Let's Take Our Country Back

Yes, we beat SOPA, but the problem of foreign infringers is still around. And we’re not just talking about online copyright infringement, either. Copies of clothing, purses, gadgets, you name it: foreign free riders are a problem. It’s an important tradeoff to find, so an open process for the Darrell Issa OPEN Act is a good one. A slow, consensus-based approach is also smart, so I’m glad consensus is what Eric Cantor and John Boehner are demanding from a bill on this topic.

The alternative is picking winners and losers. That’s not good for government to do, even if it’s been a problem for a long time, to the annoyance of Frédéric Bastiat.

Speaking of picking winners and losers, FCC Spectrum management is falling apart. The more the FCC controls who’s bidding, and how the winners of the auctions will use that spectrum, the less efficiently we allocate and use that critical, limited resource.

So naturally what are we looking at? Hassling Verizon for doing what it has to instead of fixing the FCC. Seriously: People who say that any Republican would be anywhere near the problem Obama is, simply need to look more closely at just how awful the Obama regulators are. They are completely out of control. We need to defeat Barack Obama and restore some sanity at FCC, FTC, EPA, and the rest.

Google and Facebook will obey Indian censorship laws. Singling out Twitter for abuse over foreign censorship laws never made much sense, folks.

Programming note: due to CPAC and my traveling cross country to it, this will be the only Tech at Night post this week.

Banning dolls is not the way to instill moral values in children. Good parenting is.

Chicago-style politics.

Posted By: Laura

Another sign of trouble for the American brand: the New York Times reports that our Constitution, once the model for nation's around the world, is losing favor. Of course there are a lot of leftists in the U.S. who are just fine with this, as they are with our economic decline. A weakened U.S. is chastened U.S., a more timid U.S., which is fine with many of the most radical elements of our society who believe we are the cause of the world's problems. "We the people" must resist this narrative of decline by electing people at all levels of government who will push bold policies that will begin to turn this around. We cannot sit idly by as our nation slowly slides into an abyss.

http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/America--and-our-Constitution--in-decline/-581658364945148123.html

As I said back in December, I have no plans to endorse a candidate for President of the United States. I wrote, at the time, “I would prefer instead to tell you exactly what I think about each of the candidates, good or bad, and let the chips fall where they may.”

Since then, I have routinely been asked who I would endorse. Today, after a lot of reflection on this race, I can honestly say my position has not changed and I would honestly prefer Ace of Spades’ sweet meteor of death than any of the candidates left in the race. Only the sweet meteor of death seems capable of stopping both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. I can take the easy way out and not endorse because while I recognize politics necessitates compromise, I would have to compromise my intellectual honesty too much to choose any of the remaining candidates. Tonight, on my radio show, I put my weight behind the sweet meteor of death. You can listen to my reasons why here.

The Republican Party is putting itself in the hands of the economy. With Mitt Romney as the nominee, we will be forced to hope for a deteriorating economy because, while I will vote for him and think he is vastly better than Barack Obama, the fact is he has made no case for himself against Barack Obama except that he can do a better job on the economy. And let’s be clear — no Republican should hope or appear to be hoping for a deteriorating economy. It’s just that with no other justification for his election other than electability based on the ability to fix the economy, if the economy fixes itself, suddenly there is no justification for Mitt Romney’s electability.

My sincere and honest hope is that both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich stay in the race as long as possible to deny MItt Romney enough delegates to secure the Republican nomination. I do not think either Santorum or Gingrich have much of a better shot against Barack Obama, but I do think they are at least running on bigger ideas than Mitt Romney — ideas that still translate and survive an improving economy.

For months I have said I am for “Not Romney.” It is not because I think either Gingrich or Santorum have a better shot at winning than Romney, but because I still hold out hope for a broker convention to save us from ourselves.

I may be a Republican, and at one time an elected Republican, but I have always needed more than just a letter of the alphabet next to someone’s name to get me excited. Newt Gingrich excites because he picks fights with all the people I think need to be fought, including Mitt Romney. God bless him for that. But I am under no illusion that makes him capable of beating Barack Obama without a deteriorating economy.

Rick Santorum excites me because, while I think he is a big government and compassionate conservative, he is willing to defend traditional mores in this country in a way few are. HIs bold stand for faith and tradition is honest and refreshing, but it also makes for a massive liability in a general election when he has so little to show voters on other fronts.

As for Romney, he does not excite me and has largely run his campaign making sure conservatives know he can get the nomination without them. That’s all well and good, but he certainly should not expect me or other conservatives to do anything for him in the general election other than, hopefully it won’t just be me, showing up to vote for him. That’s about all I plan to do for the man.

I’ll support the Republican nominee for President. I’ll defend him from meritless attacks and I will oppose Barack Obama. Any one of our candidates is better than Barack Obama. But God help us if any one of them is the nominee.

Until we reach the magic number 1144, which is the number of delegates needed to secure the Republican nomination, I hold out hope that someone or some meteor saves us from ourselves.

Sean Trende of Real Clear Politics is one of the better analysts of basic political trends out there, so I was looking forward to his new book The Lost Majority: Why the Future of Government Is Up for Grabs – and Who Will Take It. I was fortunate enough to snag a review copy for RedState, and found it to be a fairly persuasive argument that our general assumptions about the implications of any given election are usually wrong. It was not exactly a groundbreaking argument for me, but then I’m already familiar with Sean’s writing on RCP.

Sean makes three claims in The Lost Majority:

“First, that the 2010 midterm elections were a result of Barack Obama and the Democrats misreading both their mandate and how they had been brought to power, imagining a realignment in 2008 when, in fact, none had occurred. Second, that the emerging partisan majorities described by theorists from both parties are mirages. Third, that the entire concept of realignments/permanent alignments, which underlies much of the misbegotten analysis of the 2008 elections, is bankrupt and should be abandoned.” (page xiii)

The first claim is not exactly going to be controversial to anybody who isn’t a Democrat; the second and third are perhaps more likely to be matters of some controversy to ideologically-minded readers. They should not, however, be dismissed out of hand; after all, there were a lot of very book-smart people advising the Democrats in 2009 and 2010 who based their opinions on the belief that long-term partisan majorities are inevitable and that alignments are possible The collapse of their models should at least be seen as cautionary.

The bulk of the book examines the American political system from the 1920s to the 2010 midterms, and in the process calls into question pretty much every commonly-believed, after-the-fact description made of it. This includes, but is not limited to: the enduring New Deal coalition (which Sean argues ended in the 1940s) ; the ‘Southern Strategy’ (although I don’t remember that the author ever formally referred to it as such in the text); and the Reagan Revolution (which Sean categorizes as marking the end of the previous Eisenhower coalition). In all of these cases, the author dives into actual voting patterns – both geographical and demographic – and generally demonstrates that said commonly-believed descriptions are at best over-simplified and at worst flat-out wrong.

To give just one example: the traditional liberal narrative of the ‘Southern Strategy’ is that LBJ signed the Voting Rights Act in 1964, and then racist Southern Democrats switched over to the Republican party en masse. Only… they didn’t. As the author noted: voting patterns in the South began to shift a decade earlier under Eisenhower; continued with organization on the local level in the Sixties that started before the VRA’s passage; and then generally chugged along until enough older Southerners (who largely remained stubbornly Democratic) died of old age, while the younger ones largely declined to vote for a party that had been calling them racist hicks for forty years (I am paraphrasing, obviously). But it’s easier to go with the existing narrative, in much the same way that it’s easier to go with the narrative that the House was under firm Democratic control for forty years… instead of the more complicated and ideologically-hostile one that Congress was divided up between Republicans, Democrats, and conservative Democrats who felt free to vote with Republicans on key issues.

Which leads to the last argument of Sean’s: that, essentially, realignments are impossible because (again, I paraphrase) there’s not really any such thing as “Republican” or “Democrat” in the first place, as they’re commonly described. The author more or less takes the position that both parties are comprised of a variety of interest groups (some voting on ideology, others on party loyalty, and yet others out of pragmatism) that can and will shift their voting patterns as necessary. Worse, from an ideological point of view: as one group is accommodated, another will likely be ignored or dismissed… and change their votes accordingly. Which is one reason why Sean Trende (and I, for that matter) is somewhat dismissive of the ‘demographic is destiny’ argument; there’s no way of knowing that a group that votes Democratic or Republican today will always vote that way.

Generally, I enjoyed The Lost Majority as being readable and logical; my major criticism of it is that I don’t think that it takes into account fully the ability of a party’s leadership to let its own ideological biases affect its thinking. I’m referring specifically to the Democrats, here: due largely to districting issues, its current leadership hails from districts and areas that are reliably liberal, and are in fact heavily so. In an environment where the basic rule of thumb for the electorate is 40% conservative, 40% moderate, and 20% liberal, this is at least a potential problem for the Democratic party… and if the Democrats continue to ignore the fact that they’re allowing their fringe to set policy then their party is at least somewhat at risk of utter collapse. And the collapse of a party is something that could cause a realignment, for quite some time.

Mind you, I am a proud partisan hack, so take that observation with a grain of salt. In the meantime, I heartily recommend The Lost Majority: particularly if you want to have a good idea how people have actually been voting for the last ninety years…

Moe Lane (crosspost)

I’ve been engaged in a twitter discussion with some good friends and acquaintances (and, being that it’s twitter, with some folks I don’t know from Adam) about the upcoming film Act of Valor. The film, for those who were comatose during the Super Bowl ad blitz, is a Navy recruiting video on major steroids that features several active duty SEALs and Special Warfare Combatant Crewmen in uncredited roles. According to the Wikipedia entry:

Act of Valor began as a recruitment video for the U.S. military’s Naval Special Warfare Command. In 2007, Mike McCoy and Scott Waugh of Bandito Brothers Production filmed a video for the Special Warfare Combatant-craft Crewmen SWCC which led the Navy to allow them to use SEALs for Act of Valor. None of the SEALs’ names will appear in the credits of the film.

Relativity Media acquired the rights to the project on June 12, 2011 for $13 million and a $30 million in prints and advertising commitment. Deadline.com called it “the biggest money paid for a finished film with an unknown cast”. The production budget was estimated between $15 million and $18 million

The discussion surrounding the film has largely been whether it is, in the words of Air Force veteran @JimmySky, “exploitative” – and if so, why that is and who exactly it is that’s being exploited.
According to a recent WSJ story on the film, “the project offered filmmakers access to SEALs as well as military assets, but no funding.” The article also notes that:

the “goals [of the film] were to bolster recruiting efforts, honor fallen team members and offer a corrective to misleading fare such as “Navy Seals,” the 1990 shoot-em-up starring Charlie Sheen as a cocky lone wolf. “In the SEAL ethos, the superman myth does not apply. It’s a lifestyle of teamwork, hard work and academic discipline,” said Capt. Duncan Smith, a SEAL who initiated the project and essentially served as producer within the military.

The article continues:

For two years the filmmakers had inside access to the Navy’s elite and secretive force for an unusual assignment: to create a feature film that starred real-life SEALs—not actors—in lead roles. The movie, “Act of Valor,” is not a documentary. Instead, it straddles reality and fiction, military messaging and entertainment. It features strike scenes written by the SEALs themselves, jarring live-fire footage and a body count that would rival any ’80s action flick. Yet the movie, to be released in February, was designed to set the record straight on a group that the military says has been routinely misrepresented in film.

Now, I need to offer a dual disclaimer up front: (1) I’ve only seen the preview and this excellent albeit brief review by Jeff Quinton, not the movie itself, and (2) I’m firmly biased in favor 0f pro-military (and particularly pro-SOF) films that provide the greatest level of  accuracy that Hollywood can muster.  For example, I thought Black Hawk Down was an excellent film (even if Josh Hartnett was horribly miscast as a Ranger), and I share the community at large’s loathing for ridiculous movies like the aforementioned Charlie Sheen Navy SEALs flick.

The difference between the buzz about Act of Valor and the better of its predecessors appears to be primarily focused on the fact that Act of Valor features active duty NSWC personnel (and that the movie’s advertising blitz has been very vocal about their participation) in a film that has a fictitious story line, as opposed to, say, Black Hawk Down, which told a true story but used actors to do so (rather than “being marketed on the basis of [having] real Rangers“). This, in turn, blurs the line between fiction and reality, while using valuable Department of Defense equipment and personnel to (according to former PAO @FPWellman) make money for Hollywood.

While I understand the concerns, though, I’m far from convinced by them.  Military participation in Hollywood projects is nearly a century old, and the Department of Defense maintains an entertainment media office specifically to provide “U.S. military assistance in producing feature motion pictures, television shows, documentaries, music videos, commercial advertisements, CD-ROM games, and other audiovisual programs.” According to the Armed Forces Press Service:

To achieve maximum accuracy in movies and on television, the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard and DoD have liaison offices to help guide filmmakers through the process. The services operate independently of each other in this endeavor but share office space on the same floor of a Los Angeles building. The Defense Department’s entertainment media division is run from the Pentagon.

“If we decide to cooperate on a project, we stay with them throughout all the scenes that have military or DoD depictions,” said Army Lt. Col Paul Sinor, a public affairs officer with that service’s Office of the Chief of Public Affairs.

This task covers a broad spectrum, from making sure uniforms and equipment are correct to coordinating filming on military bases, said Air Force Capt. Christian Hodge, a project officer with the Air Force Entertainment Liaison Office.

This cooperation has included technical advice, but it has also included equipment and personnel. The F-14s, F-5s, and A-4s in Top Gun were real military aircraft, as were the MH-60s and Little Birds in Black Hawk Down, and the F-22s in Transformers and Iron Man.  However, as obvious as this statement may be, the cooperation goes farther than advice and hardware – it includes people, too.  Every live action shot of a military aircraft, for example, includes active military crew members operating those aircraft. The fact they’re not credited among the primary cast is immaterial; they are participants in the film, just as the Naval personnel in Act of Valor are.  Further, films like Transformers have featured active duty personnel in significant numbers (such as the Airmen serving as extras in this shot), and have provoked little if any consternation as a result.

Given all of this, it seems clear that the real issue is the fact that the film’s advertising touts the participation of active duty SEALs and SWCCs, rather than their participation.  Does that mean, in turn, that the issue with the film is that a conscious effort is being made to make people aware of the presence of active military personnel in the film, rather than featuring military technology without overtly acknowledging the real soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines operating that technology on-screen?

The other issue, raised by former Army officer Tim Matthews, is “the general sentiment…’shouldn’t these SEALs being out shooting REAL bad guys?’”  I think the response to this one is fairly easy: from Blue Angels and Thunderbirds pilots to the Golden Knights, STARS, and Leapfrog jump demonstration teams, tip-of-the-spear military professionals are put to use on a daily basis not in offensive operations, but in operations that improve outreach and recruiting and build civil-military relations (and still more serve in administrative and staff positions, as liaison officers, etc.).  Tim deserves credit for being consistent, as he believes that the “Blue Angels, Thunderbirds, Golden Knights, bands, etc, are a poor use of resources.”  However, these functions will continue to be performed by those who are skilled enough at their military jobs to participate in them, and outside of the fact that it’s on a big screen instead of over an airfield, I see no significant difference between the role of active duty SEALs in Act of Valor and that of that top 0.001% of F-16 pilots in the Air Force that makes up the Thunderbirds demonstration team.

For me, the bottom line with Act of Valor is this: it’s a film that features Hollywood-DOD cooperation just like countless other war and action flicks over the last several decades.  Yes, it’s a film with heavy Navy Special Warfare involvement, so I expect a level of accuracy and attention to detail that is far higher than almost any other military or combat film; yes, it’s almost certain to have a level of energy and action that far surpasses the day-to-day experiences of NSW operators; and yes, it is at heart what it’s always been: a Special Warfare recruiting video. H0wever, I’m simply not convinced that there’s any “exploitation,” “opportunism,” or anything else to be found here besides an action film that uses real operators, real support staff, and real stories to achieve a level of realistic sensationalism that very few of its predecessors have been capable of – and that’s just fine with me.

I’m on CNN tonight, but I’m also on radio tonight out of Atlanta on my own show.

You can listen live right now on WSB’s live stream. The show started at 6:00 p.m. and will run till 8pm tonight.

Tonight at 7:34 p.m. ET I will make my endorsement for President of the United States.

I will not be endorsing “We the People” as I kind of blame them for this present mess. But I will be making an endorsement and if you are curious you can listen by clicking right here.

U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) explains how big government is making it harder for Americans to find jobs and more difficult for small businesses to succeed. When big government puts too many burdens on America’s economy, it forces jobs and investment overseas instead of here at home. It also makes it harder for middle class small business owners to compete against large corporations, discouraging real competition and job growth.

Here’s a list of some of the obstacles that big government has created that make it harder to achieve success in America:

- $1.75 trillion regulatory costs
- $15 trillion national debt
- $2 to $3 trillion in state and local debt (http://bit.ly/zQwqfb)
- $100 trillion unfunded liabilities for entitlement programs
- ObamaCare taxes and regulations
- More than 75,000 pages of IRS tax rules & regulations (http://bit.ly/ejX73Z)

Open Thread

Today is February 6th. It’s Ronald Reagan’s birthday, and on this date in 1987, he became the oldest President of the United States in history, at age 76. It was also on this date in 1998 that Washington National Airport was renamed in his honor. Today he would have been 101 years old. Happy Birthday, Mr. President. This country sure could use some Reagan 101 today.

">A Time For Choosing | Ronald Reagan
Relevant then, relevant now.

Sharpton: Obama needs to dictate to the Catholic Church | Hot Air
“This is an absurd perversion of the concept of separation of church and state. When Thomas Jefferson wrote that (it’s not found in American law), he meant that the church should not dictate to the State on law — and that the state should not dictate to the church on doctrine.”

Occupy mudbowl: What’s left of McPherson Square | Washington Examiner
Before and after photos. Quite a difference. And note, the green pre-Occupy state was paid for with $400,000 in stimulus money.

Are You ‘Them!’? | Victor Davis Hanson
“This is proving to be a Manichean administration. It sees the world in terms dark and light, of us/them, and then must create the necessary binaries to divide and demonize—so strange given this was the narrative of the Obama campaign against Bush, not so strange given the Chicago origins.”

Today’s Word of the Day comes from Luciferous Logolepsy, and will no doubt enter your daily conversation.
ranarium: noun A place for rearing frogs.

The Obama Administration has to be in shock as a result of the Gallup poll released last week indicating that Obama would lose his re-election according to state-by-state approval ratings.  According to Conn Carroll of the Washington Examiner if the election were held today:

Obama would lose the 2012 election to the Republican nominee 323 electoral votes to 215.

Expect desperation from Senate liberals.  Senate Democrats will accelerate a highly partisan agenda to create the fallacy that Senate Republicans and a House controlled by Republicans are slowing economic growth by not rubber stamping President Obama’s big government agenda.  The first argument they will make is that the upcoming highway bill does not spend enough of your tax dollars.  Remember, liberals are married to the idea that only government can create jobs.

The House and Senate are expected to work on competing versions of a transportation bill this week.  The House is going to take up the Senate passed so called “insider trading” bill.  The House will also tackle the issue of line item veto authority for the President.

The House will be in later today for votes on three suspension bills:  H.R. 306, a wild horse protection bill; H.R. 1162, an Indian tribal bill; and, H.R. 2606, a natural gas bill.  The House also will begin consideration today of H.R. 1734, the “Civilian Property Realignment Act.” 

The remainder of the week, the Hosue will consider H.R. 3521, a line item veto bill sponsored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and H.R. 3581, a budget and accountability bill.  The House will take up S.2038, the STOCK Act at some point this week.  The “Public Corruption Prosecution Improvement Act” was dropped into this bill as an amendment by Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT).  It does not seem as if Congress has had enough time to study this very important expansion of federal law to make sure the new proposed law is not overbroad and vague.

 The Senate is expected to take up H.R.658, the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act.  This is a conference report that the House has already passed.  The remainder of the week is set aside to consider a two-year transportation bill.  Now that the Senate has voted to go back to their earmarking ways, the big question is how big can they make this bill and will they start earmarking again.

Last week, the House worked up a five year version of a transportation bill.  Also, last week, the Senate voted to go back to earmarking special home state projects.  This will be a competing measure to the Senate plan. 

Daniel Horowitz describes the House version as the highway to cave city.

Last week, several House committees favorably reported the $260 billion 5-year House GOP highway bill to the full body.  This 846-page behemoth is now headed to a floor vote sometime next week.  Simply put, conservatives oppose the House leadership’s highway bill (H.R. 7) because it continues the failed top-down federal approach to transportation spending, while precluding devolution to the states for at least another five years.  Moreover, it eschews the pay-as-you-go funding mechanism of the Highway Trust Fund (eerily similar to the Social Security Trust Fund!) by permanently authorizing a higher level of spending than the fund’s corresponding revenue source; the federal gas tax.

Conservatives need to watch the House and Senate to see if they will hold the line against earmarking and the big spending ways of the past.  This highway bill could become a bidding war between House and Senate proponents of federal highway spending.  This will be a good test of conservatives to see if they hold the line or if they will cave to pressure to go back to the big spending ways of the past.

It's Big Government versus Big Oil...and Big Government isn't looking too good.

The people writing these essays described in the YouTube above are the future of our nation. Someone who believes that “As human beings, we are not really responsible for our own acts,…” may be the person performing open heart surgery on someone you care about in a not-so-pleasant future. Regrettably, the quote continued. “and so we need government to control those who don’t care about others.” (HT: Karl Denninger)

Glenn Reynolds (of Instapundit fame) gets into the resource costs of this sort of belief system. In his column “It’s takers versus makers and these days the takers are winning” he points out the ultimate fallacy of this line of reasoning.

If you tried to hold a series of potluck dinners where a majority brought nothing to the table, but felt entitled to eat their fill, it would probably work out badly. Yet that’s essentially what we’re doing.

Dr. Reynolds brings up a valid concern. Lady Thatcher stated this more succinctly when she pointed out that the Socialists always run out of other people’s money. It took a while, but the Soviet Union, which boasted far and away more military might than any nation that had previously existed, was finally reduced to sending their conscript legions of doom to harvest a failing potato crop. What worries me more, however, is what this entire mentality (socialism, Communism, “Hope and Change”, whatever…) does to people on the way to having the potato crops fail.

Everyone cringed in 2008 when this video hit the YouTube.

The scariest thing here is not that some star-struck fan of a politician believed this. What scares me is that in just three years, this belief is becoming ingrained and institutionalized. You take the Federal Dollars today because it’s the American Way, Baby! There’s a word for idiots who don’t take the subsidy; a derisive pejorative. “Taxpayer!”

In just three years of Barack Obama’s Presidency, we’ve gone from an ignorant few holding this view to it becoming commonplace amongst second year Econ students on the nation’s college campuses. And it’s not because these students are stupid. It’s because they are keen observers of modernity and see exactly what gets you paid and laid these days. There’s just no percentage anymore in being productive when every moocher in Obamaville gets to take their vig.

So what do we learn from all of this? We learn from whence the cheesy zombie movies get their cheese-dog zombies. We learn why Winston Smith got happy with The Victory Gin. It’s because the helping hand is always the hand that controls. No state-empowered selector of who wins and losses will ever provide victory to a person of foresight, initiative, and genuine productivity. Otherwise, the government couldn’t step in control all those greedy (expletive deleted)s that just don’t care about others.

I would say it's about time, wouldn't you?

Or is it a sign of a determined dictator to crush resistance to his rule by any means necessary?

A majority also say they are concerned about an Iranian attack on US soil.

The deterrence factor can't be overlooked.

No white knight to ride to the rescue this time.

The Arab world knows what it respects: strength, loyalty shown to friends, a man with a backbone.

Happy Birthday President Reagan! We miss you more and more with each passing day.

Posted By: Laura

I warned you that the devils in President Obama's health care reform law would be evident once HHS started handing down the accompanying regulations. The new rules forbidding all employers--including Catholic hospitals and schools--from denying insurance benefits for contraception, abortion-inducing drugs, and sterilization are both shocking and oppressive. In spearheading this effort to force employers to violate their religious conscience, Secretary Kathleen Sebelius gives Van Jones a run for his money in the "most-radical-present-or-former-Obama- Adminstration official" contest. The White House thinks it can minimize any political fall-out among US Catholics--after all, a solid majority use contraception and voted for him in 2008. Big mistake--for even cafeteria Catholics are made uncomfortable by a President who seems to side with the group building a mosque near Ground Zero but tramples upon the religious liberty of their church. When groups as un-conservative as USA Today and the gang on Morning Joe are speaking out against this brazen HHS move, you know it's only a matter of time before we read about an Obama about-face on the issue (or so we hope).

Click here to sign the petition telling the White House that they need to reverse this ruling.

Click here to let Congress know what you think of this ruling.

http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Obama-favors-religious-freedom-for-Muslims-but.../274416970486533699.html

What's the hottest outdoor item on the market right now? There's almost no doubt that the most in-demand outdoor products are tents. It has to do with how far they've come in the last few years. You're not stuck shopping for some simple pole tent anymore, you can look through...

In terms of outdoor structures, there aren't too many options that beat a quality storage shed. Gazebos are nice, pergolas are beautiful, and treehouses are a lot of fun, but none of them compare to the functionality of a storage shed. Don't discount any of those other structures based purely...

You don't have to be outdoors to be a fan of canopies. A lot of people don't notice when they're at a marketing expo, business fair, or business conference that, even indoors, everyone's booth is set up beneath Carvan canopies. That's largely because this type of shelter is the best...

If you spend any time in the outdoors and have any room in your trunk or backseat, then you are a prime candidate for the addition of one of these Pop up Canopies to your life. You can keep one in the car in case a picnic or beach trip...

Posted By: Laura

GOP candidates in 2012 at every level have an opportunity to make inroads with women voters nationwide. There should be no gender gap favoring Democrats today--the economic downturn has been a disaster for working women at the lower end of the economic spectrum, and Obama's policies have done little to ensure a meaningful, robust, lasting recovery. Democrats promised, but did not deliver (except for Planned Parenthood and pals in the "green jobs" arena). With sound free market, pro-business policies and compelling rhetoric, Mitt, Newt,Rick, and Ron should build bridges to moms who work hard yet still struggle to keep ahead of bills or save for retirement. The waitresses should order Republican if we serve real solutions.

http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Waitress-moms...a-GOP-opportunity/-649965321545689845.html

Posted By: Laura

On the show Thursday Laura gave some friendly advice for Mitt Romney in light of some gaffes he has made that allow the left to stereotype him as an out-of-touch rich guy.

This piece that Thomas Sowell wrote in 2004 serves as a nice reminder for conservatives about why the safety nets are not-at-all safe to begin with.

The War on Poverty represented the crowning triumph of the liberal vision of society -- and of government programs as the solution to social problems. The disastrous consequences that followed have made the word "liberal" so much of a political liability that today even candidates with long left-wing track records have evaded or denied that designation.

In the liberal vision, slums bred crime. But brand-new government housing projects almost immediately became new centers of crime and quickly degenerated into new slums. Many of these projects later had to be demolished. Unfortunately, the assumptions behind those projects were not demolished, but live on in other disastrous programs, such as Section 8 housing.

Rates of teenage pregnancy and venereal disease had been going down for years before the new 1960s attitudes toward sex spread rapidly through the schools, helped by War on Poverty money. These downward trends suddenly reversed and skyrocketed.

The murder rate had also been going down, for decades, and in 1960 was just under half of what it had been in 1934. Then the new 1960s policies toward curing the "root causes" of crime and creating new "rights" for criminals began. Rates of violent crime, including murder, skyrocketed.

The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.

Government social programs such as the War on Poverty were considered a way to reduce urban riots. Such programs increased sharply during the 1960s. So did urban riots. Later, during the Reagan administration, which was denounced for not promoting social programs, there were far fewer urban riots.

Neither the media nor most of our educational institutions question the assumptions behind the War on Poverty. Even conservatives often attribute much of the progress that has been made by lower-income people to these programs.

Posted By: Laura

In 2010 the tea party showed impressive strength with its anti-establishment, anti-big spending message. Senators and congressmen who pledged allegiance to those aims rode into power and for at a least a millisecond, the GOP establishment was worried. But Mitt Romney's $15 million masterful takedown of Newt Gingrich, shows that tea party cred can only get you so far. Gingrich rode to victory in South Carolina with solid tea party support but even tea partiers with reservations about Romney abandoned him in Florida. One major lesson of this campaign stands out-- without organization, money, and a sophisticated media strategy, the tea party will enjoy only sporadic political success. They may be able to win a House seat in North Carolina but winning a presidential primary requires a breadth of support and financing that tea party groups have thus far been unable to muster.

Of course if Mitt Romney is the nominee yet fails to beat Barack Obama in November, conservatives will undoubtedly say--"see, I told you we needed a real conservative!" But such solace will be fleeting when traditional conservatives find themselves back in the same position when the establishment rises up for another Bush White House run. Almost one-in-four GOP primary voters wished another candidate was running this time, but so what? Come August Mitt Romney will likely be back in Tampa to rally GOP supporters and skeptics. Even after all this acrimony, by then they will be united in a singular goal: defeating President Obama. And that's what the tea party wants, right? 

http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/The-tea-party-hits-a-wall/-396119502263763370.html

Posted By: Laura

We knew it would happen. The Arab "Spring," hailed by Barack Obama, has meant the fall of Christians in their ancestral lands. USA Today reports on the devastation of the Coptic Christian population in Cairo. Once teeming with Christians, the Christian quarter of Cairo has fewer than 50 families remaining. Christians across these ancient lands have been targeted, murdered, their women raped, others forced to convert to Islam. Muslim Brotherhood spokesmen pay lip service to protecting the freedom of non-Muslims, but Islamists from North Africa to the Middle East have moved against religious minorities with a vengeance. And the Obama Administration has said or done precious little in their defense.

In his State of the Union speech, President Obama hailed the "amazing transformation" made possible by the Arab Spring. It's a transformation that is all-too-often amazing--amazingly evil. Does he care that Coptics in Egypt (where were there centuries before the Muslims!), Catholics in Tunisia, and other Christians in Libya and Syria have been terrorized and brutalized at the hands of militants gaining power in this glorious experiment in Islamic-style democracy? Other than a few cursory references to their plight, this Administration's response to this has been pathetic. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saves her strongest moral condemnations for Marines who pee on dead Taliban fighters.

For months we carried out drone strikes in Libya to help the rebels forge their own destiny and oust Qaddafi. But did anyone care that religious minorities are being massacred or driven out in the process? Meanwhile, here at home, there is rampant governmental hostility toward religious institutions with a traditional Christian outlook. Obama and his HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius are using the new healthcare law to prevent Catholic Church and other Christian groups from providing healthcare unless they violate their conscience and provide contraception, abortifacient drugs, and sterilization services. Even liberal columnist E.J. Dionne is having a hard time defending this outrage.

Our GOP nominee must speak about this, with passion and eloquence. Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have. Protecting religious liberty used to be a given for American presidents--for this occupant of the White House, it's just something to be overcome on the path to the progressive promised land.

http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Obama-hails-Arab-Spring-as-are-getting-Christians-wiped-out/218009765427874244.html

Posted By: Laura

We learn from The Hill's dissection of Jeff Zeleny's piece in today's New York Times, that Jeb Bush's failure to endorse Mitt Romney may be tied to the issue of immigration. Romney has been tougher than Newt on immigration, advancing the argument that when we have a real E-verify system in place, many illegal aliens will simply self-deport back to their home countries. According to these reports, the former Florida governor unsuccessfully lobbied Romney to drop his hard-line rhetoric on illegal immigration. Is this the only reason Governor Bush decided to sit on the sidelines before his state's primary? It's unclear. But given how passionately he feels about the need to bring more Hispanics into the GOP, it' certainly didn't help. Of course it looks like Mitt Romney will win Florida without the Bush golden touch, and without pandering on immigration. For folks worried about his tendency to "evolve" on issues, this should provide some solace. Nevertheless, the issue remains a sticking point with many Hispanics outside Florida, so look to Obama to exploit this in a general election match-up with Romney.

http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/The-reason-why-Jebs-not-with-Mitt/324719019667991702.html

Posted By: Laura

His swagger, his shirtsleeves, his "helloooooo...[CITY X]....!" shout-outs at campaign stops. Barack Obama is back. He peddles the same old liberal line but somehow makes it look fresh and fun again to the sheeple who want to believe. Which Republican will be able to methodically dismantle and expose his liberal claptrap? Mitt showed fire last night, but a new NBC/WSJ poll shows that Gingrich is still the 9-point favorite among GOP voters nationwide. Liberal media types are in the process of rebuilding the Obama facade for him. Read for yourself.

http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Beware-the-Obama-razzle-dazzle...its-back/-940443837277058232.html

Posted By: Laura

Mitt Romney, who had his best debate performance on Thursday, should send two dozen long-stemmed roses (from 1800Flowers.com, of course), to Newt Gingrich today. Setting aside the fact that it was probably Gingrich's worst debate of the 930 we've seen thus far in this campaign, he has turned out to be the best thing that ever happened to the former governor of Massachusetts. The claims about how "destructive" the former Speaker's rise has been for the GOP, this has been just what Romney needed to allay the concerns of conservatives who wonder if he has enough passion and fight to take on Barack Obama (a.k.a. the Billion Dollar Baby). Many saw Romney as a likable Ward Cleaver-sort. Reassuring but not thrilling. They now see a cunning, relentless, and aggressive side to him that they've been waiting for.

For most of this debate cycle, Romney performed ably, turning in workmanlike, but uninspiring, performances. This served him fine in Iowa and New Hampshire; but in South Carolina, where Newt Gingrich rose from the ashes (again), Romney's team found itself in crisis. Suddenly, the buzz was that the front-runner was a paper tiger--too meek and moderate to vanquish Newt, forget Barack. But how could anyone forget that crisis management is what Romney does best? The entire Romney operation is run like Salt Lake 2002. His team was prepared for the rise of Bachman, Cain, Perry and finally Newt. The response to Newt's second coming in South Carolina was flawlessly orchestrated. Mitt hit hard at Monday's debate, and did a mop-up operation on Thursday night. He marshaled the help of boosters and aggressive defenders in media and politics. When Tom DeLay emerged from forced retirement and Bob Dole from convalescence to lay waste to Gingrich, you know it was a coordinated hit Godfather fans should recognize. Gingrich was caught in a revolving door, bullets flying, with nowhere to go. Will there be a third life for Gingrich? We'll see. But if so, Romney will hop back into crisis management mode again, which is where he shines.

http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/Mitt-teaches-Crisis-Management-101/-875120867341389424.html

Posted By: Laura

It's all happening according to plan. It was all predicted in The Obama Diaries. The First Gardener and Target devotee Michelle Obama hits the road this week to rake in cash for her husband--with stops in Florida and California. Of course most of these trips are subsidized heavily by the American taxpayers (a.k.a. the "51 percenters") because the First Lady shoehorns some other "official trip" into the schedule. This week's farce includes a trip with Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to announce more new food nutrition standards. She'll sit down with Jay Leno & Ellen too--ostensibly to push her anti-obesity schtick. Of course her hubby's campaign team is thrilled to have her on the stump. The economy may not have recovered yet, but Michelle's image has. Michelle's approval ratings dwarf her husband's, courtesy of a meticulously engineered strategy to position her as a healthy eating advocate. She's come a long way since her "first time I'm proud of my country" days and has a permanent image makeover campaign to thank for it. But let's just call this what it is: "Let's Move against the GOP!"

http://www.LauraIngraham.com/b/FLOTUS-fundraising-frenzy--mom-in-chief-canard/-955200698232363684.html

12/30/11

You will recall a couple of weeks ago we referred to Cong. Joe Sestak’s claim that the Obama administration had offered him a job in exchange for ending his primary challenge to Arlen Specter. Cong. Sestak, a former three-star admiral, continues to assert that it happened, repeating it as recently as this week. When asked about it, the president’s buffoonish press secretary keeps doing the “I’ll get back to you” tap dance. Now, Politico reports that Congressman Darryl Issa (R-CA) of San Diego is demanding answers from the White House Counsel about potential violation of a federal statute against interfering in elections. I think we used to have a word for this sort of thing. Dare I say it?--bribery.

Note to Mr. Sestak: you are a whistle-blower, just the sort of prissy goody two-shoes that the Chicago thugs in B. Hussein’s White House despise. Suggestion: stay out of Fort Marcy Park.

Remind me again: why is Rod Blagojevich in trouble?

Speaking of whistleblowers, or blowing something, today we learn from the WaPo that Speaker Nancy Pelosi was informed about the, shall we say, issues surrounding democrat wackjob Eric Massa:

Joe Racalto, Massa's chief of staff, was uneasy that Massa, 50, was living with several young, unmarried male staffers and using sexually explicit language with them, one source said. But what finally prompted him to call Pelosi's director of member services, the source said, was a lunch date that Massa made with a congressional aide in his 20s who worked in the office of Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.).
According to a person briefed on the call, Racalto was concerned that the lunch followed a pattern by Massa -- who is married and has two children -- of trying to spend time alone with young gay men with no ostensible work purpose.

Wait a second. I’m not so sure about that. I’ve seen this Massa character--who hasn’t this week--and he is SCREAMING for a makeover. Perhaps he was just trying to get some grooming and fashion advice in anticipation of the next election. Remember “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy?” Honestly, why do people always have to assume that something sinister is going on just because a 50 year-old guy wants to hang out with 20-somethings who happened to be homosexual, and when I say “people” I mean democrats like Massa’s former chief of staff. I thought that they were all about the beauty of diversity, and would find it despicable for anyone to question any sort of sexual behavior, especially gay sexual behavior. Shame on them! I suggest they watch “Milk” again and learn what civil rights are really all about!

Later in the article there was this:

The revelation about warnings to Pelosi's office comes as the House ethics committee closed its short-lived investigation of allegations that Massa groped and sexually harassed several young, male staffers in his office, according to two sources familiar with the decision.
The committee concluded that Massa's resignation put him outside the reach of any punishment it could impose and would render any findings irrelevant.

The article goes on to state that the Republicans are asking the question that may have occurred to you, one I can sum up with two words: Mark Foley. The investigation into his randy text messages to teenage pages began after he resigned.

The Massa case is different from the Foley case how? Somebody help me out here.

And lest we forget, the Mark Foley story was broken by ABC’s Brian Ross, conveniently right before the 2006 election. This is the same Brian Ross who has been hectoring Toyota acceleration issues in some of their cars. Today we learn that Mr. Ross and ABC may have taken a few journalistic liberties in their reporting on Toyota by editing in a 2-second video clip of a revving tachometer and making it appear that it was shot during Ross’ terrifying ride with an expert, when in fact it was shot separately in a parked car. No worries, Bri-guy. After all, what’s a little Hollywood razzle-dazzle when you’re going after an evil corporation? I’m sure that the story is fake, but accurate.

Enjoy!

Yesterday Speaker Pelosi gave a speech to the National Association of Counties, and the usual bitter-clinging, mouth-breathing, Bible-reading, gun toting types that don’t understand the totally awesome things that she and President Sham WOW (Walks on Water) want to do for us are viciously attacking her. By “attacking,” I mean that they are quoting her, as follows:





























Here they go again, in that charming elitist way they the Left have, saying “Look, you guys aren’t smart enough to know what’s good for you, but just trust us because we do.” It’s that same “What’s the matter with Kansas?” (I’d say people like the late George Tiller and Kathleen Sebelius, but that’s just me) meme they endlessly repeat. Why don’t those stupid rubes understand that they when they vote for conservatives, they are voting “against their own interests,” which of course, they are too stupid to appreciate.

Stupid we may be, which is perhaps why we don’t understand why we need 2700 pages to address the needs of small percentage of Americans who supposedly are unable to obtain health insurance. I say “supposedly” because we know quite well that many of the mascots that star in the democrat sob stories, the would-be recipients from Barack’s stash, choose to spend their own money on iPods, big screen tvs, vacations, and restaurant meals, preferring to use OPM (Other People’s Money) to buy for their medical care.

I’ve got a better idea. Let’s figure out what’s in this monstrosity, and consider all the consequences BEFORE it is enacted into law. What a concept, no?

If you’d like some inspiration, feel free to download a copy of my letter to my congressman by clicking here.

We can stop this hideous thing. This is not the time to let up.

Yesterday’s installment of the never-ending Obama campaign featured a closed-to-the-public TelePrompter-assisted lecture to an audience of screeching Obamabot shills, all eager would-be recipients of largesse from Barack’s stash. He continued to repeat the lies that he has been telling about his proposal to herd every American into government-controlled health care, and added a brand new one: the claim that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, this scheme will save $1 trillion over the next 10 years. Whenever B. Hussein refers to the CBO, he says “these are not my numbers,” when of course, they are, or if not his, Pelosi’s and/or Reid’s. The CBO cannot challenge the assumptions they are provided by Congress to use in scoring legislation. Yesterday, he went one better by making a teensy, weensy mistake about what the CBO actually said. In this context, “teensy, weensy” means in excess of $800 billion. A “mistake” of that magnitude might have mattered had there been enough brains to fill a thimble among the brain-dead, frenzied props that passed for sentient citizens at this latest charade. Fortunately for the Dear Reader, there weren’t, and the wild applause wasn’t interrupted by anyone stopping to think about what a bring down it is when the numbers don’t add up. As if! As if we noticed some boring numbers! Barack is SOOO cool!!!

Some of you who have been watching this slow motion health care train wreck, and who are slightly less besotted by the Celebutard-in-Chief, may have had a thought, particularly if you watch any of these C-SPAN shows (which you know you don’t have to because I do that for you) on which an alleged “expert” compares our horrid health care system to those in the lollipop and unicorn filled utopia commonly known as “Europe.” If you listen to these pompous gasbags, such as T.R. Reid, talk about how wonderful the French medical care delivery system, or the German, or even the Cuban--trust me--be grateful that I watch so you don’t have to--and how Europeans would thank God, that is if they believed in God, of course, that they don’t have to suffer the indignities and miseries inflicted by the evil private insurance companies that have the power of life and death over Americans. They aren’t getting away with that, though. Yesterday B. Hussein does what he did best. He gave them the full Alinsky, picking them, freezing them, personalizing them, and polarizing them, by calling them out 22 times in his speech.

Now here’s the thought I alluded to: it’s clear that none of these supercilious, Ivory-tower dwelling, crypto-Marxists, other the phony, lying, jug-eared braying jackass currently squatting in the Oval Office, have never stopped to ask whether any of these European schemes are consistent with our Constitution. We know that B. Hussein has thought about it, and has decided that, yes, in fact, the Constitution is an impediment to his plans to “remake” Amerika as a European-style socialist utopia, but that’s just a speed bump on the road to serfdom. Isn’t that a little more than a minor consideration, if not to Barry, to members of Congress? If it’s not it should be. I’m not surprised that the question didn’t occur to the crazed ignoranti at yesterday’s event, most of whom were college students. Submitted for your approval:

“Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it” is one of the most oft-quoted aphorisms of Edmund Burke, an 18th-century Irish-born member of the British Parliament and fearless friend of liberty. Judging from the results of a recent survey conducted by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), most of the 14,000 college students who participated sadly will be repeating history.
Considering that most of the 14,000 students who completed the exam (7,000 seniors and 7,000 freshmen) scored an F on the portion of the test covering basic American history and institutions, not only will they be repeating history, but with test scores like that, they’ll be repeating history class, as well.

But if they’re lucky Obama will make you pay for their tuition when they do.

Here’s what we’ve got coming up on today’s exciting edition of the Teri O’Brien Show:

★ Disappointment: why didn’t more Republicans stand up for Jim Bunning?
★ How much did Obama have to pay Michael Moore to talk smack about him?
★ Vote for your favorite Useful Idiot of the Week

And as always, your calls, and lest we forget the live and lively chat room.

Don’t miss it! Of course, if you do, just click on the Blog Talk Radio player at the top of this page.

Thanks for your encouragement, support, and contributions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Politics, Pop Culture, the Hottest Issues of the Day, and Your calls. The Teri O'Brien Show, featuring America’s Original Conservative Warrior Princess, Live and in color, Sundays 2-3:30 pm Central time at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Teri-OBrien. Daring to Commit Common Sense, Fearlessly, and More Important, Cheerfully, in the Age of Obama.
Can’t listen live? Download it from iTunes and listen on demand.
As one listener wrote “one of the most insightful and entertaining pundits in America. Also, her voice is magical.”
Serious Ideas, Irresistible Entertainment. Warning: listeners may become hopelessly addicted.

Today’s Must Read: Andrew McCarthy exposes yet another Obama scam, this time on his supposed reluctant decision to “overrule” Eric Holder (yeah right) on trying KSM in Manhattan. In an alleged reversal, B. Hussein now says KSM will be tried in a military tribunal. Sounds good at first, but as the insightful Mr. McCarthy explains, it’s another back room deal. He writes:

The real agenda here is to close Gitmo. That’s the ball to keep your eye on. The Post is trying to soften the opposition to shuttering the detention camp by portraying beleaguered, reasonable Obama as making a great compromise that will exasperate the Left.  The idea is to strengthen Sen. Lindsey Graham’s hand in seeking reciprocal compromise from our side.
This, however, is a matter of national security, not horse-trading over a highway bill. You don’t agree to do a stupid thing that endangers the country just because your opposition has magnanimously come off its insistence that you do two stupid things that endanger the country.


Precisely. Read the whole thing here.

Just six days after the ridiculous PR stunt that the White House and its flaks in the LSM(Lame Stream Media) called a “health care summit,” B. Hussein staged another Kabuki event in the interest of his scheme to “remake” America. I wonder if they had to hand out the lab coats this time …I guess we should be grateful that David Plouffe didn’t assemble the group of the sort of victims described by the democrats last week. The last thing I need to see is a woman wearing her dead sister’s poorly-fitting teeth.

Yesterday’s event was staged to signal the Community-Organizer-in-Chief’s desire that his minions in Congress proceed with all deliberate speed to cram his hideous, unconstitutional and destructive government takeover of our medical care delivery system down our throats, using the budget reconciliation process. The previous day he demonstrated that, as promised, he had listened to opposing ideas by agreeing to do something about fraud in federal government programs and by sending states more money for Medicaid. Oh yea--twist his arm on that last one! He wants as many of us as possible on Medicaid! That’s a Republican idea? As for the ever-popular waste, fraud and abuse, if there’s fraud, what are we waiting for? Until everyone in America has one of those scooters? I can barely get out of Wal-Mart in under an hour as it is because of having to dodge those things. Seriously, this “I’ve considered your ideas, now sit down and shut up” routine would be laughable if what he’s trying to do weren’t so destructive. Do he, Emanuel, Axelrod and Plouffe really think that we’re buying that including these few and minor ideas in a 2700-page behemoth that completely transforms the relationship between citizens and the federal government constitutes “bipartisan input?” If we have to be raped, can we at least be kissed by not having our intelligence insulted?

“[A]n undemocratic disservice to our people and to the Senate's institutional role”

That’s how the former Klansman, ironically the last guy outside of the rap music community in recent memory to get a pass for using the “n” word, and the universally-recognized, hands down authority of the U.S. Constitution and the procedures of what up until now could be seriously called the “world’s greatest deliberative body,” the U.S. Senate, Robert Byrd, described using the budget reconciliation process to try to ram radical health care reform or cap and tax through the Congress. Sen. Byrd’s opinion is a mere speed bump on Obama’s road to serfdom for us. Like any successful dictator, he believes that the ends justify the means. After all, he only fixing the defects in that document that those Dead White Europeans wrote, one that limits what the government can do for all of us. Nor will he be deterred by the many instances that are being played everywhere online and on cable tv shows featuring Senator Obama in which he stated:

Those big-ticket items: fixing our health care system. You know, one of the arguments that sometimes I get with my fellow progressives, and some of these have flashed up in the blog communities on occasion, is this notion that we should function sort of like Karl Rove where we identify our core base, we throw ’em red meat, we get a fifty plus one victory. See, Karl Rove doesn’t need a broad consensus because he doesn’t believe in government. If we want to transform the country, though, that requires a sizeable majority.

This quote and more similar ones here (H/T Michelle Malkin).

Since when has B. Hussein Obama been the slightest bit concerned when it is demonstrated yet again that he is a liar and a hypocrite? There are more instances of that than Tiger Woods has whores. If he let that bother him, he would not be where he is today. As Howard Stern famously said of the Clintons, the secret of their success is that you can’t embarrass them.

Like most of you, I am disgusted by this turn of events, but not the least bit surprised. No one should be surprised. Barack Hussein Obama is what he has always been: a radical leftist whose every action is informed by a belief in the need to redress the sins of racist, “mean” (to quote his repellant wife, who no doubt is delighted that she is about to realize her dream of doing all she can to help out the black community “first and foremost” at the expense of everyone else), unfair country. The fact that these stealth reparations will have the additional benefit of cementing democrat control through the buying the votes of client groups a la FDR is a side benefit. What is shocking is the appalling and unconcealed arrogance of this man and his apparatchiks. Consider the various back room deals in the service of helping this reckless, inexperienced empty suit transform our country into France without a population with a distaste for regular showers and wine with breakfast:

• A deal with the pharmaceutical companies
• The Louisiana Purchase
• The Cornhusker Kickback
• The Job Offer to Cong. Sistak to clear the way for Arlen Specter’s election

Ah, finally change you can believe in and fixing the ways of Washington!

Now we have this stunning and unabashed bit of payola to an undecided member of Congress, as reported by the Weekly Standard, the sale of a federal judgeship:

Tonight, Barack Obama will host ten House Democrats who voted against the health care bill in November at the White House; he's obviously trying to persuade them to switch their votes to yes. One of the ten is Jim Matheson of Utah. The White House just sent out a press release announcing that today President Obama nominated Matheson's brother Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
“Scott Matheson is a distinguished candidate for the Tenth Circuit court,” President Obama said.  “Both his legal and academic credentials are impressive and his commitment to judicial integrity is unwavering.  I am honored to nominate this lifelong Utahn to the federal bench.” 

Clearly these radicals have abandoned any pretense of honesty and integrity. Even the nearly transparent veil of civility and respect for process has been tossed aside in favor of bribery, raw brute force and coercion. They don’t even bother to try to conceal it. Nothing matters but imposing this scheme on an unwilling America. It’s the Chicago way, and it ain’t pretty.

As I watch Obama and friends goose-stepping across our country, I am reminded that elections have consequences, and as the Gorebot says, a leopard doesn’t change his stripes.

As Usual, Eventually People Catch Up with Me

My friends know that I haven’t sent out dead tree Christmas card since 2005. Instead, the Husband and I have a holiday web page complete with photos, movies and other information that we think our families and friends will enjoy. It’s great, and not only for the obvious reasons. It isn’t the thousands of dollars we’ve saved, although we have. It isn’t the many hours I’ve saved, although I have (and I say “I” because as the wife, the cards have always been my responsibility). The best reason is that we don’t inflict a bunch of dead tree clutter on our friends that they feel guilty throwing out. Sorry to have to be the one to tell you, if you haven’t realized it by now: other than Grandma, no one is going to put that photo of your adorable children in an album or a frame, unless you consider the circular file a sort of temporary frame.

Of course, then, I wasn’t the least bit surprised to read this news about the US Postal Service:

Your job is to deliver letters six days a week but you're $10 billion in debt: What do you do?
If you're the U.S. Postal Service, you eliminate one of those days. The Post Office today proposed an "adjusted" mail delivery schedule, and that means axing Saturday delivery.
This idea first bubbled up about a year ago, when the USPS said it might lose $6 billion in 2009. Its actual losses for 2009 were a mere $3.8 billion, but that's still catastrophic for a service that has strict limits on how much it can raise prices each year -- plus a legally-allowed limit to its total debt: $15 billion, which based on current trends it will hit in 2011.
The Post Office is also hoping to be allowed to shutter some branches and possibly add more self-service kiosks in various retail outlets as a way of navigating its way back to profitability.

Oh, say it ain’t so! Eliminate Saturday delivery? You mean I can have an extra day of not having the annoying chore of going out to get the collection of pointless catalogs (it’s all online), shopping circulars (my coupons are on my iPhone), and other paper clutter?

Naturally, there are opponents to this extremely common sense idea. They whine that some people in isolated rural areas won’t be able to get their mail. Somehow I think that they can wait until Monday for the afore-mentioned junk mail, or as I like to call it, mail. Of course, that lament is another ruse. The USPO’s defenders are asking us to believe that they are losing sleep over some lonely, mouth-breathing bitter clinger, waiting for a letter from Aunt Tillie. They are no more concerned about this guy than B. Hussein Obama and his merry band of crypto-socialists are concerned about making sure everyone has “access” to “affordable” health care. (Aside: it must kill these elitists to have to take the side of these rural rubes.) Just as those who would have taxpayers continue to throw money down the post office rathole ostensibly for the benefit of the tiny percentage of Americans, living in dirt-floored cabins without running water, they want to destroy the health care delivery system that 80-85% of Americans find perfectly satisfactory ostensibly for the benefit of the remaining 20%, who are apparently dying in the street after spending years using their dead relatives’ teeth.

The truth is that the real beneficiaries in both cases are B. Hussein, his fellow political elites, and their mascots and cronies. In the case of the Postal Service, it is one of the usual suspects, public employee unions, the very entities that are suffocating the Postal Service and making it even more difficult for them to compete. In the case of the nightmarish government health care takeover scheme, the beneficiaries are also unions, political cronies and would-be beneficiaries of Barack’s stash. Not exactly a news bulletin, but worth noting.

From the “Nuclear Option” to “Reconcilation,” to “A Simple Up or Down Vote,” whatever George Lackoff, some other brilliant communications maven or focus group tells him will play best with the mouth-breathing rubes, it is Barack Hussein Obama’s chosen tactic to realize his grand vision of a “remade” America by taking over, and eventually destroying, the best health care system on earth. After seeing those big, inflatable beavers last night at the closing ceremony for the 2010 Winter Olympics, I’d think that he would have more compassion for the Canadians. Where are they supposed to go for their heart procedures after he wrecks our health care system? 

Just last Thursday, at the end of his ridiculous seven hour PR stunt, B. Hussein made it clear that he is prepared to govern against the will of the American public by saying the following:

"We cannot have another year-long debate about this," he said, rejecting Republican calls to scrap the Democrats' legislation. "So the question that I'm going to ask myself and I ask of all of you is, is there enough serious effort that in a month's time or a few weeks' time or six weeks' time we could actually resolve something?"

Wait a second--what happened to the six weeks? I guess when he said that he figured that we would all realize, either based on past experience with him, or on the press reports that plans were already in the works to go full speed ahead with the nuclear option to ram this 2400-page monstrosity through, that it was him talking again, you know, sort of like that guy at work who you know is full of crap and who you have learned to never take seriously. 
What do you mean we can’t have another year-long debate? Really? We’re talking about the most important piece of legislation in forty years? What’s the rush, Barry? Are you still trying to outrun the truth about this hideous, unconstitutional scheme? Two words for you: too late.
Meanwhile, John McCain is in full Yosemite Sam mode, either because he understands how destructive this stinking pile of legislative droppings is, or because he’s in a primary battle with J.D. Hayworth. I seem to recall trying to explain to Sen. McCain back in 2005 that the whole “Gang of 14” thing, which was undertaken to end democrat obstruction of President Bush’s judicial nominees, as well intentioned as it was, was a bad idea, and that if he thought it was justified because it would protect the integrity of procedures in the Senate, he was deluding himself. That’s like saying that if we stop depriving terrorists of their supposed (and non-existent) civil rights under the U.S. Constitution, they’ll stop lopping of the heads of the infidel. I wonder if Daniel Pearl would agree with that theory. Let's ask him. Oh, wait …Now that the democrats are in charge, are they the slightest bit concerned about protecting the integrity of Senate procedures? Hell no. They aren't even concerned about the fact that the American people, who are supposed to be their employers, do not want this bill. 
Why, you may be asking, would Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama want their members to vote for a bill that is overwhelmingly opposed by most Americans? The answer is simple. The only thing Pelosi has to fear from her constituents is anger that instead of immediately imposing a single payer system, she and Sham WOW (Walks on Water) are pursuing an incremental route toward the same goal.  They’ll get over it when they see how fast the private system is demolished under the weight of federal mandates, regulations and the other profit-killing schemes imposed on it. Speaker Pelosi's constituents voted for B. Hussein 85% to 15% for McCain. It’s easy for her to say, as she did yesterday on one of the Sunday shows, that members must have the “courage” to vote in favor of something that the majority of people in the country don’t want. Don't worry, Blue Dog democrats. The Speaker will be there to wave goodbye to you as you go over the cliff. 
As for the man-god himself, this bill will accomplish two objectives. First, represents the opportunity to expand the size and power of the federal government over every aspect of our lives. For a dyed-in-the-wool radical leftist like Barack Obama, imagining this dream becoming real is like Tiger Woods imagining a weekend at the Bunny Ranch.  Second, it will go a long way to redress the “unfairness” of the wicked "mean" Amerika that his wife Michelle Antoinette has lamented all of her adult life, by transferring the wealth of the 80% work hard to provide for themselves and their families to the 20%, semi-literate unqualified entitlement obsessed minorities, lazy, irresponsible indifferent single mothers and their worthless sperm donors, the “undocumented,” and other would-be beneficiaries of Barack’s stash. There is no greater prize or greater accomplishment for the Community-Organizer-in Chief.

Here’s what we’ve got coming up on today’s exciting edition of the Teri O’Brien Show:

The Tea Party Movement Has Had a Tremendous Impact on Our Public Discourse. Liberals Respond with A Couple of Underachievers and a Facebook Page
A Visit from the Official Critquelator of the Teri O’Brien ShowFrank’s Fulminations
New Feature: Rules for Listeners
Health Care Summit Post-Mortem: to Paraphrase the Talking Heads, How Did We Get Here?

Don’t miss it!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Politics, Pop Culture, the Hottest Issues of the Day, and Your calls. The Teri O'Brien Show, featuring America’s Original Conservative Warrior Princess, Live and in color, Sundays 2-3:30 pm Central time at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Teri-OBrien. Daring to Commit Common Sense, Fearlessly, and More Important, Cheerfully, in the Age of Obama.
Can’t listen live? Download it from iTunes and listen on demand.
As one listener wrote “one of the most insightful and entertaining pundits in America. Also, her voice is magical.”
Serious Ideas, Irresistible Entertainment. Warning: listeners may become hopelessly addicted.