the defense contractor Raytheon, and his nominee for deputy secretary of health and human services, William V. Corr, lobbied for stricter tobacco regulations as an official with the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. Obama is just another promise-breaking politician. "More of the same we can believe in!"

ACLU sues a Muslim school and the Minnesota Department of Education

The ACLU has always seemed to have some grudge against Christianity and often ignores other religions that do essentially the same thing as Christian churches. It seems that finally, the ACLU has decided to apply the same standard to another religion. TIZA is a Muslim charter school that has long engaged in religious education and has received taxpayer money (via various routes). It remains to be seen if this is an isolated case for the ACLU.

Indeed

Professor Denies Global Warming Theory

At one time last year, I was leaning toward the believing in the existence of global warming.
I did not believe it was anthropogenic, but the data seemed to indicate that global warming was indeed occurring. Considering the cold weather this year and the numerous articles against the anthropogenic basis for global warming by those without a political agenda, I am beginning to wonder if global warming, anthropogenic or not, is a totally concocted theory designed to damage western economies. Even the data has been debunked (and proven to be fabricated) in some articles. Physics professor William Harper has very strong words for global warming enthusiasts.
Obama and Democrats have campaigned and made promises to reduce global warming (Nancy Pelosi wants to "save the earth"). Policies such as cap-and-trade would be economically disastrous, and likely lead to defeat for Democrats in future elections (Voters care more about their pocket book than they do about the global warming.). Additionally, such policies would have no effect on global warming anyway. India and China have no interest in such policies, and they continue to pump out fumes at astronomical rates.

A non-schlock affair

The cost? $160 million
Carole Florman, spokeswoman for the joint congressional committee on inaugural ceremonies, told the New York Daily News: “We’re always very budget conscious. But we’re sending a message to the entire world about our peaceful transition of power, and you don’t want it to look like a schlock affair. It needs to be appropriate to the magnitude of events that it is.“

Four years ago, congressional democrats, newspapers, and pundits were wailing and bemoaning the cost of President Bush's inauguration ($40 million - all donations - no taxpayer money used).

Mars has gas

Scientists have found a haze of methane gas around Mars.
Methane gas is usually produced by living things in the form of waste matter.
I think the scientists are saying that microbes are producing the gas, not herds of cattle.

Leon Panetta Appointed CIA Head

The appointment Leon Panetta, a Clintonite (as are a large number of Obama appointments), has been much decried by conservatives, but I don't see that this appointment is so bad.
First, the CIA can't go much lower. They were already less of a data collection agency and more of an agency with a political agenda. The partisan Panetta will not change that.
Second, maybe, just maybe, Panetta will come to see the dangers of domestic and international terrorism and finally convince some on the left that a police approach is inadequate to fight terrorism.
Third, I imagine Panetta will be spending much of his time trying to learng how the CIA functions, and maybe he will come to the conclusion that the agency has become overly populated with bureaucrats.

Of course, I am not holding my breath, and maybe the exact opposite will happen with each of the three points.

America's International Image

Liberals often blamed Bush for a poor international image of our country, and some were even gleeful that Bush's effigy was often paraded and burnt. Before Bush, it was Clinton, and almost every modern president who came before. Obama hasn't even been inaugurated yet, and he is being blamed for the latest Palestinian - Israeli conflict. If America has a poor image overseas, it isn't because of Bush. Effigies are a poor indicator of Americas true image. Anti-democratic forces simply use the current president as the 'face' of America. It doesn't matter who is president. (Note the cigarette hanging out of Obama's mouth.)