Matthews and Olbermann Now Openly Fighting Over Obama

Matthews and Olbermann Now Openly Fighting Over Obama
Ann Coulter
Wednesday, February 03, 2010

In a "Special Report" on the president's question-and-answer session with Republicans last Friday, MSNBC's jock-sniffers Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow produced a museum-quality show:

MATTHEWS: Everybody agrees he could handle everything today. ...

OLBERMANN: It almost felt like watching the stories of John L. Sullivan, the 19th-century boxer, who would volunteer to fight anybody and everybody in the house and knock them all out. ...

MADDOW (imagining Obama thinking): You've brought a pet issue here, congressman, who is the ranking member of the Budget Committee, let me tell you 400,000 things about it, and invite you to continue the discussion with me later.

MATTHEWS: (T)oday showed me that we do produce probably the best candidate and best president we can in this system you can imagine in the world. ...

OLBERMANN: They had 140 players on the field and the other team had one guy and they lost to him. ...

MATTHEWS: You were so unbelievably hot, Mr. President! You blew away the other team!

OBAMA: Beat it.

MATTHEWS: OK, I'll go stand in my locker now.

Unlike the jock-sniffers, normal people watching the president's tete-a-tete with the Republicans only wondered why Obama always responds to imaginary arguments no one made, rather than the questions actually being asked.

That is Obama's signature move: Invent "people" who are "saying" ridiculous things and then encourage the audience to laugh at these made-up buffoons.

Since Obama's reformulations of Republican arguments are always absurd, no further response from him is necessary -- and none is ever forthcoming.

Thus, for example, Obama's description of Republican criticism of his plan to nationalize health care was that "this thing was some Bolshevik plot."

No. No one said it was a "plot," Bolshevik or otherwise.

Republicans' objection to national health care could be more accurately portrayed as follows: Obama's plan to nationalize health care was a terrible idea because it would turn over one-sixth of the American economy to Washington bureaucrats, who would run the system as competently as the federal government runs everything else, from airport security to the post office to FEMA.

How about responding to that argument? (And as long as Obama brought it up, can he explain which part of national health care the Bolsheviks would have objected to most strongly?)

This isn't how adults conduct serious political debates; it's how children argue with their parents. Don't have a cow! Liberals hide conservative arguments from the public like teenagers hide contraband from mother under the bed.

Repeatedly positing imaginary attacks by Republicans accusing him of a "plot," Obama said that "the way these issues are being presented by the Republicans is that this is some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government in every aspect of our lives."

Again, not a "plot" and certainly not "wild-eyed." The only person accusing anyone of "plotting" here is Obama accusing the GOP of plotting against him. I guess they don't teach irony at Harvard Law School.

If Obama is going to keep imagining others accusing him of "plots," could he provide just one example?

Republicans also did not accuse Obama of trying to "impose huge government in every aspect of our lives." Just the part of it that determines how long we get to live.

Continuing his fantasy battle with imaginary opponents, Obama said, "What you've been telling your constituents is, this guy is doing all kinds of crazy stuff that's going to destroy America."

I gather Obama is incapable of responding to his opponents' actual argument, which is that he is proposing all sorts of things that would be very bad for America.

Since he pleads innocence only on the claim that he is doing "crazy stuff that's going to destroy America" -- an argument no one made -- apparently he's guilty as charged on the claim that he's merely doing very bad things to America.

Adopting the pose of limpid nonpartisanship, Obama repeatedly accused Republicans of horrible things using his peculiar straw-man technique.

He told Republicans he was "absolutely committed" to working with them, "but it can't just be political assertions that aren't substantiated."

Can Obama please name a single "unsubstantiated" political assertion by a Republican before wasting everyone's time by instructing Republicans to stop making them?

I can name a few from Obama!

How about the whopper he told about national health care not covering illegal aliens? Or the one about it not covering abortions?

Weeks after Obama made those unsubstantiated political assertions before a joint session of Congress, Democrats were in death-match battles with Republicans (and some moderate Democrats) who tried to exclude coverage for illegals and abortion from the very bills Obama said never contained such coverage in the first place.

How about Obama's claim in his State of the Union address last week that a recent Supreme Court ruling would allow "foreign corporations to spend without limit in our elections"?

In the case Obama mentioned, the court overruled section 441a of the campaign-finance law, which had banned all corporate spending on elections. The case did not concern, nor did the court address, section 441e, which prohibits foreign corporations from making any "contribution or donation of money or other thing of value ... in connection with a Federal, State or local election."

History will record that these remarks from his State of the Union address were the only case legendary barrister Barack Obama ever argued before the Supreme Court. And he lost.

Even when presented with a short, straightforward, simply stated question by Rep. Mike Pence, Obama couldn't help but to formulate a different question.

Pence asked: "Mr. President, will you consider supporting across-the-board tax relief, as President Kennedy did?"

The question Obama wanted Pence to ask was: Mr. President, will you join Republicans in cutting taxes of billionaires?

Luckily, Obama's reformulation gave him an opening for a killer answer: "What you may consider across-the-board tax cuts could be, for example, greater tax cuts for people who are making a billion dollars. I may not agree to a tax cut for Warren Buffett."

Republicans should take that answer and run like a thief in the night! OK, let's cut taxes on everyone except billionaires. I'd even support a specific tax expressly on Warren Buffett. Now, son, how much will you give us for these magic beans?

If only Republicans could maneuver Obama into answering a question on abortion, we could probably get him to agree to ban all abortions --- except in the case of teenage girls who have been raped by their fathers. (This is how I assume Obama would rephrase the question.)

No conservative argues like this. To the contrary, we're morose that Nexis archives are not more complete, so we can't quote liberals directly more often.
________________________________________________

To read another Ann Coulter article, click here.

God and Man at the National Prayer Breakfast

God and Man at the National Prayer Breakfast
Dr. Paul Kengor
Friday, February 05, 2010

President Obama spoke yesterday at the National Prayer Breakfast. I’ve long studied the sitting president’s remarks at these breakfasts, particularly President George W. Bush, President Bill Clinton, and President Ronald Reagan. I note this to hopefully lend a little credibility in putting my observations into historical context, while also not avoiding the current political climate—as Obama certainly did not.

This is an ecumenical gathering, and Obama was precisely that, warmly acknowledging the different faiths assembled. On the other hand, Obama was so ecumenical that he never once mentioned “Jesus” or “Christ” or called himself a follower of Jesus Christ or a Christian. It wasn’t as if the president was pinched for text; this was a 2,000-word oration, with numerous figures mentioned.

The most common figure in this speech was Barack Obama. In a 17-minute address, one that included the word “humility,” Obama referred to himself 30 times. He thereby continued the brisk pace of at least one self-reference per minute on rapid display in his lengthy State of the Union address the previous week.

On the plus side, the president several times referred to “God,” including “God’s grace,” “God’s mercy,” and the phrase “for the grace of God go I.” He also used the word “Christian” once—in reference to the truly God-sent abolitionist Wilberforce. This section was excellent. Obama stated: “Remember William Wilberforce, whose Christian faith led him to seek slavery's abolition in Britain.”

Here was a poignant reminder by Obama, one the angry secular left—which voted for Obama stronger than almost any group (see “I’m Pagan and I Vote”)—needs to hear repeatedly, as it blames Christianity for every sin under the sun over the last 1,000 years. For Obama to highlight the indispensable role of Christians in ending slavery is a splendid rejoinder to the “God-Is-Not-Great” crowd. Bravo, Mr. President.

Unfortunately, where Obama went next in the speech troubles me somewhat. He spoke of “crimes of conscience that call us to action.” No doubt, my bias studying Bush and Reagan reflexively leads me to expect moving words to follow on the sanctity and dignity of human life. That was my inclination when I heard President Obama speak of “common humanity,” “denied … humanity,” and “life’s most sacred responsibility.” In this speech, however, the “right to life,” or the essentially dignity of all life, was not mentioned.

Of course, this is not a surprise. President Obama did likewise in his Inaugural, heralding “liberty and equality” but not “life and liberty”—words akin to the French Revolution’s Declaration of the Rights of Man but not the American Revolution’s Declaration of Independence (see “Viva La Revolucion”).

Instead, Obama headed to the theme of his address. The progressive president, immediately after underscoring “crimes of conscience,” spoke of “progress” three consecutive times; indeed, “progress” or “progressive” appeared five times in this speech. (Click here for our upcoming conference on progressives.) That’s fitting, given that it’s Obama’s progressive agenda that is defining his presidency and has drawn the lines of distinction between him and his opponents, and has naturally fueled the political-ideological division enflaming the current landscape. Such divisions understandably arise when one charts a sharp new course, an unmistakable agenda of “change.”

Yet, instead of accepting the differences, Obama went back to a tried-and-true political tactic he has used artfully. He repeatedly preached an end to “division” (three times), the need to find “common ground” (twice)—a brilliant tactic he has employed with Religious Left progressives, including those breathtakingly naïve Catholics at Notre Dame who invited him to speak—and urged “civility” (eight times).

President Obama has employed this rhetoric incessantly while (in practice) never veering from a hard-left agenda. This means that common ground can be found only if the other side comes to his side. It’s a common ground that occupies only one side of the fence.

And yet, Obama said much more. He denounced the practice of demonizing opponents. This raised a few eyebrows. Consider:

Barack Obama is an ardent disciple of Saul Alinsky, his fellow Chicagoan and the father of community organizing. He learned and honed the craft from Alinsky’s own manuals, which Obama studied and taught. Among Alinsky’s core tenets in his landmark Rules for Radicals—a book Alinsky literally dedicated to Lucifer (no kidding)— is to isolate the target at hand and “demonize” it. In Obama’s first year as president, the target assumed various forms, from institutions and industries, to banks and health-insurance companies, to the recurrent demon: the Bush administration.

In this speech, however, Obama offered the faithful an olive branch—at least in rhetoric—when he closed: “progress doesn't come when we demonize opponents….. Progress comes when we open our hearts, when we extend our hands, when we recognize our common humanity. Progress comes when we look into the eyes of another and see the face of God. That we might do so—that we will do so all the time, not just some of the time—is my fervent prayer for our nation and the world.”

Amen. I hope the president will lead that charge. That would be a refreshing change.

The Super-Sized Census Boondoggle

The Super-Sized Census Boondoggle
Michelle Malkin
Friday, February 05, 2010

If only the federal government were as responsible with our money as Pepsi is with theirs. The soda giant has been in the Super Bowl ad business for more than two decades. But this year, Pepsi determined it was economically unwise to pay $3 million for a 30-second spot. So, who's foolish enough to pay for Super Bowl gold-plated airtime? You and me and Washington, D.C.

The U.S. Census Bureau will squander $2.5 million on a half-minute Super Bowl ad starring D-list celebrity Ed Begley Jr., plus two pre-game blurbs and 12-second "vignettes" featuring Super Bowl anchor James Brown. It's a drop in the census boondoggle bucket (otherwise known as the tax-subsidized National Democratic Future Voter Outreach Drive).

The Obama White House has allocated a total of $340 million toward an "unprecedented" promotional blitz for the 2010 census. That's on top of $1 billion in stimulus money siphoned off for increased census "public outreach" and staffing. In all, the census will triple its total 2000 budget to $15 billion.

Ads pimping the census have already appeared during the Golden Globe awards and will broadcast during the Daytona 500 and NCAA Final Four championships. Some $80 million will be poured into multilingual ads in 28 languages from Arabic to Yiddish. Racial and ethnic groups have been squabbling over their share of the pie.

The U.S. census is a decennial census mandated by our Constitution. Should Americans know about it? Sure. Should the P.R. budget become a bottomless slush fund in recessionary times? Surely not.

Yet, no matter how you translate it, the census commercials to date have been an "Ishtar"-style flop. Global ad agency Draftfcb, based in (Obama's hometown) Chicago and New York, nabbed a $200 million four-year contract to oversee the Census Bureau's direct marketing, online and offline general market media strategies. The agency hired comedian Christopher Guest to direct "viral" spots. One of the supposedly "humor-driven" videos directed by Guest and commissioned by Draftfcb was uploaded to YouTube a few weeks ago. It has racked up a measly 6,880 views.

"For a once-a-decade project involving every living American, that's a pretty crummy return on investment," jeered AdFreak's David Griner. "The video seems to be hampered by the same problem that plagues all campaigns meant to 'go viral' -- i.e., it's simply not that funny. … The joke is a chuckler at best, and dragged out to three minutes, that chuckle gets spread pretty thin." According to independent census watchdog Stephen Morse, the feds conducted a total of 115 focus groups in 37 markets across the country before settling on the dud of an ad.

That's a lot of focus-grouping to get people to pay a little extra attention to government headcount questionnaires that will be coming straight to their mailboxes.

Taxpayers are also footing the bill for the Mother of all Government Junkets -- a three-month road trip by lucky-ducky Census Bureau flacks traveling in 13 buses and cargo vans with trailers. They'll be partying in New Orleans for Mardi Gras and at parades across the country. In case you were wondering about the anticipated Census Road Show carbon footprint, it's an estimated 223 metric tons.

But not to worry: The eco-teers of an Al Gore-endorsed carbon offset firm called "Carbonfund.org" have become official government "partners" with the Census to offset all the vehicle emissions -- and surf off the free publicity to garner more business.

As if overpriced TV ads, online videos no one watches and indulgent, cross-country caravans weren't enough, the Census Bureau is also enlisting 56 million schoolchildren to pester their parents and act as junior government enumerators. Educrats are spending several billions more on math and social studies lessons peddling the census. Overzealous census partners such as the National Association of Latino Elected Officials have distributed recruitment propaganda urging constituents to participate because "Joseph and Mary participated in the census." Goodness knows what kind of fear-mongering curricula the kids are being served in the name of counting heads -- and shaping the electoral landscape.

"When times are tough, you tighten your belts," President Obama lectured us. "You don't blow a bunch of cash in Vegas." Coincidentally, the Census Road Tour junketeers just wrapped up a visit in Vegas. Next stop? You guessed it: the Super Bowl in Miami. Taxpayers should start crying foul.
________________________________________________

To read another article by Michelle Malkin, click here.

Military Lab Rats

Military Lab Rats
Oliver North
Friday, February 05, 2010

WASHINGTON -- No nation ever has had a better military than today's all-volunteer U.S. armed forces. Though I wouldn't trade anything for the young Americans I served with in Vietnam -- or afterward -- those presently wearing America's uniforms are the brightest, best-educated, best-trained and most combat-experienced military the world ever has seen. Now, in the midst of an unprecedented ninth year of war and nonstop high-stress deployments, their commander in chief intends to put the capabilities of this extraordinary force and our nation's security at risk to carry out a radical social experiment.

During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama frequently promised he would reverse the U.S. military's long-standing policy prohibiting homosexuals from serving in our military. Last October, at a Human Rights Campaign dinner, he said: "I'm working with the Pentagon, its leadership and the members of the House and Senate on ending this policy. ... I will end 'don't ask, don't tell.' That's my commitment to you."

Last week, tucked into the closing paragraphs of his State of the Union address, the president said, "This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are." Set aside the disingenuous rhetoric. (It's not about "who they are"; it's really about "what they do.") We now know the "repeal" process is already well under way.

This week, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and an advocate of ending what he calls "this discriminatory policy," convened a remarkable hearing to determine the "next steps" in "meeting the president's commitment."

Testimony by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, revealed the Department of Defense isn't going to evaluate whether repealing Section 654 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code -- the 1993 statute that bars active homosexuals from the military -- is a good idea. Instead, the Pentagon already is working to undermine the law and allow practicing homosexuals to enter and remain in our military.

According to Gates, "The question before us is not whether the military prepares to make this change, but how we best prepare for it." He announced a yearlong study on how to implement a repeal of the law and baldly asserted that "we have a degree of latitude within the existing law to change our internal procedures in a manner that is more appropriate and fair to our men and women in uniform." In other words, in the Obama administration, enforcing the current law, which overwhelmingly was enacted 17 years ago, no longer matters.

Gates now acknowledges in the midst of war that he is implementing a policy of "selective enforcement" to disregard a law that clearly states that "the presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." So much for our national security.

Though Mullen expressed his "personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do," he conceded he does not "know for a fact how we would best make such a major policy change in a time of two wars." The Joint Chiefs chairman also made this curious observation: "We have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens." How that can be the case in a "don't ask, don't tell" era seems to have eluded the good senators.

Unasked and unanswered are these "where do we go from here?" questions the senators should have posed: If Congress changes the law and allows overtly practicing homosexuals in the ranks, should NAMBLA members be allowed to serve? Will those who advocate abolishing "age of consent" laws be allowed to don uniforms? Will the military have to acknowledge same-sex marriages? If so, will military chaplains be required to perform such rituals? Will same-sex couples be entitled to military housing? Will these couples be allowed to serve in the same unit or aboard the same ship?

Supposedly, those issues and many more will be resolved over the next 10 months in a "working group" headed by Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson and Gen. Carter Ham, commander of U.S. Army forces in Europe. Allegedly, they will consider ways to ameliorate the effects of this inane decision on readiness, recruitment and retention in the world's finest military. Then, in 2011, Congress will vote on whether to repeal a law the O-Team is willfully ignoring anyway.

Congress should not wait to decide this issue and become party to potentially irreparable damage to our military. Congress controls the purse strings of the Pentagon. Both houses should go on record now so "We the People" know who favors treating America's soldiers, sailors, airmen, guardsmen and Marines like lab rats in Mr. Obama's radical social experiment.

President Say Anything Does So, Again and Again

President Say Anything Does So, Again and Again
Hugh Hewitt
Friday, February 05, 2010

"I have seen more of President Obama than I have of my wife," said the caller from Atlanta. "And I'm a newlywed."

Funny. And true. And sad. Stung by his defeat in Massachusetts after a personal appearance on behalf of Martha Coakley and a long speech telling Massachusetts voters why they had to send her to Washington, President Obama seems intent on punishing the entire nation with speech after speech after speech.

We are to be cajoled into submission.

It isn’t working. “He talks and talks,” Mark Steyn said on my show Thursday. “And the more his rhetoric is detached from reality, the more he’s actually devaluing his only currency which is words.”

President Obama’s meeting with Senate Democrats on Wednesday is the perfect example of the political cul-de-sac he finds himself in. He is trying to use words to change the political weather, but the more he speaks, the more ridiculous his arguments appear.

He told the senators that "they needed to get out there, get out of Washington, out of the echo chamber." This is laughable when this past August is recalled. Democrats went home to their states and districts and found town halls jammed with Obamacare opponents. Then the president urged them to disregard the voters. They did so, and their political peril is palpable. Now the president is telling them to hold more town halls.

That’s not amazing as the president’s rewrite of budget history, which somehow ignores that the budget deficit was $161 billion in 2007 and now stands at $1.6 trillion, a staggering number that is spooking markets. “We’ve also got to get back to fiscal responsibility,” the president told the senators, and the listeners outside the room howled. Not only is the president not persuading the public of his ideas or his leadership skills, he is shrinking before their very eyes. It is a poor impersonation of Jon Lovitz, with the president thinking “that’s the ticket!” with every paragraph he utters.

President Obama does seem to realize that blaming President Bush, which was never very Presidential to begin with, has become almost a sign of adolescence. The new president is thus pivoting from blaming his predecessor to blaming the Congressional GOP. The president told the senators that they had had to face more filibusters in a single year than all of the filibusters of the 1950s and 1960s combined, and blamed the Republicans for obstructionism. Of course this is nonsense. Not a single successful partisan filibuster was mounted in 2009, which is not surprising because after Arlen Specter’s switch, the GOP totaled 40 votes. A handful of Obama nominees languished because significant numbers of Democrats joined Republicans in opposing them, but the idea that obstructionism prevailed throughout 2009 is risible, and a president who claims 60 votes is just not enough is risible as well.

The entire meeting was comedy though it was intended as drama, and the president left thinking he’d had another great day, just as he thinks he won his debate with Republicans the Friday before.

While the president pats himself on the back, however, the unemployment numbers climbed, the budget deficit shocked, the markets tanked and Iran threatened. President Obama is in a bubble of words and surrounded by “advisors” who are clearly overmatched by the world. Even Republicans have to hope a shuffle is ahead for the senior staff, and that some experienced leadership is brought to 1600. The country is in a difficult place, and unlike a debate tournament, losing a few rounds has enormous consequences.

We have to hope that the president recognizes that his speech offensive has become offensive, and that what really needs to be done is some work. Beginning with a red pen and his absurd budget. When he asks his party to do anything remotely difficult --and that does not include demanding ruinous taxes on the small businesses they so obviously disdain and in some cases despise-- people may begin to listen again.

Or perhaps not. President Obama may already be in reruns in most voters minds, which makes for a long three years ahead.

The Great Peasant Revolt of 2010

The Great Peasant Revolt of 2010
Charles Krauthammer
Friday, February 05, 2010

WASHINGTON -- "I am not an ideologue," protested President Obama at a gathering with Republican House members last week. Perhaps, but he does have a tenacious commitment to a set of political convictions.

Compare his 2010 State of the Union to his first address to Congress a year earlier. The consistency is remarkable. In 2009, after passing a $787 billion (now $862 billion) stimulus package, the largest spending bill in galactic history, he unveiled a manifesto for fundamentally restructuring the commanding heights of American society -- health care, education and energy.

A year later, after stunning Democratic setbacks in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts, Obama gave a stay-the-course State of the Union address (a) pledging not to walk away from health care reform, (b) seeking to turn college education increasingly into a federal entitlement, and (c) asking again for cap-and-trade energy legislation. Plus, of course, another stimulus package, this time renamed a "jobs bill."

This being a democracy, don't the Democrats see that clinging to this agenda will march them over a cliff? Don't they understand Massachusetts?

Well, they understand it through a prism of two cherished axioms: (1) The people are stupid and (2) Republicans are bad. Result? The dim, led by the malicious, vote incorrectly.

Liberal expressions of disdain for the intelligence and emotional maturity of the electorate have been, post-Massachusetts, remarkably unguarded. New York Times columnist Charles Blow chided Obama for not understanding the necessity of speaking "in the plain words of plain folks," because the people are "suspicious of complexity." Counseled Blow: "The next time he gives a speech, someone should tap him on the ankle and say, 'Mr. President, we're down here.'"

A Time magazine blogger was even more blunt about the ankle-dwelling mob, explaining that we are "a nation of dodos" that is "too dumb to thrive."

Obama joined the parade in the State of the Union address when, with supercilious modesty, he chided himself "for not explaining it (health care) more clearly to the American people." The subject, he noted, was "complex." The subject, it might also be noted, was one to which the master of complexity had devoted 29 speeches. Perhaps he did not speak slowly enough.

Then there are the emotional deficiencies of the masses. Nearly every Democratic apologist lamented the people's anger and anxiety, a free-floating agitation that prevented them from appreciating the beneficence of the social agenda the Democrats are so determined to foist upon them.

That brings us to Part 2 of the liberal conceit: Liberals act in the public interest, while conservatives think only of power, elections, self-aggrandizement and self-interest.

It is an old liberal theme that conservative ideas, being red in tooth and claw, cannot possibly emerge from any notion of the public good. A 2002 New York Times obituary for philosopher Robert Nozick explained that the strongly libertarian implications of Nozick's masterwork, "Anarchy, State, and Utopia," "proved comforting to the right, which was grateful for what it embraced as philosophical justification." The right, you see, is grateful when a bright intellectual can graft some philosophical rationalization onto its thoroughly base and self-regarding politics.

This belief in the moral hollowness of conservatism animates the current liberal mantra that Republican opposition to Obama's social democratic agenda -- which couldn't get through even a Democratic Congress and powered major Democratic losses in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts -- is nothing but blind and cynical obstructionism.

By contrast, Democratic opposition to George W. Bush -- from Iraq to Social Security reform -- constituted (BEG ITAL)dissent(END ITAL). And dissent, we were told at the time, including by candidate Obama, is "one of the truest expressions of patriotism."

No more. Today, dissent from the governing orthodoxy is nihilistic malice. "They made a decision," explained David Axelrod, "they were going to sit it out and hope that we failed, that the country failed" -- a perfect expression of liberals' conviction that their aspirations are necessarily the country's, that their idea of the public good is the public's, that their failure is therefore the nation's.

Then comes Massachusetts, an election Obama himself helped nationalize, to shatter this most self-congratulatory of illusions.

For liberals, the observation that "the peasants are revolting" is a pun. For conservatives, it is cause for uncharacteristic optimism. No matter how far the ideological pendulum swings in the short term, in the end the bedrock common sense of the American people will prevail.

The ankle-dwelling populace pushes back. It re-centers. It renormalizes. Even in Massachusetts.

I Am Not an Ideologue

I Am Not an Ideologue
Dan Kennedy
Thursday, February 04, 2010

The President went to the House Republicans’ conference and proclaimed: “I am not an ideologue.”

Just like Richard Nixon: “I am not a crook.” Or Bill Clinton: “I did not have sex with that woman.” Or any number of other politicians’ emphatic pronouncements of what they were not when in fact they were, or were not doing when, of course, they were doing. Those of John Edwards could fill this column every week for the year.

An ideologue is someone who is uncompromising and dogmatic in commitment to a philosophical position. To use terminology once associated with communism, a true believer. Such a person is often dangerous to himself and to those around him, so there’s good reason for Obama to deny he is one. He’s attempting to deny what has already been established as fact; he is dangerous – to all of us, to members of his own political party and to himself.

Whether Obama believes he is an ideologue or not is immaterial. If you like, give him the benefit of the doubt. Assume he’s not lying, just misstating facts in evidence. What interested me about his pronouncement was the paucity of people in the media challenging him on it. After all, when someone finds it necessary to publicly and forcefully deny something, history and experience tell us there’s usually more to it than meets the ear.

The fact obvious to many, but maybe not to the president, is that he is a prisoner of his ideology. It prohibits him from productively interfering with the unemployment crisis, because anything and everything he might do must be compatible with government growth and government spending as solution, rather than getting government out of the way. When he says anyone with better ideas about health care reform should bring them to him, he is either lying or fooling himself, because he can’t consider any ideas incompatible with the premise of more government control and centralized authority. Even if he is sincere, and sincerely deluded, in inviting better ideas, he can’t consider them.

After the message sent by Massachusetts but before the state of the union address, there was considerable speculation in the media about Obama tacking or even pivoting from far left to moderate middle or even right of center, just as Bill Clinton did after having his initial agenda soundly rejected. But such speculation was silly.

The difference between the two Presidents is what Obama is denying. Clinton was not imprisoned by ideology at all. He was a pragmatist. He wanted to be president and, as we know now, to indulge certain appetites. He was very willing to move about as needed and he signed, for example, welfare-to-work reform. Were Obama to suggest such a thing we can safely assume his buddies at Acorn would set themselves on fire. I don’t expect to see anything but lip service from Obama on anything in any way contrary to his stated intent to “fundamentally transform America.” I don’t think his ideology will permit any real movement.

This is, ironically, good news. The prison in which he has placed himself is so small and so confining, he is doomed to atrophy. As members of his own party come to grips with the reality of a presidency doomed to failure and a president destined for humiliation, they will distance themselves as best they can. This has already begun. He will be more and more isolated, more and more alone. The public, already waking up to the untenable costs – economic and human costs - of implementing his ideological agenda, will soon desert him personally as well, leaving him without political capital to spend or influence to wield.

Thanks to the fact that Obama is very much the ideologue he claims not to be, the destruction he might have caused will be less than we feared, and more temporary than we imagined.

Why Does It Even Matter To You?

Why Does It Even Matter To You?
Gay Marriage
2-3-10 Brett Foley

That is the question that I am often asked when discussing this issue, or “how will a gay marriage law hurt you?” There are several reasons I can think of, but this a gathering of my thoughts on this subject.

I believe in the importance of the family unit. To me the family unit starts with a husband and a wife. If and when they decide to have children they will become the father and mother. A child needs both a father and a mother to raise them, teach them, love them, show them right from wrong (instill morals / spirituality) by their examples. A father teaches a son to be a good man, a mother teaches a daughter to be a good woman. Contrary to what feminists would have us believe this is not the same thing – there are major differences between men (fathers) and women (mothers). In gay marriage (with children) the child or children will be denied either a father in a lesbian marriage, or a mother in a homosexual marriage. A mother cannot be replaced with a man and a father cannot be replaced with a woman without there being a huge void of inadequacy. I understand that a similar void happens in heterosexual marriages with divorces, or a death of one spouse, but the child will suffer in all of these examples – why do it on purpose? Our society was much better when intact families were the norm, before divorce became more commonplace, before premarital sex and cohabitation became more and more acceptable. Both of these have led to a dramatic rise in single motherhood and abortions, which have dramatically hurt our society both spiritually and financially. Most of the woes that our society suffers today can be traced quickly back to the breakdown of our intact family units, and the acceptance of gay marriage will just lead to more such breakdowns.

To make gay marriages legal in our society, it will have the effect of legitimizing them as normal behavior, as a possible option for anyone. According to the Bible, living a gay lifestyle that includes sexual relations is a sin. To lead a sinful lifestyle (to sin without repentance) will lead to eternal damnation because the only way to eternal life is to follow Jesus Christ’s teachings and you cannot do this while leading a sinful life. We are all sinners, but to sin on purpose repeatedly shows a high degree of disconnect to a leading a Christian life. There is no compromising the Bible so to legitimize gay marriages always leads to the loss of religious freedom. Churches are often forced by law to sanction or perform gay marriages within their church or be punished with fines or possibly losing tax-exempt status. Churches are not supported by our government or tax-payers so they rely on tithes from their membership. To be taxed while receiving no services or benefits from these taxes is beyond unfair, it is governmental theft. Landlords could be forced to rent to gay couples against their will. Children will be taught in our public schools that gay relationships are an option for them, that they are normal. They will not be taught that its sinful behavior and the more widespread it becomes it (along with abortions) will severely affect the demographics of our country in a negative way, possibly toward eventual extinction. As is always the case in public schools our children will only learn the secular viewpoint and not the spiritual one. More loss of religious freedom will always be the result.

We are often told that gays cannot help being gay, and therefore it is bigoted and discriminatory not to allow them to legally marry. If they cannot help being gay then why are there many examples of people living as heterosexuals for large portion of their lives, and then later becoming gay, sometimes because they were often treated poorly by the opposite sex. If they cannot help it why are there many examples of those who thought they were gay becoming heterosexual? I believe we do have a choice because it is a behavior rather than an identity. The main difference between man and animals are we have more control over our animal instincts and urges. We have both willpower and freewill. It is up to us how much control we have over ourselves. For someone to state that they cannot help being gay is like someone saying they can’t help being a pervert, or an alcoholic, or a sex or pornography addict, or a thief. These can be hard behaviors for some to overcome, but people do overcome them when they have the will to do so. It comes down to that age old question – do you want to be good or do you want to be evil? Which one will you allow to have control of your being? At some point you would think the more bad behaviors that become acceptable by our society the closer we get to the concept of “anything goes” which leads to complete chaos.

Groups who are fighting for gay marriage laws often state that it’s a civil rights issue, comparable to what the blacks fought for in our country especially in the 1960’s. This is absurd simply because none of us have any control over what race we are, but there is no excuse that we can’t control our own behaviors. Gays are not being discriminated against because they are not being denied anything that anyone else is not. They can marry just like heterosexual couples can.

Another question I have been asked on this subject is what would I do if one of my children confessed to me that they are gay? Well - what would Jesus do? Jesus loves us sinners, he loves me and I’m a sinner. I will always love our children unconditionally, but I would be disappointed and I would pray for them to change. I would never disown them. I would simply love the sinner but hate the sin. To disown them would be against Jesus’ teachings, it would be against what I feel in my heart, and it would make our child more defiant and less likely to ever possibly change because I would be setting a bad example for them. I would try to see things from their point of view, not to agree with them, but maybe so I could better understand them.

I have read articles about how some who are involved in the gay marriage legalization movement are not going to stop or be content with just legalized gay marriage. Next will be possibly polygamy or maybe group marriage legalizations. Maybe it would extend to child molestation by adults becoming legal. A perversion is a perversion – it’s just a matter of if and where society chooses to draw the line as to what behaviors are acceptable. Just because something is accepted or commonplace doesn't make it right. Abortions break a serious commandment from God "thou shall not kill", but that doesn't keep it from being accepted by many in our society. I believe that during the end times most people’s morals will be bankrupt enough to the point of “anything goes”.

So these are my thought as to why it does matter to me. Some will disagree and that’s OK – I never claimed to be speaking for you - I am speaking for myself.

________________________________________________________

To read an article about gays in the military - click here

Gay Rights: Don't Ask, Don't Think

Gay Rights: Don't Ask, Don't Think
Frank Turek
Thursday, February 04, 2010

The central argument in favor of same-sex marriage or overturning “Don’t ask don’t tell” contains a fatal flaw. In fact, this is the flaw at the heart of the entire gay rights movement.

Joint Chief Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen dutifully proclaimed the flaw as truth the other day when speaking in favor of ending the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy. He said, "I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens."

Lie about who they are?

Sorry Admiral, but as a former ROTC instructor and legal officer in the United States Navy, I helped deny entrance to potential recruits and prosecuted existing service people for all sorts of behaviors that were incompatible with unit cohesion and military readiness. As you know, the Uniformed Code of Military Justice prohibits numerous behaviors that are not criminal offenses in civilian life (including adultery, fraternization and gambling with a subordinate), yet I never once saw anyone excused for their behavior by claiming that’s who they are.

The military is essential to our survival as a nation. It’s not a social experiment and serving in it is not a right. People have to qualify and then make sacrifices. Military people must subordinate many of their individual rights to advance the national interest. Recruits must agree to give up some of the freedoms that civilians enjoy, including certain sexual freedoms and even the freedom of speech! So even if homosexual behavior is permitted in society, that doesn’t necessarily mean it should be permitted in the military.

Having served, I believe that the military needs as few sexual distractions as possible, be they from men and women serving together in combat or open homosexuality. The job is too difficult and critical to be complicating matters sexually.

More could be said, but I want to zero in on the fatal flaw in most gay-rights causes, and the one the Admiral repeated. It is the failure to distinguish between desires and behavior. Having certain sexual desires—whether you were “born” with them or acquired them sometime in life—does not mean that you are being discriminated against if the law doesn’t allow the behavior you desire.

Take marriage as an example. Despite complaints by homosexual activists, every person in America already has equal marriage rights. We’re all playing by the same rules—we all have the same right to marry any non-related adult of the opposite sex. Those rules do not deny anyone “equal protection of the laws” because the qualifications to enter a marriage apply equally to everyone—every adult person has the same right to marry.

“But what about homosexuals?” you ask. The question would better be stated “what about people with homosexual desires?” Put that way, you can see the flaw. If sexual desires alone are the criteria by which we change our marriage (or military) laws to give people “equal rights,” then why not change them to include polygamy? After all, most men seem born with a desire for many women. How about those who desire their relatives? By the gay rights logic, such people don’t have “equal rights” because our marriage laws have no provision for incest. And bisexuals don’t have “equal rights” because existing marriage laws don’t allow them to marry a man and a woman.

If desires alone guarantee someone special rights, why are there no special rights for pedophiles and gay bashers? The answer is obvious—because desires, even if you were “born” with them, do not justify behavior, do not make anyone a special class, and should have no impact on our laws. (See Born Gay or a Gay Basher: No Excuse.)

Laws encourage good behavior or prevent bad behavior. Desires are irrelevant. We enact all kinds of laws in the country and military that conflict with people’s desires. In fact, that’s why we need them! We wouldn’t need any laws if people always desired to do good, which is why James Madison wrote, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

In other words, there should be no legal class of “gay” or “straight,” just a legal class called “person.” And it doesn’t matter whether persons desire sex with the same or opposite sex, or whether they desire sex with children, parents, or farm animals. What matters is whether the behavior desired is something the country or military should prohibit, permit or promote. Those are the only three choices we have when it comes to making law.

The standard comparisons to race and interracial marriage don’t work either. Sexual behavior is always a choice, race never is. You’ll find many former homosexuals, but you’ll never find a former African American. And your race has no effect on your military readiness, but your sexual behavior often can. Likewise, race is irrelevant to marriage while gender is essential to it. Interracial couples can procreate and nurture the next generation (the overriding societal purpose of marriage), but homosexual couples cannot.

The truth is that our marriage and military laws do not discriminate against persons for “who they are”—they discriminate against the behaviors in which they engage. But so what? That’s what most laws do. For example, the Thirteenth Amendment discriminates against the behavior of some businessmen who might like to improve their profits through slavery, but it does not discriminate against those businessmen as persons. And the First Amendment’s freedom-of-religion protections discriminate against the behavior of some Muslims who want to impose Islamic law on the entire nation, but it does not discriminate against those Muslims as persons. Likewise, our marriage and military laws discriminate against the desired behaviors of homosexuals, polygamists, bigamists, and the incestuous, but they do not discriminate against them as persons.

Now some may object to my comparison of homosexuality to polygamy, incest or pedophilia. I agree that the behaviors are not the same, but the point here is that the logic used to justify homosexuality is the same. “I was born with these desires” could also be used to justify polygamy, incest, pedophilia, and even gay bashing—“Don’t blame me. I just have the anti-gay gene!”

That’s the logic reduced to the absurd. And that’s why people who want to make a case for same-sex marriage or homosexual practice in the military should use different arguments. Claiming you “are” your sexual desires, is a case of don’t ask don’t think.

(If you’d like to think more about this admittedly complicated and sensitive issue, get the compact book from which this article is adapted: Correct, Not Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone.)
____________________________________________________

For more articles on the gay behavior of some people - click here

Poll: Socialism Viewed Positively by 36% of Americans

Poll: Socialism Viewed Positively by 36% of Americans
Friday, February 05, 2010
Posted by: Meredith Jessup at 11:35 AM

According to the latest poll from Gallup, more than one-third of Americans--36%--have a positive image of "socialism," compared to 58% who have a negative images.

Predictably, peoples' views vary by party and ideology: a clear majority of Democrats and self-identified liberals say they have positive views of socialism, compared with a minority of Republicans and conservatives.

So what does this mean? According to Gallup:

"Socialism" is not a completely negative term in today’s America. About a third of Americans respond positively when they hear the term. Some of this reaction may reflect unusual or unclear understandings of what socialism means.

Duh. This is not a surprising conclusion given the fact our schools and mainstream media seem to have their own pop-culture definition of what "socialism" means, ignoring history's lessons of what socialism in practice is really like.

and in related articles...

Friday, February 05, 2010
Re: Punishing the Generous Rich
Posted by: Meredith Jessup at 6:36 PM

As Carol points out below, President Obama and his Democrat friends love to soak the rich, despite the significant ramifications. The wealthiest in America already pay a seriously disproportionate amount of the taxes that benefit the rest of us.

As the state of New Jersey demonstrates, punishing tax policies have other serious consequences:

More than $70 billion in wealth left New Jersey between 2004 and 2008 as affluent residents moved elsewhere, according to a report released Wednesday that marks a swift reversal of fortune for a state once considered the nation’s wealthiest.

“This study makes it crystal clear that New Jersey’s tax policies are resulting in a significant decline in the state’s wealth,” said Dennis Bone, chairman of the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce and president of Verizon New Jersey.

The report was commissioned by the state Chamber of Commerce and the Community Foundation of New Jersey to study the effects of wealth migration on charitable giving after executives noticed more affluent philanthropists were moving away. Wealth includes assets such as real estate, stocks, bonds, 401ks, mutual funds and vehicles.

But economists say there are many other implications for the state’s financial health.

Wealthy residents are a key driver for everything from job creation and consumer spending to the real estate market and the state budget, said Jim Hughes, dean of the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University. In New Jersey, the top 1 percent of taxpayers pay more than 40 percent of the state’s income tax, he said.

“That’s probably why we have these massive income shortfalls in the state budget, especially this year,” he said.

Until the tax structure is improved, he said, “we’ll probably see a continuation of the trend, until there are no more high-wealth individuals left.”

And when all the "rich" have left New Jersey, who will pay the bills? As one commenter on the story quipped, "Last one out of New Jersey, turn off the lights!"
_________________________________________
coming from...

Friday, February 05, 2010
Punishing the Generous Rich
Posted by: Carol Platt Liebau at 3:38 PM

Michael Gerson points out one of the most pernicious parts of President Obama's proposed budget -- reducing the deduction wealthy people may take as a result of supporting a charity.

Dishonestly, the President demagogues the issue, arguing that because the middle class only gets to deduct 15% of its contributions, the wealthy shouldn't get to deduct 35% -- conveniently ignoring the fact that the deductions are in line with the higher tax rates the rich pay.

Worst of all, as Gerson notes, the tax increase on the "wealthy" doesn't penalize those who keep their money for themselves -- it only punishes the most generous among them, those who give away their money to help others.

Given the sky-high and unsustainable deficits Obamanomics has already caused, no doubt the tax increase is nothing more than another Big Government revenue grab. But if wealthy people are penalized for charitable contributions, no doubt there will be fewer donations from private sources . . . which, conveniently, leaves more room for Big Government to occupy the "helping" field.

How convenient for the left.

I could put up many examples of how Obama and his administration are blatant socialists, but see a good one here...

Taxpayers Fund Abortions But Not School Vouchers

Taxpayers Fund Abortions But Not School Vouchers
Dr. Paul Kengor
Tuesday, February 02, 2010

In my last article, a somber remembrance of Roe v. Wade, I called attention to something that shocked readers: I noted that the Obama administration and Democratic Congress “rejected funding for school vouchers for poor children in Washington, DC, but supported funding for abortions for the mothers of those children.”

The contrast is breathtaking, but true. It’s another jolt to traditionally minded voters—especially pro-life Democrats and independents—who voted for “change” on November 4, 2008, and are now absorbing the change they authorized. In this case, the change stands in stark contrast to previous administrations and Congresses that prohibited federal funds to finance abortions in the District of Columbia. It veers well beyond liberals’ assurance that abortion merely be “safe, legal and rare.”

If you didn’t hear about this until now, don’t be surprised. Over 300,000 pro-lifers marched in Washington last month without notice by the mainstream media. So, I’d like to take a moment to explain what happened:

Last summer, in July 2009, the overwhelmingly Democratic House of Representatives narrowly passed (by a vote of 219-208) a bill permitting the D.C. government to use locally raised tax revenues to provide abortions, reversing a long-standing prohibition.

Almost all Republicans voted against the bill. They were joined by some (but not enough) Democrats. Unfortunately, because of how Americans voted on November 4, 2008, the extreme left has such a massive majority in Congress that legislators who think taxpayers shouldn’t pay for abortions couldn’t stop the measure from being passed. Worse, because Americans—who, in recent polls, describe themselves as more pro-life and more conservative than ever—voted for the most radical abortion-rights advocate in the history of the presidency, the bill had full backing from the White House.

And so, the change in favor of abortion funding came via a $768 million D.C. Financial Services Appropriations bill that—here’s the kicker—also included termination of school vouchers for poor children in Washington, D.C., forcing those children out of private schools and back into public schools they fled.

Most Americans didn’t notice any of this, given that the mainstream media that serves as educator-in-chief didn’t dare highlight the story. Two sources that did notice, however, are worth quoting:

One is Rep. Joe Pitts, the Pennsylvania congressman who is a stalwart champion for the unborn. Pitts told me: “It’s shameful that Congress has decided to use taxpayer dollars to fund the destruction of life in our nation’s capital but has denied funding for a successful scholarship program that allows poor children a chance at a decent education. The juxtaposition in policies could not be more disturbing.”

More disturbed than Pitts was Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, who was fit to be tied: “Following the lead of President Barack Obama,” said Donohue, “the House of Representatives passed a bill that would allow the District of Columbia to fund abortions. Also following Obama’s wishes, the same bill affirmed the … congressional decision to end school vouchers there.”

“Here’s what it comes down to,” summed up Donohue. Poor pregnant women living in Washington, D.C. “will be told that if they decide to abort their baby, the government will pay for it. But if they persist in bringing their baby to term, the government will not help them to avoid the same lousy public schools that Barack and Michelle shunned for Sasha and Malia.” Donohue denounced the action as “cruel.”

No doubt, it’s an outrage. Of course, it’s also predictable. By and large, liberals oppose school vouchers but support legalized abortion. In that sense, this is nothing new.

What is new, however, is this sudden aggressive push by today’s “progressives” for taxpayers to fund abortions. This is the culmination of a progressive death march begun a century ago by Planned Parenthood founder and racial eugenicist Margaret Sanger, who preached extraction of “human weeds” from the gene pool in order to advance “race improvement” (her words). Today’s progressive heirs have taken Sanger’s torch and lit up the barn.

And thus, we now have—in no less than the nation’s capital—a poster-child for that grim progressive worldview. It’s a child who doesn’t get aid to go to a private school—even as his mother pays school taxes—but whose mother gets aid to abort the child’s sibling.

We’re not only losing our conscience as a nation; we’re losing our mind.

I know the response I’ll get from Democrats: furious emails, enraged at me. That’s sad. I’m simply reporting what happened. I didn’t vote for any of this. I plead with them: If you’re angry, write to the people in your party who are responsible. Only you can stop this madness. Clean your own house.

Seven Huge Flaws in the Way Liberals Think

Seven Huge Flaws in the Way Liberals Think
John Hawkins
Tuesday, February 02, 2010

1) Liberals believe they can change human nature. Sure, human beings can be shaped and molded to a certain extent. Any parent who has spanked a child can tell you that. However, most people care more about what they're having for lunch today than an earthquake that kills ten thousand people on the other side of the world. We're just built that way and no amount of sensitivity training, preschool classes, or Michael Moore documentaries is going to "fix" it.

2) Liberals believe we can talk everything out with our enemies. One of the weirder quirks of liberalism is their belief that many of our bitterest enemies have rational reasons for disliking us and that can easily be talked away if they realize we're good people. Hence, the common liberal refrain of, "Why do they hate us?" The reason this is a particularly odd belief is that liberals don't even believe this about conservatives in the United States. The average liberal thinks that if we're nice enough, we can reach an understanding with Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck can't be reasoned with.

3) Liberals don't have enough respect for our culture and traditions: To liberals, our cultural, economic, and political norms were formed by backwards troglodytes making arbitrary decisions based on superstition and racism. Unfortunately for them, as a general rule, that's not so and proceeding as if it is, will often lead to exactly the same difficulties that our ancestors already dealt with in times past. No matter how smart we are, as Thomas Sowell would say, our wisdom is often no match for the "distilled experience of millions who faced similar human vicissitudes before." Truly wise people are aware that there is a great deal that they do not know.

4) Liberalism is a fundamentally immoral political philosophy. Ironically, given all their talk about "shades of gray," liberals have a very Manichean view of the world. They consider their fellow travelers to be on the side of the angels, while the people who disagree with them are treated as evil. This leads to an "anything goes" mentality when dealing with their foes: ignoring the law via a "living constitution," politically based prosecutions, shouting down opposing speakers, and treating lying about their agenda or opponents to be moral. On the other hand, liberals will support other libs, no matter how corrupt, sleazy, or vile they are as long as they're politically useful to the left. See Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, John Murtha, and Robert Byrd for examples of that. In other words, as Margaret Thatcher has said of the Left, "For them, the end always seems to justify the means."

5) Liberals believe merely being liberal makes them good people. Liberals who're obsessed with money think they're compassionate because they give away other people's tax dollars. They believe they care more about the earth than other people, even as they fly around in private jets, because they babble on about global warming. They can be dumb as a rock, but believe they're smarter than most other people because they're liberals. In other words, in the minds of most liberals, liberalism is an all-purpose substitute for actual virtue instead of just another political philosophy.

6) Liberals have too much faith in government. Even most liberals would admit that government regularly fails the people. If you don't believe that, just ask them about the Bush Administration and they'll give you an earful. However, liberals tend to believe that with the right person in charge, government won't be so slow, stupid, inefficient, and badly run. Human history proves that they're wrong about that.

7) Liberals have minimal interest in whether the programs they support work or not. To most liberals, whether a government program betters people's lives is completely irrelevant to whether they'll support it. A program that doesn't work and costs billions, but sounds compassionate and helps Democrats politically is a huge success in the eyes of the Left. Once you understand that liberals think this way, their baffling support for programs that make no "common sense" is much easier to understand.

What I Said to the Republican Members of Congress

What I Said to the Republican Members of Congress
Dennis Prager
Tuesday, February 02, 2010

This past weekend, after President Obama addressed the annual retreat of Republican Members of the House, I, along with my Salem Radio colleague Hugh Hewitt, and John Fund of the Wall Street Journal, were also invited to address them.

This is an abridged and edited version of my remarks.

Thank you for this honor.

I have never been as proud to be a Republican as I have this past year with your unanimity in opposing Obamacare and the other bills that would transform America. Please know -- you need this feedback -- that your having been able to stand together and do this has been a luminous moment in Republican Party history.

I would like show you some of the large themes involved in your present work.

First theme: It is harder to sell truths than to sell falsehoods.

It is very easy to say, "Vote for us and we will give you, we will give you, we will give you." It is much harder to advocate what is right and to say, "Vote for us, but no, we won't give you" -- even though that is the more moral and the more American position. So you have the far more difficult task.

John Rosemond, who writes books on child rearing, says that the most important vitamin you can give to a child is Vitamin N, his term for the word "No." You have given America Vitamin N.

America needs it terribly because of another way in which God has stacked the deck against the fight for goodness in human history: Every change for good must be constantly renewed, but changes for the worse are often permanent. Goodness must be fought for every day, over and over. That is why every American generation has to be inculcated with American values. But once the change for bad is made, it is close to irreversible. The Democratic attempt to vastly expand the state's power would likely be a permanent change for the worse in American life. When they're candid, they admit that the health care bill is their way to get to single-payer medicine and, more importantly, to a government takeover of another sixth of the American economy.

You have to know how important your work is, and how many of us know this.

Second theme: You are not fighting liberals. You are fighting the Left. Democrats were once liberals. But you are not fighting liberals any longer. You are fighting the Left. And as leftists, they do not like to confront reality, even if it means rewriting it.

I'll give you two examples.

This Jew battled to keep the cross in the Los Angeles County seal. Liberals and leftists in California fought to remove the smallest image -- a cross -- from the county seal. Through my radio show, on a day's notice, we gathered about a thousand people to demonstrate at the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors when the board voted. The vote went along ideological lines: three liberals to two conservatives, to remove the cross.

I remember testifying before the supervisors and telling them, "You are rewriting our county's history. This county was founded by Christians. That's why there's a cross. Had it been founded by Wiccans, I would fight to keep a broom on the seal. But it wasn't founded by Wiccans. It was founded by Christians. That's why it's named "Los Angeles." It is not "Los Secularistos." If it were "Los Secularistos," I would expect an empty seal. But it is not empty. It was founded by Christians. It's not even a religious issue. You're rewriting my history. And it's frightening to see you do that."

The other example is what is now happening with Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts. Everybody knows why he was voted in. It was, after all, Scott "41" Brown. We all knew why he was elected. But if you read left-wing commentators, this history is being rewritten. They say it had nothing to do with opposing Obamacare. Nothing to do with it! In the Soviet Union, it took 10 years to write Trotsky out of the Russian Revolution. But this is a rewrite of history in one week! Scott "41" Brown's victory was not about opposing Obamacare.

In fact, the Left argues that the Massachusetts voters were for the health care bill, but simply "wanted to send a message" to Washington. I must say the voters of Massachusetts are not only not bright, they must be truly stupid if they are for Obamacare and send the man who will undo Obamacare as a protest on behalf of Obamacare. This is what we are told by the Left.

Third theme: Most people on the Left are True Believers. This is critical to understand. They are willing to lose Congress; Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are prepared to lose both houses to get this through. Why? Because losing an election cycle means nothing compared to taking over more of the American economy.

I can give you an example from our side. There are many folks on our side who, if they could pass an amendment against abortion, would happily sacrifice both houses for a period of time. Understand that just as strongly as some are pro-life or religiously Christian or Jewish, that is how strongly many leftists believe in leftism. Leftism is a substitute religion. For the Left, the "health care" bill transcends politics. You are fighting people who will go down with the ship in order to transform this country to a leftist one. And an ever-expanding state is the Left's central credo.

And finally, theme four: I have a motto that I offer to you because this is the ultimate moral case for us: "The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen."

We have to learn to make our complex beliefs simple -- though never simplistic. And this is our powerful response to government doing more and more for people: "The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen."

And here's how we explain it: The bigger the government, the less I do for myself, for my family and for my community. That is why we Americans give more charity and devote more time to volunteering than Europeans do. The European knows: The government, the state, will take care of me, my children, my parents, my neighbors and my community. I don't have to do anything. The bigger question in many Europeans' lives is, "How much vacation time will I have and where will I spend that vacation?"

That is what happens when the state gets bigger -- you become smaller. The dream of America was that the individual was to be a giant. The state stays small so as to enable each of us to be as big as we can be. We are each created in God's image. The state is not in God's image, but it is vying to be that. This is the battle you're fighting. You are fighting a cosmic battle because this is the most important society ever devised, the United States of America.

You can easily forget the big picture -- how could you not? You're there every day, battling. You are in dense jungle -- excuse me, rainforest -- you are in a rainforest/jungle, fighting, and I am, because of the nature of my work, in a little helicopter above the jungle telling you what it is you are fighting. America really is the last, best hope of mankind.

That is how important I consider the fights that are going on now, especially with regard to the takeover of health care. How can they, with a serious face, tell us that Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security are going bankrupt, and therefore the solution is to take over more of health care? How does one say that with a straight face? How does one look a fellow American in the eye and say, "Yes, we have failed in almost every way that government has significantly intruded, and that's why we need more government intrusion"?

It is mind-boggling. But that is what has happened. People get smaller and pettier, as the government and state get bigger. That's what you are fighting. And that's why I came to tell you this is the proudest moment in my life as a Republican. Thank you for doing what you are doing.

Obama’s Amnesty Footnote.

Obama’s Amnesty Footnote.
Virgil Goode
Monday, February 01, 2010

At the very end of his State of the Union address, President Obama said, “we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system -– to secure our borders and enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation.”

Like most Americans, I agree with those broad principles, and that is exactly why Obama was so vague in his speech. His claim that “jobs must be our number one focus in 2010” would be exposed as a complete fraud if he promoted giving amnesty for illegal immigration and importing hundreds of thousands of additional legal foreign workers in the same address.

The situation is already bad enough as it is. At least twelve million illegal immigrants are in this country and eight million illegal aliens are in the American workforce. Additionally, our government issues 75,000 permanent work visas and 50,000 temporary work permits to foreign workers every single month. A recent census study found that one out of every six workers in this country is foreign born.

While he left the specifics on immigration out of his televised address, the White House website issued talking points to expand on what the line meant. They elaborated, The President is pleased Congress is taking steps forward on immigration reform that includes effective border security measures with a path for legalization for those who are willing to pay taxes and abide by the law. He is committed to confronting this problem in practical, effective ways, using the current tools at our disposal while we work with Congress to enact comprehensive reform.

“The steps forward on immigration reform” to which he is referring is HR 4321, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 or “CIR ASAP” sponsored by Rep. Louis Gutierrez, Solomon Ortiz, and 90 other Democrats.

As we all know, “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” and “Path for legalization” are nothing but code words for amnesty. The last two times the open borders folks introduced amnesties, they at least established some preconditions and made illegal aliens jump through a few hoops and before they could get amnesty. Under Gutierrez’s bill, every single illegal alien in this country the day of the bill is signed will be eligible. This gives foreigners a great incentive to come to this country illegally because they know they’d soon be eligible for amnesty. A recent Zogby found that 56% of Mexicans said themselves or people they knew would be more likely to enter America illegally if they knew an amnesty was coming.

To make matters worse, when proving they have jobs and were in the country before the amnesty passed, illegal aliens apply for amnesty they are allowed to use their stolen identities, fake green cards, and fraudulent social security numbers without fear of prosecution.

In addition to giving legal status to the 12 million illegal aliens already here, it will make it much easier for more illegal aliens to break into our country in the future. Contrary to Obama’s claim that the bill will increase border security, CIR ASAP does the opposite.

It guts successful enforcement measures, limits raids on illegal immigrants, prohibits use of troops on the border, and replaces the effective E-Verify system used to ensure that employers only hire legal American workers. It also overturns all state and local laws that crackdown on illegal immigration, and abolishes the successful 287 (g) program that allows local law enforcement to cooperate with federal authorities in apprehending criminal illegal aliens.

On top of the millions of illegal immigrants in this country, 1.5 million legal foreign workers come into our country each year. But this number isn’t high enough for Gutierrez and his friends.

CIR ASAP includes a provision “recapture” that will add up all the supposedly “unused” work visas since 1992 and issue them immediately. This is a complete fraud, as all unused work visas are rolled over to the family reunification category the next year. According to the State Department, this will mean 550,000 new foreign workers.

Additionally, CIR ASAP will create 100,000 visas from the countries that send the most illegal immigrants every year. This rewards countries such as Mexico who intentionally promote illegal immigration.

If Republicans want to defeat this bill, we need to stand united as a party against this atrocity. Democrats know this is a loser with the voters, but in the past Democrats were always able to justify their stance on amnesty by pointing to pro-amnesty Republicans like George Bush and John McCain. With Democrats firmly in control of Congress, they just need a few Republicans to give it the air of bipartisanship and to give cover to vulnerable Democrats. We also need to articulate our vision of true immigration reform so we cannot be accused of supporting our failed system.

Instead of granting amnesty, we need to stand for the rule of law. Instead of nullifying state laws like those in Oklahoma, we should use them as a model for the whole country. Instead of ending E-Verify, we should strengthen E-Verify. Instead of reducing workforce raids of illegal aliens and their employers, we should step them up. Instead of increasing legal immigration, we should institute a moratorium on most new immigrant work permits until unemployment falls below 5%.

By supporting Gutierrez’s amnesty, Barack Obama is making it clear he cares more about pleasing the Hispanic Caucus than protecting jobs for American Citizens.

Proud American

Proud American
Bruce Bialosky
Monday, February 01, 2010

Anyone with my political convictions was likely very frustrated after the 2008 presidential elections. Not only had we elected a very inexperienced man to be our President, but we had appeared to place the entirety of our government in the hands of the far left. Recent events have restored my faith in my fellow Americans, but my elation goes much deeper than a few election victories.

Once the policy intentions of the Obama Administration and their allies in Congress became clear, people started turning away from their elected officials in record time. Those people who actually understood the Cap and Trade bill – a number minimized by the House’s deliberate effort to withhold information on its full effects – were profoundly alarmed by its effect on the nation’s economy. And Americans of all stripes were sufficiently disgusted by the complexity, deceit, and utter bribery wrapped in the Health Care Bill to affect one of the largest electoral upsets in modern American politics.

The last 12 months have brought clarity to our political system. Not only had the American people voted the Democrats into office, but they had put the left-wing in charge. The elements that view European-style socialism as a model for America now had the opportunity they persistently and surreptitiously pursued for more than a generation. They launched two major – and unpopular – legislative initiatives and carried out wholesale takeovers of several large private enterprises. Americans saw with a clear eye what would continue to happen under left-wing leadership, and through the ballot box have resoundingly said NO.

How have such circumstances come to be? Americans have been conditioned for over forty years by the mainstream press that the policies being proposed by the current administration are what this country needs. The most prestigious newspapers have relentlessly editorialized on the errors of Republican policies and the goodness of the left’s wisdom. Certainly Fox News was launched to counter the effects and deliver a more evenhanded analysis, yet it could not compete with the combined numbers delivered by CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and MSNBC. Most Americans are still viewing the left-wing slanted media, but they’re no longer duped by the media mouthpieces.

Concurrently, American universities have driven the Republicans crazy. For forty years, any pretense of even-handedness has been tossed aside on college campuses. Conservatives either are not welcome or are booed off the stage and too many campuses embrace evil leaders such as Ahmadinejad more warmly than Americans who don’t blindly adhere to the far-left party line.

Students continually must endure classes where college professors express their left-wing opinions freely and without recrimination. Conservative students often feel oppressed and fear for their college careers if they confront tenured professors who express their political views as if they were established facts. Ultimately, the lack of free interchange of ideas has turned out wave after wave of college graduates who are hopelessly indoctrinated.

Yet after all this, the American people have endured. In 2006, far more Americans identified themselves as conservative than liberal (the actual poll results were 38% to 24% with 34% saying they were moderates). Four years later – after a year of Obama – the figures are similar, except that now, only 21% state they are liberals; a nearly two-to-one edge for conservatives!

How could such attitudes exist after more than forty years of the intellectual elite reminding us that left-wing policies are best for America? Above all, it’s because Americans have common sense.

Americans still believe that private enterprise is more effective than government programs. They believe charity is compassionate and that government programs are not. As much as the left attempts to undermine property rights, Americans clearly understand that private property is what has made this country great.

Americans have been most upset with Republicans when they have bought into the left-wing’s policies and started acting like Democrats. Republicans were voted out of office over abuse of power and abuse of our checkbooks. When Republicans started spending like leftists and loading the national budget with earmarks, the American people turned on them.

Americans understand that less government means more freedom. Republicans need to do more than just oppose the expansionist policies of Obama and his cohorts. They need to return to the principles for which they have stood for ages.

Historically, Americans have always rejected the efforts of the left to turn our freedoms over to a controlling central government. The election of Scott Brown two weeks ago embodied this belief, and put to rest the centerpieces of the Democrats’ left-wing agenda. In the same week, the Supreme Court struck a blow for free speech and the First Amendment.

The icing on the cake was the death of the Air America radio network. In the only example of the left-wing attempting to communicate its message through the mass media where they clearly labeled themselves and their views, they crashed and burned. The American people rejected their efforts and made me a proud American.

What's Provocative About the Tebow Super Bowl Ad?

What's Provocative About the Tebow Super Bowl Ad?
Star Parker
Monday, February 01, 2010

Why are pro-abortion groups so up in arms about the Tim Tebow ad that CBS will run during the Super Bowl?

According to the press release of Focus on the Family, the Christian organization sponsoring the ad, the former University of Florida Heisman Trophy winner Tebow and his mother, Pam, "will share a personal story centered on the theme of 'Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.'''

The Tebows are devout Christians, and Pam gave birth to Tim despite advice from her doctor to abort because of illness during her pregnancy. Since the script is not publicly available, all we know is the family story and knowledge that the ad passed muster with CBS.

We spoke with Focus on the Family spokesman Gary Schneeberger and asked if the ad in any way speaks to the politics of abortion. The answer was an emphatic "no."

According to Schneeberger, it's "not selling, it is celebrating" and is about the "love between a mother and a son."

So what's provoking the letter writing campaign of feminist groups to CBS to pull the ad? Why would the National Organization of Women call this "offensive to women" or would the Women's Media Center call it "divisive"?

Sure, there's no question that Focus on the Family is pro-life and opposes legal and readily accessible abortion. But CBS wouldn't be running this ad if its focus was political advocacy.

So what's bothering these women?

Two things.

First, the enabler of human brutality is de-humanization. Pro-abortionists know that our existing legalized abortion regime can only continue as long as we keep the human face off abortion.

It's why ultrasound has revolutionized this world. When young women who have doubts about taking their pregnancy to term see the live child within them, they overwhelming decide to give birth. You don't have to preach. They see that this is life and they know what to do.

I have written in the past that if the personal ultrasound experience could be conveyed to public consciousness, the abortion holocaust would stop.

The Tebow story will put this human face on abortion for the 100 million or so who will watch the Super Bowl. Nothing could be scarier for the culture of death.

When Harriet Beecher Stowe published Uncle Tom's Cabin, she put a human face on slavery. When the American public understood that slaves were human beings, the capacity to tolerate slavery was punctured.

Abraham Lincoln supposedly said to Stowe when he met her in 1862, "So you are the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war."

Last week Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke at Auschwitz, the former Nazi death camp in Poland. It marked the 65th anniversary of the liberation of the camp, where over one million, mostly Jews, were murdered.

The six million who were slaughtered in the holocaust in Europe challenges comprehension. But the meaning of this changed when Anne Frank's diary was published in English in 1952. When the public at large read the thoughts and feelings of this young girl, recorded in hiding before she went to her death with her family, the human face of the holocaust emerged.

The second aspect of the Tebow ad that scares abortionists is that it shows that love arises from personal responsibility. This beautiful story of a mother and son shows that love is not about political claims but about individuals taking responsibility for their life and knowing that life is about more than self. It is caring for others and knowing that you are part of something bigger than just you.

At a time of great spiritual unrest in our country, I believe this courageous initiative taken by the Tebows and Focus on the Family will be well received.
___________________________________________
The Super Bowl Kerfuffle
Matt Barber
Monday, February 01, 2010

"If you don't like it just turn off the TV!" goes the liberal mantra as all form of sexual perversion, obscenity and violence slinks unannounced into our living rooms. But when the message is perceived to undercut some carefully crafted left-wing narrative? Well, then not so much.

Fire-breathing feminists, liberal-media automatons and other "progressive" pro-aborts are anything if not predictable. They've once again concocted controversy where – to the emotionally stable among us – there is none.

The latest target of their cultish ire is Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback and all-around-great-guy, Tim Tebow. A crusty glut of anti-birth femi-ninnies (so cute when they're mad), representing an ever-dwindling number of pro-abortion fundamentalists, have drawn a bead on Tebow for the crime of, well, existing.

Additionally charged with "speaking while Christian," Tebow has knotted many ninny knickers by agreeing to participate, along with his mother Pam, in a Super Bowl ad commissioned by the Christian group, Focus on the Family.

As the mainstream media tells it, the ad will, in about 30 seconds, apparently set the "women's movement" back 40 years. It's additionally presumed (nobody's seen it or even read the script mind you) to both horrify and offend the entire nation.

So what have these dastardly Dobson devils done? Leaks indicate that the spot will share the story – inspirational by any objective standard – of how Pam Tebow "chose" to carry baby Tim to term despite a doctor's recommendation that she have an abortion. That's it. No "abortion is murder" tag line (it is). No "down with Planned Parenthood" pitch (yes, please). Simply: "Hi, I'm Pam. I chose to have my baby and not abort him. He won the Heisman. Neat, huh?"

Well, you'd think Roe v. Wade had just been overturned (it will be) and that every bra-burning broad in Berkeley faced time in the pokey. The usual suspects – a shrill gaggle of leftist "women's groups" – got the vapors, hit the fainting couch and demanded in their enduring "take-the-trash-out!" tone that CBS censor the Tebows and pull the spot.

Erin Mattson, vice president of The National Organization for Women (NOW) told ABC News that Tim's story was "really quite offensive. … This ad is hate masquerading as love!" she barked (Tim wasn't dismembered alive and scraped in pieces from his mother's womb, you see. That would've been peachy).

The New York-based Women's Media Center launched a censorship petition drive (since dwarfed by pro-family efforts ) framing the ad as an "attack on choice."

You get the picture.

OK – so much pablum, so little time: "Attack on choice?" "Hate masquerading as love?" Does patchouli oil cause brain damage? Give liberals a fish; they'll eat for a day. Give them hemp; they'll smoke half, weave a rope and then hang themselves with it.

It's remarkable that these people are so invested in a culture of death – so blindly devoted to goddess "choice" – that they've lost all sense of how foolish they appear to others. Rather than taking the time to walk through an introspective analysis, they involuntarily lash-out.

They fail to ask: "In what possible way is it an ‘attack on choice' for a woman to share the tale of how – when given two clearly defined options – she ‘chose' life over abortion?" That's choice defined. It just happens to be – from an angry, oft-hurting, always twisted perspective – the wrong choice.

They fail to ask: "In what possible way is it ‘hate masquerading as love' for a woman to share the tale of how – when given two clearly defined options – she ‘chose' life over abortion?" That's love defined; more still, while risking self so the child within might live. (Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends. John 15:12).

So if not logic, then what?

Fear.

Fear of truth. Fear that others will be touched by truth. Fear of exposure. Fear that it's all slipping away. Fear for a legacy lost. Fear that maybe they're wrong. Fear that maybe their choice was wrong. Fear of history's judgment. Fear of God's judgment. Just fear.

But they needn't fear.

This is about life. The Tebows' story is about life. And the giver of life is the giver of love. And the giver of love – who is both the bread of life and perfect love – gives us this: "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear …"

Don't fear. Choose love. Choose life.