Wednesday, September 30, 2009


.... the number of times the Bogus POTUS has talked to the General overseeing the Afghanistan theater of operations.

Why are we losing the war, again?


Abortion and the Health Care Debate

On Monday, the New York Times ran an article detailing how abortion is affecting the debate over health-care reform. This is noteworthy because it demonstrates the influence of the pro-life movement. The pro-life movement is in a unique position to help defeat Obamacare. President Obama is poltically weak on sanctity-of-life issues and the coverage of abortion in health-care reforms is a wedge issue that is dividing moderates from President Obama's liberal base.

Interestingly, the New York Times article inadvertantly does pro-lifers and Obama-care opponents a favor. The article details the "compromise" provision offered by Congressman Rosa DeLauro and many Democrats which would require that federal funds be segregated from any private funds which would pay for abortions. Many pro-lifers rightfully argue that, since money is fungible, public funds going to insurance plans that cover abortion effectively results in federal funding of abortion.

The Times article quotes supporters of the "segregated money model" as saying that the "17 state Medicaid programs that cover elective abortions use a similar system." However, groups supporting legal abortion, including the Guttmacher Institute, say that these 17 states "use state funds to provide all or most medically necesssary abortions." As such, this statement nicely confirms the suspicions of pro-lifers. The DeLauro comprise is not a compromise at all, but in actuality a backdoor way to allow the federal government to subsidize abortions. The pro-life movement, as always, should continue to be vigilant.


The Polanski Double Standard

At a certain point, "shut up and sing," or "shut up and act," or "direct," or "produce," will not cut it. Before we are anything else, we are citizens and human beings. And no matter what our profession, we not only have to follow common bonds of decency but the common laws of civility, not to mention the civil and criminal laws too. That's not a tall order.

Here's the CNN squib:

Woody Allen, Pedro Almodovar and Martin Scorsese have "demanded the immediate release" of fellow filmmaker Roman Polanski, who was arrested in Switzerland on a U.S. arrest warrant related to a 1977 childsex charge.

They were among 138 people in the film industry who signed a petition against the arrest.

Polanski was on the way to the Zurich Film Festival when Swiss police detained him in response to the American warrant.

The filmmaker pleaded guilty in 1977 to having unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor but fled before he could be sentenced. He settled in France, where he holds citizenship. Investigators in the United States say Polanski, then 43, drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl.

Let me repeat this last part: He drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl. And he plead guilty — but then fled the country.

One entertainer got it right, the singer Jewel. Here's a Tweet she sent out yesterday: "Polanski admitted raping a 13 yr old-whys every1 in the arts upset hes facing jail? cause hes a gifted director? what am i missing?"

Let me say one last thing about this. Time passed is not the issue, and neither is accomplishment in the arts — justice and the message we send is precisely the issue. As Mark Steyn notes, what are we going to do, start an "Artists United for Pedophile Rapists" movement here?

When scandals turned up in the Catholic church, the elites — as everyone — were rightly shocked. It was a major, several year story. And the abuses investigated, detailed, and condemned went back to 1950, 27 years earlier than Polanski's crime. Priests and parishes and archdioceses were punished and sued and even bankrupted. There is a major double standard here — not because that is what is wrong, but because what Polanski did was wrong and too many want to dismiss it and move on — because he's in the favored class of the elite.

Are these artists and other Polanski defenders really saying a child can be drugged and raped, a 13-year-old child mind you, and the consequence is time, for simply time — never mind fleeing justice — will heal that? This is a horrible message, and the artistic industry, so callous to claims about lyrics encouraging this kind of trashy behavior in the past, better get it right when the behavior is real and when the message they send is one that most people — rightly — abhor. You want to know why Michael Medved titled his book Hollywood v. America? It wasn't because of this case, but it might just as well be now. Who defends child rape? Well, now you know who.


Keeping Up With Those Wacky Obamas

Set the DVR! Michelle Obama is all set for her big premier on Sesame Street. In November, Michelle will travel to Sesame Street to educate the muppets on the benefits of growing your own vegetables, which she assures everyone, will be healthy and will taste great! No word if the Sesame Street garden has high levels of lead and had been fertilized with sludge.

And if you can't get enough of that First Couple, you can own the very seats they occupied in the Belasco Theater on their infamous New York Date Night last May! Yes, it's true! Seats K101 and K102 can be yours! Opening bids start at $500 and all proceeds go to a theater based charity group. You know, word is that after the Obamas attended the play, Joe Turner's Come and Gone, that ticket sales for the production doubled!

Meanwhile, the Obamas are using local school children as junior lobbyists for the 2016 Olympics, and are still refusing to answer questions about the funding and staffing for the official White House Olympics Office. Not to worry though, kiddos! On Thursday, the Obamas will jet off to Copenhagen to use their considerable persuasive charm on the IOC in hopes that the Olympics will soon come to The Windy City! Of course, not all Chicagoans are hoping for an Obama success story in that regard; there is the Chicagoans For Rio group who are, you guessed it, pulling for Rio!

And, never idle, those wacky Obamas went on a sightseeing tour Sunday evening with First Grandmother in tow as well as Maya Soetoro-Ng, the president's half-sister, her husband, Konrad Ng, and their daughters Suhaila and Savita. They visited the Jefferson Memorial, where he stayed for ten minutes, and then the Washington Monument, where the group spent about 20 minutes.

Meanwhile, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba, Venezuela, China, Russia.....


Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Losing Afghanistan and Losing America

What has changed?

In the battle of Antietam during the Civil War, our nation was willing to sustain 23,000 casualties in a single battle and over half a million American men (and boys) during the war. This occurred at a time when the population of the United States was just over 30 million people.

During World War II, the United States sustained just under half a million war casualties to squash a threat to the world's security.

In both of these wars (and the wars before and in between them), the United States supported the nation's war efforts. The loss of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of lives was tragic, but Americans understood that such was the reality of war.

In 2009, we no longer have the will to engage in war.

A few years ago, the tragic loss of 18 lives in Somalia and the horrid treatment of the dead and dying Americans was enough of a rallying cry to pull out. In Antietam, a single cannon shot could wipe out 18 soldiers.

In Iraq, just over 4,000 American soldiers have lost their lives from the beginning of the war in 2003 through 2009. And by 2007, America was ready to pull out. It was considered a debacle.

Afghanistan is now becoming a more and more desperate situation. Desperate from the standpoint that more and more lives are being lost on a weekly basis. And America has a low tolerance for the loss of life during war.

So what has changed?

It is my belief that America will never again be able to fight in a major military conflict. If Israel is attacked in a massive way by its islamic neighbors, America will not be there to help. If China rises up and decides to attack South Korea, or Taiwan or Japan, America cannot be counted on to defend these allies.

America doesn't have the stomach for war.

This is a direct result of 40 plus years of liberal philosophical teaching in our public education institutions. Liberals have convinced us that we haven't been on the right side of any war. Liberals have convinced us that we do not have a superior economic system or a superior political system. Liberals have convinced us that our freedoms are not worth fighting for. Liberals have convinced us that democracy and freedom and the free enterprise system aren't worth defending.

And America has bought it.

Probably not if you phrased it in those terms. Most Americans would say that they think freedom and democracy and America itself is worth fighting for. But not if it means the loss of life. Somehow, we've gotten it in our heads that we should be able to march into a country and fight a war and win it without the loss of life. And we should be able to do it quickly. Like the movies. Two hours at most. And none of the major characters, the good guys, will ever die.

That's why Obama can't decide what to do in Afghanistan. It's not a movie. It's not a sound bite. The telepromter doesn't have an easy-to-quote speech prepared.

Afghanistan will require a decision. A hard decision. One that could cost American lives.

And Obama doesn't have the stomach for that. Neither does America.


Monday, September 28, 2009

Fun with Captcha's

I'm sure most of you know what a "captcha" is, but in case you don't, it's one of those made up words you have to type in to verify that you aren't "spamming" when you enter a comment. The letters are usually somewhat hard to read and the words don't make any sense. Still, some of them are close enough to a real world that a "definition" just pops to mind.

I ran across one of those today. While commenting on a blog post, I had to verify using the letters "VOCRAT."

Well, duh. That HAS TO BE a Democrat who votes multiple times in an election, doesn't it?

Come across any good ones lately?


Cue Joe Wilson

Fearful that they're losing ground on immigration and health care, a group of House Democrats is pushing back and arguing that any health care bill should extend to all legal immigrants and allow illegal immigrants some access, The Washington Times reported on Monday.

The Democrats, trying to stiffen their party's spines on the contentious issue, say it's unfair to bar illegal immigrants from paying their own way in a government-sponsored exchange. Legal immigrants, they say, regardless of how long they've been in the United States, should be able to get government-subsidized health care if they meet the other eligibility requirements.

"Legal permanent residents should be able to purchase their plans, and they should also be eligible for subsidies if they need it. Undocumented, if they can afford it, should be able to buy their own private plans. It keeps them out of the emergency room," said Rep. Michael M. Honda, California Democrat and chairman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus.

Honda was joined by more than 20 of his colleagues in two letters laying out the demands.

Coverage for immigrants is one of the thorniest issues in the health care debate, and one many Democratic leaders would like to avoid. But immigrant rights groups and the Democrats who sent the letters say they have to take a stand now.

Hey, wait a minute. Here's a thought. If they are ILLEGAL, why not ship them back when they sign up for health care or show up at an emergency room?

And if someone is here legally, but is not a citizen of this country, why are we taxpayers expected to subsidize their health insurance?




Sunday, September 27, 2009

New Nuclear Facility Revealed In Iran

Here is the good news: Obama is going to DEMAND the UN inspect the newly revealed Iranian nuclear facilities.

The bad news? He will make this incredibly strongly worded demand within a matter of weeks.

Glad to see he's got the really important issues tackled in a timely manner.

On a positive note, the Washington Post is busy examining the feelings of Ahmadinijad, the man behind Iran's nuclear program. It's such a shame that he felt so "shocked" at seeing our anger at discovering that Iran was actually twice as far in the nuclear weapons ambitions as we had previously thought.


Thursday, September 24, 2009

New Lyrics

I simply couldn't resist coming up with new lyrics for the Kindergarteners who want to sing about Obama. Let's give them these words....

Pffft, Pffft, Pffft

Barack Hussein Obama

He said to take a pill and die

And give your meds to the other guy

Pffft, Pfft, Pffft,

Barack Hussein Obama,

He said we’ll shut that Gitmo down,

And send the terrorists to your town

Pffft, Pffft, Pffft,

Barack Hussein Obama,

He hired ACORN to work for him

And turns his head when they’re pimpin’

Pffft, Pffft, Pffft,

Barack Hussein Obama,

You don’t agree, then you’re racist

You blog against and make a black list,

Pffft, Pffft, Pffft,

Barack Hussein Obama,

His cabinet doesn’t pay any tax,

But higher taxes he enacts.

Pffft, Pffft, Pffft,

Barack Hussein Obama,



I've finally found them. Here they are if you want to sing along...

Song 1:
Mm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that all must lend a hand
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said we must be fair today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said red, yellow, black or white
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

Mmm, mmm, mm
Barack Hussein Obama

Song 2:

Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments, we all doth say "hooray!"

Hooray, Mr. President! You're number one!
The first black American to lead this great nation!

Hooray, Mr. President we honor your great plans
To make this country's economy number one again!

Hooray Mr. President, we're really proud of you!
And we stand for all Americans under the great Red, White, and Blue!

So continue ---- Mr. President we know you'll do the trick
So here's a hearty hip-hooray ----

Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!

My favorite verse: "Red, yellow, black and white, all are equal in his sight."

Sounds like a song I used to know about Jesus.


Sign Us All Up for THEIR Plan

Last week we learned that illegal aliens will not be eligible for any health care plan that Obama signs. A few days later, we learned that policy might actually be enforced. That means illegals will continue to show up at hospital emergency rooms for whatever little ailment they want treated and will get treatment. For free.

Oh, yes, there will be a charge. But the hospitals that provide this care know they won't get paid. ... if they could even find the patient after they've left.

I'm wondering if we should all have that plan. The Illegal Alien Plan.

It would certainly simplify things. No need for some expansive, expensive government program. No need for trillions of dollars spent on a bureaucracy. No need for the government to control what doctors do and which doctor you may or may not see. No need to limit expensive testing.

Let's all just show up at the emergency room, get the care we need (or want) and then go home. No bill, no fuss.

I'd be all for this plan. I think most of us would.

Of course, it's not just illegal aliens that get this kind of care. Most of the current uninsured can get this kind of care, too. Hospitals can't turn away someone who needs care, regardless of their ability to pay. That's part of the reason it costs so much for the rest of us. That and the CYA factor that requires both providers and health care facilities to run all sorts of tests and go to great lengths to make sure they don't get sued by some unhappy patient.

Yes, I think the plan will work. Just sign us all up.


School Children Sing Praises to Obama

Close your eyes and imagine the following scenario: A group of children at a public school are gathered in a gymnasium. They are learning a new song. This song that they are learning extolls the praises of President George W. Bush. It has several verses quoting things that Bush has said he would do as President and the song teaches the children to revere not only Bush but to regard highly the specific things that he has laid out as part of his agenda.

How do you suppose such a song taught in a public school would have been received by the Leftist media, the ACLU, the NEA and .... well, just about every other leftist group and organization in the country. In fact, I suspect there would have been a lot of conservatives and conservative organizations that would have been concerned about that situation. I know I would have been.

By now, if you follow conservative blogs, you've probably seen the video I linked above in which school children at a public school are singing the praises of Barack Hussein Obama. It reminds me of Sunday School songs that I was taught as a child. I still remember those songs. Those songs have a way of sticking with you, and as a child, you accept the truth in the songs.

This is scary. This is creepy.

Much of the talk of Obama as a messiah or savior, or as "The One" comes from conservatives who are exaggerating some of the adulation that Obama received, particularly during the campaign of '08. This is no longer "exaggeration." This sort of thing is reminiscent of Hitler's Germany. I know people hate making comparisons of anyone else to Hitler. I do, too. But can you think of another comparison for this kind of thing?

Our nation is in serious trouble.


Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Palin in Hong Kong

Untethered to the governor’s desk in Alaska, Sarah Palin addressed the CLSA Investors’ Forum in Hong Kong. The Associated Press had the most complete and likely most accurate coverage of the speech, including actual quotes from Mrs. Palin’s speech.

The speech was closed to the press, which gave the rest of the media reports on it a blind-men-describing-an-elephant quality.

Agence France Press reported:

“She was brilliant,” said a European delegate, on condition of anonymity.

“She said America was spending a lot of money and it was a temporary solution. Normal people are having to pay more and more but things don’t get better. The rich will leave the country and the poor will get poorer.”

Two US delegates left early, with one saying “it was awful, we couldn’t stand it any longer.” He declined to be identified.

Another attendee said: “It was almost more of a speech promoting investment in Alaska. As fund managers we want to hear about the United States as a whole, not just about Alaska. And she criticised Obama a lot but offered no solutions.”

Hmm. (What solutions should she have offered? Vote him out?)

Bloomberg reported:

“She started the speech with the Alaskan fishing industry, which I think is a safe topic for her,” said Suyeon An of RCM Asia Pacific Ltd, who left before Palin stopped talking. “She was avoiding the important economic issues. She tried to talk some about Hong Kong in general, but it was nothing specific. It was a very safe speech, boring I have to say.”

Double hmm.

The New York Times reported:

“The speech was wide-ranging, very balanced, and she beat all expectations,” said Doug A. Coulter, head of private equity in the Asia-Pacific region for LGT Capital Partners.

“She didn’t sound at all like a far-right-wing conservative. She seemed to be positioning herself as a libertarian or a small-c conservative,” he said, adding that she mentioned both Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. “She brought up both those names.”

Triple hmm.

I suspect some people expected Joan of Arc while others expected Tina Fey. I think they got Sarah, a bright person from middle America who is more mainstream than the geniuses we have in Washington, more intelligent than the media gives her credit for and more informed than even her supporters think she is.

It is too bad our current president did not face the same scrutiny before he was elected.

As I said earlier, the AP did the best job (Read the AP story here).


Obama's UN Speech: Nothing New, Nothing Unexpected, Nothing Positive about the U.S.

William A. Jacobson over at Legal Insurrection summarized Obama's UN speech best. I'll copy and paste it here. If you haven't been over to the Legal Insurrection Blog, it's worth a read. Mr. Jacobson is a law professor at Cornell and quite a brilliant writer.

Barack Obama's speech to the United Nations today had some positive aspects. He gave lip service to freedom of the individual and political rights.

But overall, the speech was more of the same, that whatever the United States has done right, was just making up for what we have done wrong. There was precious little in the speech which was positive about the U.S. While not an outright apology, the entire tone of the speech was apologetic.

The United States as the shining city on the hill is dead. The entire thrust of the speech was that we have acted alone, and caused many if not most of the world's problems:
I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. This has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for our collective inaction.
As to the problems caused by others, only passing notice. This passage was particularly striking in its willful ignorance:
We have also re-engaged the United Nations. We have paid our bills. We have joined the Human Rights Council.
Why did we not pay our bills? Because the UN refused to route out rampant corruption and financial mismanagement. Why did we leave the Human Rights Council? Because it had turned into a macabre anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, and anti-Western circus, and it still is. But no criticism of that, we now have made amends by rejoining.

There was much more in the speech along these lines. Read it. Hardly a nice word to say about the United States. One of the closing lines was "The United States stands ready to begin a new chapter of international cooperation - one that recognizes the rights and responsibilities of all nations."

There always was such cooperation, but when the international community failed -- as it almost always does -- we acted. Is Obama taking unilateral action off the table completely? Is 17 visits to the Security Council on an issue not enough? Will he defend the U.S. even when the world disagrees?

This speech gives me little hope.


About This Blog

This blog is about my opinions and world view.  I am a conservative, evangelical Christian.  Generally speaking, if you post a comment, I'll allow you to express your view.  However, if you say something hateful, untruthful, or just generally something I don't like, I may remove it.

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by 2008

Back to TOP