There's My Two Cents

The Obama Economic Legacy

2009-12-02T19:43:00.000-06:00

This is good stuff at Hot Air's Greenroom:

For your review, the Obama administration’s economic track record in 90 seconds can be described as follows (I can also summarize it in one second, if necessary: “teh FAIL”)…

FAIL: The “HAMP” mortgage modification program, designed to save homeowners from foreclosure? Out of 651,000 “trial” modifications, zero (that’s none) have turned into a permanent repayment plan.

FAIL: The “Cash-for-Clunkers” program cost taxpayers between $20,000 and $45,000 per vehicle purchased.

FAIL: The “Stimulus” program, which cost $787 billion and was rammed through Congress using the premise that, without it, unemployment would not pass 8%, has resulted in 10.2% unemployment and 17% “under-employment” (U-6). The tab will be paid for by your children and grandchildren.

FAIL: The $60 billion bailout of GM and Chrysler — abrogating bankruptcy law with payoffs to various union bosses — is an utter and complete failure. The businesses are unsustainable without a massive restructuring, including dramatically retooling union contracts.

FAIL: The bailout of AIG, orchestrated by the then-head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) Timothy F. Geithner, “wasted billions” of taxpayer money according to the inspector generator of the TARP program. The initial $85 billion rescue failed, forcing the Fed to pay above-market for the swaps it acquired. The result? “There is no question that the effect of the FRBNY’s decision – indeed, the very design of the federal assistance to AIG – was that tens of billions of dollars of government money was funneled inexorably and directly to AIG’s counterparties,” according to the inspector general. In fact, the terms of the plan were so flawed that the Treasury Department had to dole out an additional $40 billion to AIG just weeks later. For his part in the debacle, FRBNY chairman Geithner was rewarded with a Secretary of the Treasury role by President Obama.

That about sums it up.

There's my two cents.

Obama Becomes Radioactive In Polling

2009-12-02T16:19:00.001-06:00

Yep, The Obamessiah is now becoming radioactive to...well, to lots of people who used to love him and dunk their heads deeply into the Kool-Aid. Rasmussen's new numbers:

The president's Approval Index ratings dipped two points in November adding on to a two-point decline in October.

After three months at 39%, the number who Strongly Disapprove of the president's performance inched up a point to 40%. The number who Strongly Approved fell another point to 28%. That leads to a Presidential Approval Index rating of -12, a new low for Obama.
Also in November, the president's total approval remained stable at 48%. His total disapproval gained a point to 52%.

And how about a major bellwether state like Missouri? The picture gets even worse:

Barack Obama's approval rating dropped to 33% in swing state Missouri.
The Campaign Spot reported, via Patriot Room:

Via Soren Dayton, I learn SurveyUSA polls adults in Missouri, and finds Obama at 33 percent approval, 65 percent disapproval among independents, and at 27 percent approval, 67 percent disapproval among those ages 18 to 34.

I think the key data point here is the youth vote. Barack Obama carried the youth vote big-time last November - 66%. To see this group go from 66% support in 2008 to 67% disapproval in 2009 is an astounding turnaround. Now, I think it's safe to say that the youth are much more likely to swing fast and wide than older voters, so things can certainly turn around. But, things like the incredibly high (50% or more) youth unemployment rate and the impending financial doom that the older generations have foisted upon their shoulders may finally be penetrating the exuberant Kool-Aid fog.

Perhaps most disturbing of all is this little bit from the Huffington Post:

Forty percent of self-identified Democratic voters say they are "not likely" or "definitely" won't vote in next year's Congressional elections, according to a little-noticed poll released over the Thanksgiving weekend.
The poll, which surveyed 2,400 Americans nationwide between Nov. 22 and Nov. 25, found that self-identified Republicans were three times more likely to say they were going to vote next year. The results suggest perilous fights for Democrats in the midterm elections, where the president's party typically lose seats.

Wow. Looks like the hope-n-change mantra isn't carrying much hope or change anymore!

As I've said many times before, polls are simply an educated guess, and even the most respected polling organizations can be very wrong on specific details. But, polls can be reliably used to establish trends, and this is one trend that has got to strike fear into the heart of the Obama administration, as well as the Democrat sycophants who are walking the plank with him.

Speaking of which, another Rasmussen poll shows that 71% of likely voters are angry at the federal government, with a full 46% being 'very angry'...that's a 10-point increase from September. After looking at the guts of the poll, here's a key conclusion:

The middle class, which Barack Obama successfully wooed in 2008, have become very disenchanted with the current leadership. Middle-aged people have also gotten angry. The big problem for Democrats beyond the anti-incumbent tilt going into 2010 is the massive anger among independents, which we have tracked for several months. Democrats appear to have completely alienated a key voting bloc, and furthermore, motivated them into action. At the same time, they're demotivating their own base.

Let the games begin.

There's my two cents.

Obama's Crazy Aides

2009-12-02T14:01:00.000-06:00

Let's dig in!

Cass Sunstein --- Obama's Regulatory Czar; says America is too racist for socialism, and is an open Communist

Kevin Jennings --- Obama's Safe Schools Czar; wants to implement pro-gay curriculum for Kindergarteners, supports the North American Man/Boy Love Association, wrote the foreword for a book on pedophilia, defended the murder of someone in the name of standing up for gays, funded pornographic anti-Christian art displayed at Harvard, and is attacking the Boy Scouts of America and covering up the statutory rape of a minor

Ron Bloom --- Obama's Manufacturing Czar; promotes Communist mass-murderer Mao Tse-Tung

Anita Dunn --- Obama's White House Communications Director; told high school students in May 2009 that one of her favorite political philosophers was Communist mass-murderer Mao Tse Tung

Andy Stern --- Obama's most frequent visitor to the White House; President of SEIU (huge union organization), has visited the WH over 20 times in the past few months, is dedicated to building a global organization through the use of government power and intimidation, advocates redistribution of wealth

Susan Crawford --- Obama's Internet Czar; attempted to nationalize and control the entire Internet

Quentin Young --- Obama's long-time friend and personal physician; a dedicated Marxist and member of Communist organizations through the years, seeks government control over all health care in America

John Holdren --- Obama's top science adviser; advocates forced abortions and sterilizations, believes that a fetus will 'eventually' grow into a human being when it's a few years old

Carol Browner --- Obama's Climate Czar; radical socialist who was caught telling her people not to put anything in writing so that they could never be held accountable for anything, member of global organizations that demand wealthy countries ruin themselves to pay for poor countries' eco-development, also destroyed files in violation of a federal judge's order

And this is just a start. Many, many more czars are described here.

Oh, sure, some have departed when the scrutiny got too hot, but they've generally been replaced by people just as radical.

And, of course, we can't forget the racist and Marxist Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the Communist Van Jones, the domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, and the whole rest of the Cabinet of the Crooked. See the best quotes from these radicals in their own words here. As an afterthought, don't forget all of his nominees who failed to pay their own taxes, including Tom Daschle, Nancy Killifer, Tim Geithner, Hilda Solis. And, we should also mention others who have been tainted by various scandals like Bill Richardson, William Lynn, Rod Blagojovich, or Eric Holder, to name just a couple.

Given that a startlingly high number of Barack Obama's closest advisors are dedicated Communists, is it any wonder he skipped the 20th anniversary celebration of the fall of Communism?

The very existence of all these czars and other radicals is blatantly unconstitutional and extremely troubling, and normal Americans simply don't feel comfortable with such radicals. The fact that Obama does -- and given the sheer number of them he's chosen to associate with on both a professional and personal basis, it's ludicrous to say he doesn't -- is cause for grave concern all by itself.

If a man can be judged by the company that he keeps, what is the only possible conclusion that can be reached about Barack Obama?

There's my two cents.

The CBO And Jobs

2009-12-02T11:33:00.000-06:00

Oh-kaaaay...

A new CBO report claims that the Obama-Pelosi $787 billion Stimulus (Porkulus) Bill saved or created possibly 1.1 million jobs give or take 500,000 jobs either way.
It’s an exact science, you know.

The key thing to remember here is that the CBO always evaluates things based on the assumptions it is given. Here's what happened in the real world:

The US unemployment spiked from 7.6% to 10.2% this year under Obama… the highest rate in 26 years.

Chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics- via Sweetness and Light
Obama promised his stimulus plan would create 3.7 million new jobs.
Instead America has lost 3.6 million jobs.

Here's an explanation of how those assumptions worked:

Econlog's Arnold Kling notes that Derek Thompson misinterpreted yesterday's CBO analysis of the stimulus's effect on employment, and says in two paragraphs what I said in 1,200 words:

Back in March, the CBO ran a simulation model of the economy, with and without the stimulus. The difference between the two simulations gives you the predicted increase in employment and GDP.

Recently, the CBO repeated the exercise. Lo and behold, the differences were the same. This says nothing about what happened in the real world. It tells you that the simulation model that they used did not change.

I added more detail, but the idea is the same: the CBO's assessment relies on certain models. If you believe these models, you should also believe that the stimulus generated 600,000 to 1.6 million jobs, just as the administration and CBO say. But if you have prior doubts about those models, there is no reason to start now listening to CBO present the same simulations again.

So, while the CBO's analysis is accurate, it doesn't reflect the real world. It would be like saying that 2 + 2 = 4 despite the fact that the first "2" is really "3".

It's Obamamath.

There's my two cents.

Afghanistan Speech Recap

2009-12-02T09:00:00.000-06:00

So, what's the reaction from Obama's Afghanistan speech last night? Mixed, but generally not impressed. Here are a couple of the best reactions I've read.

For the best short summary of the major aspects of the speech, here's a video that captures it well:

Now, let's get into some of the details. Some (even on the Right) are giving Obama some due credit for actually sending more troops to Afghanistan. That's true, as far as it goes. Sarah Palin offers some modest support, but with concerns:

Three months ago, I joined a number of Americans in urging President Obama to provide the resources necessary to achieve our goals in Afghanistan. Tonight, I am glad he mostly heeded that advice.

...

We should be clear, however, that fewer troops mean assuming more risk. Talk of an exit date also risks sending the wrong message. We should be in Afghanistan to win, not to set a timetable for withdrawal that signals a lack of resolve to our friends, and lets our enemies believe they can wait us out. As long as we’re in to win, and as long as troop level decisions are based on conditions on the ground and the advice of our military commanders, I support President Obama’s decision.

Those are some big 'if's, and as long as Obama's radical Leftist anti-war base is angry about any troop build-up, the notion that Obama is 'in it to win it' is tenuous at best.

One aspect of this that smacks of political opportunism is the schedule Obama laid out:

Dare I say it? I question the timing.

President Obama is sending 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan but wants to conclude the war and withdraw most U.S. service members within three years, senior administration officials told CNN Tuesday.

Just in time for the 2012 election. Hmmm...

Another distasteful aspect is the fact that Obama, in an attempt to prevent the 'Vietnamization' of the Afghanistan war effort, proposes to do precisely what Nixon did in Vietnam:

Among his "Big Ideas" is Vietnamization. Which Nixon did with Vietnam-- making the Vietnam War more dependent on the Vietnamese. Which makes sense, except for the minor fact 1, they weren't ready and knew they would lose, so 2, they had no reason to fight and awfully big reasons to ingratiate themselves to the soon-to-be-victors by selling information and such to the North.
Basically, when you tell your ally you're bugging out in a couple of years, and they know when you do bug out they lose, you have incentivized them to begin defecting to the enemy early.
It's not just that he's proposing Vietnamization -- it's that he's doing so with a hard-date for his "exit strategy." Which Nixon did too, for all intents and purposes, making it clear he didn't want to win the war, he just wanted a "decent interval" between America's exit and the North's victory.

Of course, there is also this:

Allah says there's an escape clause in that. But of course there is. Set a hard date for evacuation and then put in an escape clause in it too, so maybe you will stay on longer if conditions demand it. Throw one clause to the left, then a different clause to the center/right. Vote present.

Not that he ever does that, of course.

The biggest sticking point, though, definitely seems to be the timetable that Obama openly advertised:

The two major concerns from Obama’s path forward are the proposed timeline for withdrawal and the replacements for the U.S. surge troops, while the message to the Afghan people is muddled at best.
The surge in U.S. forces will be completed by the summer of 2010, and President Obama said that the military will begin to withdraw beginning in July 2011, just one year after the increase in forces, security conditions permitting. First, the setting of a timeline gives the Taliban and allied Islamist groups all of the evidence they need that the U.S. and the West seeks to leave the country sooner rather than later. Expect Obama timeline to be used in al-Qaeda and Taliban propaganda. Second, the timeline reaffirms Pakistan’s belief that the U.S. stay in Afghanistan is short lived. The incentive for Pakistan to take on the “good Taliban” groups in their tribal areas that attack U.S. and NATO forces has eroded. And third, Obama has not explained from where the Afghan troops to take over from withdrawing U.S. forces will come. Afghanistan has an 80,000 man army and its police forces are in disarray. Unlike Iraq, there is no glut of troops to turn over security to.
Finally, Obama’s message to the Afghan people was poorly crafted and delivered. First he told them their security and development is important. Later he said the overriding U.S. objective is to defeat al-Qaeda and nation building is not a requirement. He can’t have it both ways, and the fence-sitters in Afghanistan won’t be encouraged by the conflicting message.

The conflicting message is detrimental:

Most striking was the dramatic mismatch between the dire consequences of failure and the very limited means the president intends to bring to bear. The goals he has established for Afghanistan cannot be achieved in the time frame he committed to begin withdrawing troops in. Afghanistan fell 2,000 recruits short last month alone in meeting its current goal of 134,000 soldiers and 83,000 police. The president’s new approach envisions producing additional Afghan forces superior in quantity and quality to the present. That is wildly unrealistic.

To emphasize in the same breath the importance of increased forces and the necessity of removing them in eighteen months will badly diminish the positive effect those troops are intended to have. The point of counterinsurgency approach is to protect the population so that they participate in security efforts and change the political dynamic of the war. The president was silent on what he will do if his objectives are not achieved.

As in Iraq, the president doesn’t have an exit strategy, he has an exit timeline. He did not outline the positive conditions that must be met for our withdrawal to proceed. He did not provide a vision of an Afghanistan that is capable of achieving what we need for our country to be secure. He provided an absolute withdrawal date that will encourage our enemies to game the timeline, and discourage our friends from helping.

RedState puts it this way:

Proving yet again that he is a rank amateur, Obama intends to have a surge of 30,000 troops in Afghanistan, but concurrently announce the timeline for their withdrawal. This is akin to announcing to burglars exactly the time at which you intend to depart your house and also announcing you intend to turn off the burglar alarm. Al Qaeda will just wait us out. They’ll only need to wait a year. The men who spent years planning 9/11 are more patient than this President who wants instant gratification in a never ending campaign.

And that is, at the end of the day, what this was — not the speech of a Commander-in-Chief to his troops, but a campaign speech at time of falling poll numbers because of his dithering, trying to blame the other guy.

Only, there is no other guy now. There is only Barack Obama. A man who sees no special role for America in the world and a moral equivalence between good and evil.

Oh, and there's that little thing called victory that he didn't mention:

Barack Obama spoke at West Point tonight on the issue of Afghanistan. In 4608 words, he did not once mention the word “victory” and the closest he came to using the word “win” was those three letters appearing in the word “withdrawing.”

True to form, Obama spent most of his speech decrying the Bush administration going into Iraq. He said — a lie — that “Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive.” The historic record shows that George Bush never denied commanders in Afghanistan the support they requested.

All in all, this was not a particularly reassuring speech, especially given that this is an extremely high stakes game to which he has already communicated how our enemies can defeat us.

There's my two cents.

Related Reading:
Wait, wait, wait...now hurry up!
Obama to Troops: I Promise You I Will Furnish You With Every Resource You Need, So Long As What You Need Is Reasonably-Priced and Available as a Factory-Irregular from Marshall's
Obama on Afghanistan: “Resolve unwavering”…to pull out in 18 months or something
Dean Obama
The timing contradictions of Obama's Afghan decision
West Point is 'the enemy camp'

Two Universes

2009-12-01T22:57:00.000-06:00

If you're like me, you often shake your head and genuinely wonder how the Left can talk and act the way it does. They lie, they cheat, and they remorselessly destroy anyone who doesn't toe their political line. Why?

Rush Limbaugh offered a new theory to explain the disconnect: we live in two separate universes. Check it out, and listen as he uses the recent global warming scandal to illustrate.

Rush Limbaugh: Two Universes, part 1

Drop.io

Rush Limbaugh: Two Universes, part 2

Drop.io

Here are some written excerpts in case you don't have time to listen to the whole audio file:

We really live, folks, in two worlds. There are two worlds. We live in two universes. One universe is a lie. One universe is an entire lie. Everything run, dominated, and controlled by the left here and around the world is a lie. The other universe is where we are, and that's where reality reigns supreme and we deal with it. And seldom do these two universes ever overlap. A great illustration is what's happening here with what is now incontrovertibly known as a hoax. We know that the lead place, this Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University -- which is the number one advisor and communicator with the IPCC, which is the UN's climate-control crowd.

We know that data was made up to advance the notion that man is causing the climate to warm. We know that data was purposely left out that hides the fact that the earth is cooling. Even on this bunch's website, they cannot hide the fact that temperatures have not increased the last ten years, and they've had to come up with some of the most irrational, illogical explanations for it. "Well, it's the ocean currents out there. It could be El Nino or La Nina. A lot of stuff is going on," but they specifically ignore anything related to the sun! And without the sun, there's nothing. How you can ignore the sun in the whole concept of warming is idiocy. But the point is this: We have now the facts.

Remember, all of this information was subject to Freedom of Information requests, and they were deleting information that would harm them. They were deleting information and fighting the release. So it's a hoax. We know these people ... how they have to get things done. They have to lie. This ought to be among the biggest stories to come down the pike in a year, and it is in that side of the universe where we all live, in the real world. As far as the left is concerned, the story hasn't happened. The Indian prime minister is talking about moving fast on Copenhagen. Copenhagen is where they hope to come up with the next Kyoto treaty to punish the leading energy producers and the leading economies of the world. Copenhagen ought to be discredited! It ought to be canceled. There's no reason for it. There's no reason for anybody to advance any piece of legislation aimed at reversing something that is not happening.

Instead, what is happening is the people in the Universe of Lies are ignoring it. Their agenda will be paramount -- and I guarantee you that as we speak, the hoaxers and everybody involved in it from Algore on up to this Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University are plotting strategy on how to keep forging forward because of two things. There is a hell of a lot of money at the end of this train and these people want to get their hands on it. A lot of it is ours, a lot of it is grants from other governments, plus the power that's going to come with that. The second thing is that the scientists involved in this so-called consensus stand to have their reputations in ruin if this ever becomes a mainstream story. So they're going to move fast. Even as we speak right now, they're plotting strategy to discredit the truth of the hoax. I don't know how they're going to do it, but I know these people, and they're going to do that.
This can drive rational, reasonable, average people insane trying to juxtapose these two universes -- the Universe of Reality and the Universe of Lies.

the two universes here -- The Universe of Lies, The Universe of Reality -- they don't overlap anymore. And this is even bigger than global warming, which was my point yesterday. It's about everything that the left is involved in. What this fraud, what the uncovering of this hoax exposes, is the corruption that exists between government and academia and science and the media. Science has been corrupted. We know the media has been corrupted for a long time. Academia has been corrupted. None of what they do is real. It's all lies! It is all oriented toward a political outcome. It's bigger than global warming. And of course science has been corrupted here. Science is being used for political purposes.

It always has been, but this is a new low -- or a new high, depending on your perspective. But what they have done here is now make it reasonable to doubt everything some scientist says who gets government money from somewhere. And if you know what's good for you, if you know that they're leftists, you won't believe anything they say any time, anywhere, about anything. Their ideas are so hideous, are so insidious, so anti-free market, that they have to dress their ideas up in a phony cloak of compassion: Saving the planet, saving the polar bears, saving the water, saving the earth, saving whatever it is. "Saving the poor," while they destroy the poor. It just infuriating. So we have now the Four Corners of Deceit, and the two universes in which we live. The Universe of Lies, the Universe of Reality, and The Four Corners of Deceit: Government, academia, science, and media. Those institutions are now corrupt and exist by virtue of deceit. That's how they promulgate themselves; it is how they prosper.

What does it take for people to understand it is a hoax?

But if you live in The Universe of Lies, the last thing that you are governed by is the truth. The last thing you are governed by is reality. The only thing that matters to you is the advancement of your political agenda. And you tell yourself in The Universe of Lies that your agenda is so important the world will not survive without it and therefore you could lie, cheat, steal, destroy whoever you have to to get your agenda done -- because your opponents are eeevil, and in fighting eeevil, anything goes. There are no rules when you're in a fight with the Devil. And that is why in The Universe of Lies in this country, those of us who live in The Universe of Reality are the true enemy. We are the real enemy.

We are the enemy because we stand not only in the way of their agenda, but we also expose them daily for what they are: Frauds in the media, in academia, in science, and in government. In the old days before there was a New Media, whatever the government did was considered pure. The media was considered pure. Science was considered pure. Academia was considered pure. Now millions of Americans have had their suspicions of decades confirmed that all of these institutions are frauds, that they put forth a face and an image that hides their truth because it must.

They couldn't get anywhere were they honest. So The Four Corners of Deceit: Government, academia, science, and media, have been exposed, and the real enemy are those who are doing the exposing. They will continue to live in The Universe of Lies.

Two universes. It explains so much, doesn't it?

There's my two cents.

Narcissist-In-Chief, Part 732

2009-12-01T19:30:00.000-06:00

Legal Insurrection reports on what appears to be becoming the disgusting reality of our President:

I really hope this is a bad Photoshop, not the real thing. From DrudgeReport: "Obama leaves WH clutching GQ mag -- featuring himself...

No matter what I have said in the past, I truly do not want this to be so.

Unlike LI, I actually kinda hope it is true. This is the kind of basic stuff that can really turn off the non-political folks that will be so critical in the next couple of elections.

It's one thing to be famous; it's entirely another to be famous and hung up on yourself. And no one likes that guy.

There's my two cents.

Failing And Surrender In Afghanistan

2009-12-01T16:42:00.000-06:00

You probably remember all of those fiery campaign accusations from Barack Obama about how Iraq was a distraction from the 'necessary war' in Afghanistan, and how George W. Bush hadn't put enough troops into Afghanistan, and how Obama would correct those problems once he took office. You probably also remember how Gen. McChrystal -- the man Obama himself appointed to the Afghanistan post -- requested more troops back in August.

Anyway, while American troops were dying in record numbers there, the 'necessary war' took a back seat to even more critical things (like golf) for almost four months.

But you'd never know that by listening to Obama's laughable spokesman:

Q: Mr. Gibbs, good morning. Why did it take so long to make this decision?
GIBBS: Well look, Harry, I think that what's been done in this process is somewhat unprecedented on the issue of Afghanistan. I think everybody involved really worked hard with the President to make policy better than it would have been had we announced it after only a week. I think everybody involved made this policy stronger. And I think the American people can be proud of both the process and the decision that the President will announce tonight.
[...]
Q: Al Qaida really isn't much of a presence in Afghanistan anymore anyhow, so why not chase them into Pakistan or into the Horn of Africa?
GIBBS: Well, look. I think this Administration has taken the fight to Al Qaida unlike any that we've ever seen.

Is this guy for real? I'm not sure whether I'm going to laugh or cry at this.

Now Obama is going go on TV and announce his big plan (this is the second one...the first was in March, before he changed his mind). He is expected to add around 30,000 more troops despite the fact that his general asked for 40,000. Of course, this is going to be problematic for his base, so it is likely that he'll blame the whole thing on Bush and hope that they're so blindly angry with Bush that they forget everything else. We'll see how it plays out, but the bottom line is that he is using political ends to dictate his war policy, and that can't possibly end well - he campaigned on winning Afghanistan rather than Iraq in order to tap the anti-Iraq sentiment at the time. Now, however, he can't possibly win in Afghanistan without angering his own base. Ah, how the political winds change!

The likely outcome is that he'll offer a lame attempt to support the troops while planning a 'withdrawal'. And what exactly what it will look like to our enemies? A surrender, if they're just patient enough to wait us out.

Dick Cheney responds:

“I begin to get nervous when I see the commander in chief making decisions apparently for what I would describe as small ‘p’ political reasons, where he’s trying to balance off different competing groups in society,” Cheney said.

“Every time he delays, defers, debates, changes his position, it begins to raise questions: Is the commander in chief really behind what they’ve been asked to do?”

And unfortunately, the stakes of this war are very, very high:

Failure to achieve these goals is not an option, for it would be a direct threat to our national well-being. That’s not theory; it’s historical fact. We’ve already walked away from Afghanistan once, in the early 1990s, thinking that what happened there couldn’t possibly hurt us here. We were wrong.

The alternative to victory in Afghanistan is a return to chaos and, quite possibly, genocide. Al-Qaeda and its local Taliban enablers would immediately fill the ensuing power vacuum, turning that benighted land into an apocalyptic failed state. This would recreate the exact conditions that produced the 9/11 attacks.

Only this time, things could be worse. We could witness a regional conflagration that quickly turned nuclear and went global. Afghanistan borders on Pakistan, a nuclear nation with many Taliban sympathizers (especially among its ethnic Pashtuns).

A Taliban-dominated Afghanistan could easily inject further instability in Pakistan, strengthening extremist forces in the region that also threaten India. The likelihood of war between India and Pakistan — a war that could potentially go nuclear — would rise significantly. Remember, these two countries have already fought three wars since the partition of British India in 1947, and enmity between the two still abounds.

Incidentally, Obama and Biden have been wrong about pretty much everything about Afghanistan for a long time. Also, Obama has also made some other wonderful statements about the war in Afghanistan, like how he thinks the Taliban should be part of the permanent government and that there is no military solution in Afghanistan.

What a winner. This is yet another reason why he's a danger to our nation.

There's my two cents.

Related reading:
John Kerry: I was for more troops in Tora Bora while I was against it

Obama Gives Away Control Of The Internet

2009-12-01T14:00:00.000-06:00

Completely irresponsible, and completely un-shocking:

The Guardian reported:
After complaints about American dominance of the internet and growing disquiet in some parts of the world, Washington has said it will relinquish some control over the way the network is run and allow foreign governments more of a say in the future of the system.

Icann – the official body that ultimately controls the development of the internet thanks to its oversight of web addresses such as .com, .net and .org – said today that it was ending its agreement with the US government.

The deal, part of a contract negotiated with the US department of commerce, effectively pushes California-based Icann towards a new status as an international body with greater representation from companies and governments around the globe.

I'm just surprised that he didn't apologize for American dominance of the Internet that America built while he did it.

Seriously, though, this is just another example of the globalist mindset of Barack Obama, the first post-American President. There is nothing he will not give away or give up control of if it means looking favorable to the world outside the borders of the U.S. Does anyone else find this as vile as I do?

If America really wanted to lead by example, we would invite the EU or anyone else in the world to go ahead and build their own Internet infrastructure, and allow the competition to improve services for everyone.

But no, that would be waaaaaay too capitalistic for Obama.

There's my two cents.

The Connection Between Income Taxes And Government Spending

2009-12-01T11:00:00.000-06:00

This is great stuff from Gene Schwimmer at American Thinker:

Unleashed appetites can ruin a personal life. So also with government.

Why do we have an income tax? The obvious answer would seem to be "for the government to get the funds it needs to run itself." But if that's true, then how does one explain this:

Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits
(in millions of dollars)

Year

Receipts

Outlays

Surplus/
(Deficit)

1907

666

572

87

1912

693

690

3

Source: The Budget for Fiscal Year 2009, Historical Tables, p. 21

Note the fourth column, "Surplus/(Deficit)." As can be seen, the numbers in 1907 and 1912 are positive, meaning that they represent federal budget surpluses. But is there anything else notable about those particular years?
There is. 1907 is the year that President Theodore Roosevelt said this:
When our tax laws are revised, the question of an income tax and an inheritance tax should receive the careful attention of our legislators. In my judgment, both of these taxes should be part of our system of Federal taxation.
And 1912? That's the last year before 1913, the year in which the 16^th Amendment established a nationwide income tax.

But in the previous year, 1912 -- and in 1907, when Theodore Roosevelt advocated an income tax -- the federal budget was in surplus. It didn't need the money.

So again: Why a new tax at a time when the federal government was running surpluses? And why an income tax?

Brian Domitrovic, in his important new book Econoclasts, finds the answer in Theodore Roosevelt's famous "Man in the Arena" speech, delivered three years later at the Sorbonne in Paris. In it, as Domitrovic notes, "Roosevelt acknowledged that civilization generally benefited from its rich inhabitants," but that "there were also the idle, spendthrift, and avaricious rich":
But the man who, having far surpassed the limit of providing for [his], then piles up a great fortune, for the acquisition or retention of which he returns no corresponding benefit to the nation as a whole, should ... be made to feel ... unworthy ...
Here, Roosevelt anticipates the Keynesian fallacy that savers do not contribute "to the benefit of the nation as a whole," but what matters more, when considered in light of T.R.'s earlier advocacy of an income tax, is his apparent belief (inspired by guilt over having been born into wealth?) that the "wealthy" have no right to their wealth, that such wealth is "idle" and "wasted" when left in their hands, and that other people, through their government, have the right -- indeed, the duty -- to seize it for their own use.

The Bible, however, has something quite different to say on the subject:
And God spoke all these words: ... "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
To that list, I think we can safely add wealth. When God commanded us not to covet our neighbor's goods, he commanded us not to covet our neighbor's goods for a reason: because it's wrong. And evil leads not to good, but only to more and greater evil. When it comes to taxes, and especially income taxes, Reagan described that evil clearly: "Government does not tax to get the money it needs; government always finds a need for the money it gets."

In 1913, We the People amended the Constitution to allow the federal government to punish "the rich" by seizing from them wealth the government did not need. The government, as Reagan said, quickly found a way to spend that wealth on its priorities, without the consent of those who actually created it. And so it has gone, from that day to this, with ever more spending, ever more taxing, and an ever-growing national debt.

Isn't it amazing that America was in great shape right up until the point at which the government started taking money from its citizens based on the inherently unfair practice of income distribution? I don't know about you, but I think this really helps put into perspective just how insidious the entire concept of income tax is.

Unfortunately, a century later, things have only gotten much, much worse. Not only is the redistribution even more unfair now, but the utter irresponsibility of decades of elected government leaders has dug our debt hole so much deeper that we're just about through to China. Literally.

There's my two cents.

Dems Do What Dems Do: Raise Taxes

2009-12-01T08:00:00.000-06:00

Don't die...your kids won't be able to afford it:

The U.S. House of Representative could vote as early as Wednesday of this week to increase the estate tax (known popularly as the death tax). The bill it will consider, sponsored by Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-North Dakota), would extend permanently the death tax at its current 45 percent rate and $3.5 million exemption. This extension would be a drastic tax increase since the death tax expires on January 1, 2010.

In addition, the Pomeroy bill would be a repudiation of the policy stands of several past Congresses that all agreed the death tax must go. They came to that conclusion with good reason. Heritage research has shown that the death tax is a severe hindrance to the economy because it:

• discourages savings and investment;
• undermines job creation;
• suppresses productivity and wage growth;
• contradicts the central promise of American life: wealth creation;
• hurts those who have their savings tied up in land; and
• hurts businesses owned by women and African-Americans.

Its no wonder the latest research shows full repeal of the death tax would create 1.5 million jobs.

The economy cannot afford an increase in the Death Tax. What it really needs is the boost full repeal of this harmful tax would give. It is time for Congress to do the right thing and kill the Death Tax once and for all.

Don't hold your breath. You know what they say about death and taxes, right? Well, equally inevitable is the fact that Democrats' will pounce on both.

There's my two cents.

Barack Obama Hearts ACORN

2009-11-30T21:00:00.000-06:00

Oh boy. Barack Obama grew up in ACORN, and is a kindred spirit with ACORN. He was noticeably silent when ACORN was busted on camera multiple times helping set up an international under-aged sex slave ring. ACORN became so radioactive for a short time that both the House and the Senate voted to de-fund them.

Unfortunately, that was merely a political stunt that lasted for a month.

Now, the Obama administration has officially put ACORN back into its good (financially speaking) graces. Gateway Pundit reminds us of the history here, and reports on the current situation:

ACORN is the largest radical leftist group in America today.
This radical group worked closely with the Obama camp during the election. But, the community organizing group was not open about this. The photo below was scrubbed from the ACORN website before the election:

One of Barack Obama’s first big “community organizer” jobs involved ACORN in 1992. He has been working along side ACORN since before he became an elected official. Obama also trained ACORN employees. He represented ACORN in court. Obama worked with and protested with ACORN. His campaign donated $800,000 to ACORN in 2008 for voter registration efforts.
And, ACORN even canvassed for Obama last year.

Earlier this year Obama promoted a top ACORN operative, Patrick Gaspard, who’s oranization was fined $775,000 for election violations, to a top post in the White House. Gespard is helping shape domestic policy.

Obama’s ACORN group was banned from receiving federal funds in September after the group was busted on tape promoting the child sex slave trade.

But, today it was announced that ACORN will be paid with taxpayer funds after all.
The New York Times reported:

The Justice Department has concluded that the Obama administration can lawfully pay the community group Acorn for services provided under contracts signed before Congress banned the government from providing funds to the group.

The department’s conclusion, laid out in a recently disclosed five-page memorandum from David Barron, the acting assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel, adds a new wrinkle to a sharp political debate over the antipoverty group’s activities and recent efforts to distance the government from it.

Since 1994, Acorn, which stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, has received about $53 million in federal aid, much of it grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development for providing various services related to affordable housing.

But the group has become a prime target for conservative critics, and on Oct. 1, President Obama signed into law a spending bill that included a provision that said no taxpayer funds — including funds authorized by previous legislation — could be “provided to” the group or its affiliates.

Obviously, considering Obama’s history with ACORN, this latest news surprises no one.

And that is the most unfortunate thing of all. The truth is that Barack Obama is ACORN, and that should be profoundly disturbing to all patriotic, law-abiding Americans.

There's my two cents.

How's That Tough Talk Working Out?

2009-11-30T19:00:00.000-06:00

Remember how all that tough talk from the Obama administration really shaped up Iran by threatening even tougher talk? Here's how well that worked:

Iran's government will build 10 new sites to enrich uranium, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Sunday, a dramatic expansion of the country's nuclear program and one that is bound to fuel fears that it is attempting to produce a nuclear weapon.
Ahmadinejad told the official Islamic Republic News Agency that construction of at least five nuclear facilities is to begin within two months.

The surprise announcement came two days after a censure of Iran by the International Atomic Energy Agency over the Islamic republic's refusal to stop enriching uranium, a key demand of Western powers. The 35-member board of the agency also criticized Iran's construction of a second enrichment plant in Qom, southwest of Tehran.

Nice job. That tough talk is really working, huh?

There's my two cents.

ClimateGate

2009-11-30T16:03:00.001-06:00

If you pay attention to the new media or blogs, you've probably heard about this already (initially posted on 2Cents here), but I wanted to give a much more comprehensive picture of how the 'climate change' hoax/fraud has developed and exploded.

The nutshell is this:

1. The data were manipulated to hide a decline in recent temperatures, meaning that we cannot be sure that the paleoclimatological record shows that the recent warming was in any way unusual. This is separate from the issue of whether or not it has been warming or cooling, which is a distraction from what Climategate tells us.

2. There was a concerted effort to subvert the peer-review process of journals that might publish "skeptical" articles (and thereby undermine the "consensus" argument).

3. There was an organized attempt to circumvent or obstruct the legal requirements of the UK's Freedom of Information Act 2000, which appears on its face to rise to the level of criminality.

Now, for the details.

The main group of 'scientists' who supplied the U.N.'s climate change panel with their 'evidence' for global warming have been utterly demolished as reputable sources of reliable information. Hundreds of e-mails and documents were leaked that reveal a blatant attempt to conceal and cherry pick data to support the theory that global warming is caused by humanity for purely political reasons.

One example is a study of tree rings on the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia. Apparently, 252 core samples were taken, but the outcome of the study only used 12 of them, the only ones that supported the global warming crock of crap. But, based on these cherry picked findings, the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia and numerous peer-reviewed studies passed this off as proof of global warming, and the IPCC panel at the U.N. relied heavily on this data in its recent statements about the need for vast and sweeping global climate change legislation. By preventing the release of the raw research data, the CRU was able to push their cherry picked data without any reasonable fact checking, thus the idea of a 'consensus' was deliberately and fraudulently propagated. Now that the heat is really on, the CRU admits that they actually threw out much of that data for fear that they would be forced to reveal it.

There were some who complained that the leaked e-mails and documents were not proof of anything other than legitimate discussion, but take a look for yourself at a couple of them:

Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

And...

… Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. …

And...

Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two [climate skeptics] MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.
We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere to it !

I don't know about you, but the context appears pretty clear to me. That lame defense was simply an empty and desperate grasp at nothing. Also causing problems for the context defense is the fact that the climate models that were used for these studies had hard-coded evidence of the fraud:

This May Be the Nail in the Coffin to Global Warming Junk Science—
Renowned statistician and software engineer Eric S. Raymond (ESR) says the global warming "hockey stick" graph data was "hard-coded" or purposefully "fudged."

Dr. Michael Mann, who co-authored the famous graph of temperature trends dubbed the "hockey stick graph," was implicated in Climategate this week. Mann's controversial work has been challenged in the past.

Today, Reboot Congress reported this stunning news- that the "hockey stick" was fudged.
On his blog Eric Raymond (ESR) comments:
krygny Says: Wait just a second. Explain this to me like I'm 12. They didn't even bother to fudge the data? They hard-coded a hockey stick carrier right into the program?!!

ESR says: Yes. Yes, that's exactly what they did… Of course, they now claim that crucial primary datasets were "accidentally" deleted… After reading some of the emails about evading FOIA2000 requests… accidentally, my ass.

Read some of this programmer's comments here. It's a real trip, especially considering how many politicians are making global policy based on this fraud.

So, not only has the CRU been thoroughly discredited, but the entire peer-review process itself is now suspect, and legitimate scientists -- not political hacks like the CRU, but real scientists -- are finally demanding answers.

Another aspect of this scandal is the illegal outright refusal to release documents after Freedom of Information Act requests were properly made. One of the guilty parties now being sued: NASA.

Today, on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, I filed three Notices of Intent to File Suit against NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), for those bodies' refusal – for nearly three years – to provide documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
The information sought is directly relevant to the exploding "ClimateGate" scandal revealing document destruction, coordinated efforts in the U.S. and UK to avoid complying with both countries' freedom of information laws, and apparent and widespread intent to defraud at the highest levels of international climate science bodies. Numerous informed commenters had alleged such behavior for years, all of which appears to be affirmed by leaked emails, computer codes and other data from the Climatic Research Unit of the UK's East Anglia University.

So, how does this all link in with America? Well, let's start at the top - Barack Obama's so-called 'science czar' -- a guy who endorses forced abortions and sterilizations to achieve population control, and who sounded the alarm bell about global cooling before sounding the alarm bell about global warming -- is apparently personally involved in the fraud.

This whole thing is rotten to the core, and it goes to the highest levels around the world.

Despite all this, Barack Obama still plans to attend the Copenhagen climate change conference, push for global climate change legislation -- which really means the rape of wealthy nations and the redistribution of their wealth to poor nations -- and sign the U.S. up for whatever punitive taxation the world will cook up for us. Remember the first rule of politics: follow the money. There's a boatload of money to be taken from U.S. taxpayers, and this fraud was one of the biggest and most effective ways to get it. Unfortunately for us, Barack Obama is on the side of the global America-haters who want to take us down a notch by destroying our economy to prop up the rest of the world.

Now that the truth is out, the war is on, and some believe that this is an issue that can potentially (finally!) drive a wedge between the mainstream media and the American public because of the borderline criminal negligence the MSM showed in helping hide the truth (another link here). I sincerely hope so. The destruction or discrediting of the old mainstream media would be one of the best things that could happen to this country because it would mean real, reliable organizations would rise up to provide the actual news, actual reporting, and actual truth that the media now refuses to do. Ignorance is one of the most expensive weaknesses in this country right now, and the media's perpetuation of ignorance on climate change is very close to costing America untold billions of dollars in the form of global climate change legislation. Let's hope the American people have awakened just in time to stop it.

This is one of the biggest scandals in history, partly because there are so many who are actively involved and trying to hide it. The bottom line is that the fundamental premise of man-caused climate change has now been proven as the hoax/fraud that conservatives have been suggesting for years. There are two major takeaways from this, I think. First, that anyone and everyone involved with this should be named, discredited, humiliated, and banned from their respective fields, and criminally prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The world has never seen a bigger case of fraud, and it rises to the highest levels of global government. As such, it will only happen if the people DEMAND justice. If you're as cynical and practical as I am, you'll settle for the naming and humiliation of those involved. The second takeaway is perhaps more important: the American people should now demand an immediate halt on anything and everything that encroaches on freedom in the name of being 'green'. There is no reason for it now, especially if it increases taxes or regulation. While global justice is an unrealistic goal, I think we can certainly kill the so-called 'green' movement, at least in large part, but it will take action - phone calls, e-mails, and boldness to point out this fraud on the national, state, and local levels.

I'll pass along more details and commentary as developments warrant.

There's my two cents.

Related Reading:
Bill Clinton: Global warming could make some places cooler
Global warming scandal spreads to Middle Earth

Pelosi Admits The Truth...And Still Proves Herself To Be Brainless

2009-11-30T14:00:00.000-06:00

This is such a disjointed path of non-logic that it's really pretty hard to believe. But, no one ever accused a liberal of making sense:

FOX News reported, via Ace:
Building the case for a brand new jobs-creation bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says most Americans would not mind inflating the already-gaping deficit in exchange for more jobs.

The California Democrat said on a conference call Tuesday that Americans could “absorb” the hit to the federal budget, and she argued that their biggest complaint is not that the deficit is big — it’s that they’re not seeing any benefit in return for increasing the U.S. debt load.

That's right, folks: she admits that she knows Americans are royally pi$ed about getting zero benefit from the massive government 'stimulus'. But...instead of finding her way to the logical -- and correct -- conclusion that the government needs to STOP WHAT THEY ARE DOING, she runs in the direction of another 'stimulus':

Despite the $787 billion stimulus package passed in February, unemployment climbed to 10.2 percent in October. While critics cite the jobless rate as a sign that the stimulus has failed, Pelosi argues that the federal government is just not trying hard enough.

“We have to shed any weakness that anybody may have about not wanting to be confrontational on this subject for fear that we’d be labeled not sensitive to the deficit,” Pelosi said, in a recording posted by Think Progress.

“The American people have an anger about the growth of the deficit because they’re not getting anything for it.”

So, you know, naturally, we should do another stimulus just like the first one. Except maybe bigger, because the first one 'didn't do enough'.

Gateway Pundit helpfully reminds us of the situation that the first stimulus has helped put America in:

These people are flippin' geniuses, aren't they?

There's my two cents.

Obama Throws U.S. Troops Under The Bus

2009-11-30T11:00:00.000-06:00

Stand by vulgarity alert:

Unreal. Team Obama may allow US soldiers to be tried in the Hague for war crimes.
The Wall Street Journal reported, via Jihad Watch:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed “great regret” in August that the U.S. is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court (ICC). This has fueled speculation that the Obama administration may reverse another Bush policy and sign up for what could lead to the trial of Americans for war crimes in The Hague.

The ICC’s chief prosecutor, though, has no intention of waiting for Washington to submit to the court’s authority. Luis Moreno Ocampo says he already has jurisdiction—at least with respect to Afghanistan.

Because Kabul in 2003 ratified the Rome Statute—the ICC’s founding treaty—all soldiers on Afghan territory, even those from nontreaty countries, fall under the ICC’s oversight, Mr. Ocampo told me. And the chief prosecutor says he is already conducting a “preliminary examination” into whether NATO troops, including American soldiers, fighting the Taliban may have to be put in the dock.

“We have to check if crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide have been committed in Afghanistan,” Mr. Ocampo told me. “There are serious allegations against the Taliban and al Qaeda and serious allegations about warlords, even against some who are connected with members of the government.” Taking up his inquiry of Allied soldiers, he added, “there are different reports about problems with bombings and there are also allegations about torture.”

It was clear who the targets of these particular inquiries are but the chief prosecutor shied away from spelling it out.

Asked repeatedly whether the examination of bombings and torture allegations refers to NATO and U.S. soldiers, Mr. Ocampo finally stated that “we are investigating whoever commits war crimes, including the group you mentioned.”

Filthy. Disgusting. Traitor.

There's my two cents.

Monday Morning Humor

2009-11-30T08:00:00.000-06:00

It always sucks to hit the grind again after a long weekend, so just to get things off to an amusing start (h/t various friends and Patriot Post)...

Have a great week!

Link Roundup

2009-11-29T21:58:00.000-06:00

Here's the latest link roundup:

We Still Hold These Truths
Determined to Decline
Ryan Gets it Right on Entitlement Reform
Big Labor = Big Government (officially now)
Say what you mean
[ACORN's] Constitutional right to your tax dollars
Who's watching Fannie and Freddie (while Obama fires the independent investigator)?
Obama sells out yet another U.S. ally
Barack Obama's America-Effacing Presidency
Transparency apparently runs in the Obama bloodlines
Transparent administration transparently stonewalls Congress
The right of conscience in the age of Obama
The man who despises America
Obama takes bold steps on Afghanistan's...environment
Obama fired IG investigating one of his buddies for illegal activities, then scrambles to justify it
Living the liberal crack-up
Super Bipartisanship Man! Convicted felon invited to Obama's state dinner, but no GOP leadership

Coming up in the next few days:
- More Raaaaaacism!
- The KSM show trial
- ClimateGate
- Obama's Crazy Aides

Stay tuned!

More Thanksgiving Messages

2009-11-27T12:00:00.000-06:00

Here are two more outstanding Thanksgiving messages from two of our most notable presidents...

...George Washington:

And Abraham Lincoln...

The year that is drawing toward its close has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added which are of so extraordinary a nature that they can not fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever-watchful providence of Almighty God.

In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign states to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere, except in the theater of military conflict, while that theater has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union.

Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defense have not arrested the plow, the shuttle, or the ship; the ax has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well as the iron and coal as of our precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege, and the battlefield, and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom.

No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.

It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged, as with one heart and one voice, by the whole American people. I do therefore invite my fellow-citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next as a day of thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners, or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the imposition of the Almighty hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it, as soon as may be consistent with the divine purpose, to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility, and union.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Happy Thanksgiving!

2009-11-26T08:00:00.002-06:00

As is tradition here at 2Cents, I wanted to post the real truth of Thanksgiving. Most classes and textbooks tell the story of how the Pilgrims were about to starve in the New World until the Indians came and showed them how to plant and survive here, thus prompting the Pilgrims' thanks toward the Indians.

That's not exactly true.

The truth is much less...well, let's say politically correct. Rush Limbaugh explains:

The story of the Pilgrims begins in the early part of the seventeenth century. The Church of England under King James I was persecuting anyone and everyone who did not recognize its absolute civil and spiritual authority. Those who challenged ecclesiastical authority and those who believed strongly in freedom of worship were hunted down, imprisoned, and sometimes executed for their beliefs. A group of separatists first fled to Holland and established a community.

"After eleven years, about forty of them agreed to make a perilous journey to the New World, where they would certainly face hardships, but could live and worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences. On August 1, 1620, the Mayflower set sail. It carried a total of 102 passengers, including forty Pilgrims led by William Bradford. On the journey, Bradford set up an agreement, a contract, that established just and equal laws for all members of the new community, irrespective of their religious beliefs. Where did the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact come from? From the Bible. The Pilgrims were a people completely steeped in the lessons of the Old and New Testaments. They looked to the ancient Israelites for their example.

"And, because of the biblical precedents set forth in Scripture, they never doubted that their experiment would work. But this was no pleasure cruise, friends. The journey to the New World was a long and arduous one. And when the Pilgrims landed in New England in November, they found, according to Bradford's detailed journal, a cold, barren, desolate wilderness. There were no friends to greet them, he wrote. There were no houses to shelter them. There were no inns where they could refresh themselves. And the sacrifice they had made for freedom was just beginning. During the first winter, half the Pilgrims – including Bradford's own wife – died of either starvation, sickness or exposure. When spring finally came, Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish for cod and skin beavers for coats.

"Life improved for the Pilgrims, but they did not yet prosper! This is important to understand because this is where modern American history lessons often end. Thanksgiving is actually explained in some textbooks as a holiday for which the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians for saving their lives, rather than as a devout expression of gratitude grounded in the tradition of both the Old and New Testaments. Here is the part that has been omitted: The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belong to the community as well. They were going to distribute it equally. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well.

"Nobody owned anything. They just had a share in it. It was a commune, folks. It was the forerunner to the communes we saw in the '60s and '70s out in California – and it was complete with organic vegetables, by the way. Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives. He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of the marketplace. That's right. Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. And what happened? It didn't work!"

"It never has worked! "What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation! But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years – trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it – the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently. What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild's history lesson. If it were, we might prevent much needless suffering in the future. 'The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God,' Bradford wrote.

"'For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense ... that was thought injustice.' Why should you work for other people when you can't work for yourself? What's the point? Do you hear what he was saying, ladies and gentlemen? The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So what did Bradford's community try next? They unharnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the undergirding capitalistic principle of private property.

"Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products. And what was the result? 'This had very good success,' wrote Bradford, 'for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.' Bradford doesn't sound like much of a Clintonite" I wrote then "does he? Is it possible that supply-side economics could have existed before the 1980s? Yes. Read the story of Joseph and Pharaoh in Genesis 41. Following Joseph's suggestion (Gen 41:34), Pharaoh reduced the tax on Egyptians to 20% during the 'seven years of plenty' and the 'Earth brought forth in heaps.' (Gen. 41:47) In no time, the Pilgrims found they had more food than they could eat themselves.

Excellent stuff! Socialism is not new, but it has ALWAYS failed to make people prosperous and well. 2009 is no different than in 1620.

It is also important to note that faith was an integral part of America from the beginning:

As a whole, America’s Founders were strongly religious. Thanksgiving proclamations, as official statements of the American president, underscore the Founders’ faith. Some were more traditional, such as John Jay and John Witherspoon. Some were more skeptical of religious institutions and doctrines, such as Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson.

But the vast majority of the Founders were firmly in the mainstream of religious belief. They understood God as having created man with an immortal soul, as actively involved in human affairs and as “the Supreme Judge of the world”—in the words of the Declaration of Independence.

The day after approving the First Amendment to the Constitution and its protections of religious liberty, Congress called upon the president to “recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God.”

President George Washington responded by proclaiming Nov. 26, 1789 the first official Thanksgiving. He noted:

It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly implore his protection and favor.”

Even the deists among the Founders—and it is by no means the case that they were mostly deists, as some have claimed—held that God created the world and determined the rules of human action.

Wrote Payne:

It is a fool only, and not the philosopher, nor even the prudent man, that will live as if there were no God.”

In 1620, more than 150 years before Washington’s first Thanksgiving proclamation, a small group of pilgrims granted land by King James arrived in what is now New England. They wrote out the Mayflower Compact creating their own political community “for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country.” This was, in essence, a social contract to form a body politic for the sake of survival.

And yet...today we have the Left re-writing the history books to remove all mentions of the failed experiment of socialism, and how God and capitalism saved the Pilgrims. In fact, the Left has gone so far overboard that they have actually published an official cheat sheet of how to argue with any potential Republicans that you might be so unfortunate as to associate with at your Thanksgiving dinner.

That's why it's up to you and I to preserve the truth. This country's economic success was formed on pure capitalism. It was only when the freedom to work hard and excel -- and the responsibility was on the individual -- that the first Americans flourished. Even more importantly, America was founded on the blessings of (and faith in) God.

We need to get back to those things. Without them, this nation will fail, but with them, we can once again rise above our adversity and succeed, leading the way to a better tomorrow for the entire world.

I sincerely hope you enjoy time with loved ones today, and that you reflect upon all of the blessings you have. A thankful heart is a happy and contented heart, and we could all use a bit more of that.

Happy Thanksgiving!

It's All About Freedom

2009-11-25T22:08:00.001-06:00

Most of these big, contentious issues that we're currently debating revolve around one core principle: freedom.

Who makes your health care choices? Do you have the freedom to buy insurance or not, depending on what's best for you? Do you have the freedom to choose the health plan that best fits your needs? Do you have the freedom to choose your own doctor? Do you have the freedom to pay out of pocket for medical services?

Who determines your energy consumption? Do you have the freedom to buy the light bulbs that you like most, are the safest, and the cheapest? Do you have the freedom to buy a large (safe) car or SUV if that's what you want to drive? Do you have the freedom to have your thermostat on whatever temperature you want? Do you have the freedom to buy whatever size of TV you want?

How much of your money does the government take every month? With more disposable income, you have the freedom to buy whatever you want (or need), but as taxes go up your paycheck goes down, thus affecting your ability to buy the activities and products you want or need. How much economic freedom does the government leave you?

It's all about freedom.

The Left is moving fast and hard while they've got big majorities in Congress to curtail freedom wherever possible. The Left believes that you don't deserve freedom because you aren't as educated or intelligent as they are, that you really don't have a clue, and thus that you should do what they tell you to do. You can't possible complain about this, either, because it's for your own good.

The Right stands for the most freedom possible without descending into a state of anarchy. The Right believes that YOU are the one who knows what health care plan is best for you and your family, even if that means no health insurance. The Right believes that YOU are the best judge of what car meets your needs and desires. The Right believes that YOU are the one who knows best how to spend YOUR money.

I believe this is the primary ideological struggle we are dealing with in America right now. If the Left succeeds, freedom as we now know it will be a thing of the past, and the government will control vast amounts of your life, even micromanaging some of the most basic decisions you make on a daily basis. If the Right can stand on core principles to effectively overcome the big Leftist push currently going on, I think the Left's ideas will be so thoroughly discredited that we will see relative peace, freedom, and prosperity for years to come. Case in point: Ronald Reagan.

Reagan took on the entire Leftist establishment -- and this was before there was a 'new media' or the Internet -- and won by clearly communicating the basic principles of conservatism to attract a massive following. It's your money, so you should keep more of it. The government isn't the solution, it's the problem. Peace through strength. These are the things that are bred into the American spirit, and they resonated with the American people. By bringing them along with his agenda, the Leftist establishment was helpless to resist, and America saw two decades of unrivaled prosperity and military supremacy. It is only now, after years of Democrat (and squishy Republican) 'leadership' that we are seeing the fall-off of the things Reagan put into place. The differences are stark, as Veronique de Rugy at NRO illustrates:

Cato Institute's VP David Boaz has this interesting post comparing Obama's and Reagan's definitions of freedom. The analysis — based on President Obama's speech to Chinese college students on Monday and Pres. Ronald Reagan's speech to Moscow State University students in 1988 — reveals some striking differences.
Obama, Boaz writes, gave an eloquent defense of freedom, and in particular "freedoms of expression and worship — of access to information and political participation," which he identifies as core American and universal values. Yet the president leaves out "freedom of enterprise, property rights, and limited government as American values. Those are not only the necessary conditions for growth and prosperity, they are the necessary foundation for civil liberties."
In other words, he doesn't truly get what freedom is about.
Now let's look at Reagan. The president starts with democracy, justice, and openess and then:

He came back to the basic purpose of democracy in the American context, not a plebiscitary system but a way to ensure that the governors don't exceed the consent of the governed: "Democracy is less a system of government than it is a system to keep government limited, unintrusive; a system of constraints on power to keep politics and government secondary to the important things in life, the true sources of value found only in family and faith."

He tied all of these freedoms to the American commitment to economic freedom as well. Throughout the speech he tried to enlighten students who had grown up under communism about the meaning of free enterprise.

The whole post is way worth reading. Plus, Reagan's speech is very uplifting.

By the way, the same can be said about the way Obama uses words like competition, accountability, or fiscal responsibility. Obviously, the president doesn't understand the full or true meaning of these words, either.

I believe that we are fast approaching a tipping point which will determine the direction of the country for the foreseeable future, and the bottom line is freedom. Will we retain it, or will we give it up to a soulless, incompetent, and impersonal government that is interested only in its own well-being?

The answer that we -- right now, in 2009 and 2010 -- provide to that question will guide America into the 21st century, and dictate what kind of future world our children and grandchildren inherit from us. The stakes couldn't be higher.

There's my two cents.

Contract = Good, Checklist = Bad

2009-11-25T19:34:00.000-06:00

There's now some talk from the RNC about a 'purity test' of sorts for conservative candidates in the 2010 election. Here's the nutshell:

Ten Republican National Committee members are distributing a plan to impose a purity test – calling for money to be withheld from anyone who disagrees with conservative principles on more than two of 10 core issues.

While this may sound like a good idea, something like what the GOP did so successfully in 1994, in practice it's really a bad, bad idea. Erick Erickson explains:

Rome long ago stopped selling indulgences, but conservatives keep right on selling them. Look, for example, at NY-23. The moment Dede Scozzafava signed ATR’s no new tax pledge, she was absolved of all her sins, including voting for 198 tax increases in the New York legislature.

Therein lies the inherent problem with candidates signing off on well meaning pablum — there are no teeth and the party will not serve as its own enforcer.

While I applaud the desire of conservative RNC members to try to put the train back on the tracks, I am afraid this will do what the ATR pledge did in Scozzafava’s case — give a lot of candidates cover to pretend to be conservative. People are naturally inclined to short circuit educational processes. People will look at this list to see if a candidate signed off on the issues. If the candidate did, well by God they must be conservative — never mind their voting record or prior statements. After all, only a week before Scozzafava signed the ATR pledge she was bashing Hoffman for having signed it. Never mind though, all was forgiven once Scozzafava signed it too.

Conservatives in the RNC, however well meaning they may be, risk giving liberal candidates easy opportunities to get conservative endorsements simply by checking the box without ever meaning it.

Compare this to the Contract With America in 1994. That document had ten items that were substantive policy positions heavily poll tested and vetted to make sure something like 70% of the American public agreed with each one. Each statement was popular and therefore did not put candidates in awkward positions with voters, as some of the presently suggested issues do. And while there was no enforcement mechanism there either, there did not have to be — every issue was poll tested, mother approved, and voter supported.

Not so with this. And because this, unlike the Contract With America, might affect funding and seals of approval in the primary process, this becomes far more troublesome.

Put more simply, Philip Klein says this:

Practically, many of the principles are too subjective. For instance, one principle is "Legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants" ... How would [this] be judged? Even most Democrats would say they oppose amnesty, but the devil is in the details. Some people would say that making illegal immigrants legal is not amnesty if there are enough fines and hoops to jump through to become legalized, while others believe that anything short of deportation is amnesty.
But beyond the practical aspect, this sort of thing is exactly the wrong message for conservatives to send to possible candidates. Candidates who merely regurgitate a set of pre-selected ideas to conform with the diktats of the national party will not do anything to advance conservatism. What conservatism needs is more thoughtful candidates who have a grounding in policy, are competent, have genuine accomplishments, and are able to persuade undecided voters that conservative ideas are superior. The RNC doesn't need to support more trained seals who can talk a big game to conservative audiences and check all the right boxes, without having the ability to deliver the goods even if they managed to get elected.

I'm with these guys. While the heart of this idea is in the right place, this is a counterproductive idea. We need real results, not just big talk about real results.

There's my two cents.

For The Record...

2009-11-25T17:13:00.000-06:00

Quin Hillyer talks about that rare breed of Muslims that is actually on our side, and proves it. Since he and I seem to be in the same camp about the subject, I'll just post his thoughts and call it good:

We all are familiar with Islamic groups (prominent ones of which shall remain nameless) that only pretend to be dedicated to constructive action in these United states, and of course it is no mere coincidence that the terms "jihadist" and "terrorist" are virtually synonymous, with millions of Muslims worldwide in the thrall of virulently and often violently anti-Western, anti-Christian, doctrines that actually celebrate the wanton murder of those they see as infidels. We all know that the existence of that strain of Islam is an incontrovertible fact. Meanwhile, as an avid supporter of the state of Israel, I myself am not in the least bit sympathetic to those peoples, mostly Islamic, who refuse to accept Israel's right to exist and who rain rockets and terror onto Israeli lands and people.

For the second time in the past month, though, I am moved to remind people that not all Muslims feel and act this way. Some, like Salam al-Maryati of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, who was one of about nine people on a visit to Guantanamo that I made in 2007, are patriotic Americans. Salam had an excellent essay the other day at the Huffington Post. I don't agree with every word or every sentiment, certainly, but the overall tone is admirable, obviously heartfelt, and constructive. Do read it. Here's an excerpt:

"America is our home, and it is our country to defend. It is in our hands to define who we are....Unless we clearly define who we are to the rest of America, the pre-existing vacuum will be filled with the only image available to the public: a Muslim American member of the U.S. military gunning down other soldiers on American soil...The loss was our loss. Those Americans who were killed at Fort Hood dedicated their lives to defend our democracy." And this: "We have only one option available to deal with ideologically motivated violence: the Islamic theology of life must overcome the cult of death."

Voices like Salam's need to be heard more loudly and more regularly. They are welcomed, and should be made to feel welcome. And they surely are far more numerous than we ordinarily may recognize. Whatever political differences we may (or may not) have with Salam, we should tip our hat to him for such an essay. May peace be with us all.

Obama Takes Action On Afghanistan

2009-11-25T14:57:00.001-06:00

Actually, he plays some more golf. But he's going to decide on Afghanistan next week.

Barack Obama has now played more golf than George W. Bush did in two terms as president.

But he's still dithering on whether or not to support the US troops in Afghanistan.
The Wall Street Journal reported:
Barack Obama has now played 25 rounds of golf, a sport he picked up about a decade ago when he was an Illinois state senator. That's more golf than former President George W. Bush played in two terms, according to CBS White House correspondent Mark Knoller, who tracks presidential trivia.
It's been over 3 months since the top general in Afghanistan requested more troops.
Obama has still not made his decision on whether to support the US soldiers and marines in Afghanistan.
Late last night Obama and the White House Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag sat down with other officials to debate the Afghanistan/Pakistan policy going forward. The administration is suddenly concerned about the cost of the war. This is something new for a White House that just tripled the US national deficit last year and is planning on adding to that with a nationalized health care plan.

Must be more of that good judgment he promised us.

There's my two cents.

I'm Meltiiiiiiiinnnnngggg....!

2009-11-25T13:09:00.000-06:00

Rasmussen:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -15. This is the lowest Approval Index rating yet measured for President Obama.

Overall, 45% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That matches the lowest level of total approval yet measured for this president.

That's bad enough, but look at the 'passion' comparison:

Fifty-two percent (52%) of Democrats Strongly Approve while 68% of Republicans Strongly Disapprove. Among those not affiliated with either major political party, just 16% Strongly Approve and 51% Strongly Disapprove.

Remember, it's the passion that wins elections. When you only pull the strong approval of slightly more than half of your own party, you suck. Obama truly is taking a risk of becoming a lame duck halfway through his first time in office.

On a related note, more and more Americans are saying they've had enough economic 'help' from the government:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 53% of voters worry that the federal government will do too much when it comes to reacting to the nation's financial problems. This marks a five-point increase from last month and is seven points higher than the week after President Obama took office.

That's probably because more people are seeing the government screws up everything it does! Speaking of which, isn't it great to see how wonderfully in touch with The People our government is?

Some in the Obama administration and Congress are already talking about the need for a second economic stimulus plan in the face of rising unemployment even as 51% of voters say more jobs would be created if the remaining spending planned in the first economic stimulus plan was cancelled right away.

Here are some other interesting tidbits:

Voters continues to say that President Obama's top budget priority shold be cutting the federal deficit in half by the end of his first term in office. But they see it as the goal the president is least likely to achieve.
Even as Senate Democrats move forward with a health care reform plan, 68% of voters say passage of the legislation is likely to create larger deficits.

A one-term presidency is looking more and more likely. The question remains whether or not we'll be able to recover from that one term.

But it's not just limited to Obama:

Republican candidates have extended their lead over Democrats to seven points, their biggest lead since early September, in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 44% would vote for their district's Republican congressional candidate while 37% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.
...
Voters not affiliated with either party continue to heavily favor Republicans, 44% to 20%.

24 points?! I guess people are over the hope-n-change, huh?

There's my two cents.

Year	Receipts	Outlays	Surplus/ (Deficit)
1907	666	572	87
1912	693	690	3
Source: The Budget for Fiscal Year 2009, Historical Tables, p. 21