We're damaging their calm

Over the past few days I have read a number of references to the notes that Sarah Palin had written on her hand during her speech and Q&A session at the Nashville Tea Party conference.

Comments like, "Sarah Palin reads notes from her hand, woo woo. Sarah Palin reads notes from her hand, woo woo", which was posted on YouTube to this:

So, you think Sarah Palin is embarrassed by the crib-notes-on-the-palm incident?

You're kidding, right?

Which was written by Alex Baldwin on the Huffington Post.

Then there was the observation by someone that Mrs. Palin used note cares for her speech, then went on to inform us that note cards are the analog version of a teleprompter.

Someone, I think it was a Marine Corps (this is pronounced kôr, in case the president is reading) general said that when you see that you have kicked the enemy in a sensitive spot you should keep on kicking them there.

Clearly Barack Obama's extreme difficulty speaking coherently without a teleprompter is a sensitive spot for the left.

The fact is that when you cut him off from the 'prompter without a massive amount of preparation he starts stuttering, stammering and eventually gibbering about things like visiting all the 57 states in the Union.

In other words he sounds like a man with considerably less intelligence than George W Bush (who couldn't pronounce "nuclear" but who also never talked about "breathalizing inhalators").

The attempt to characterize Palin's note cards as simply the low tech version of Obama's teleprompter falls flat because the two things are not the same.

If Palin had taken the stage with her speech already typed up on 81/2 x 11 paper and had read it word for word that would be the analog version of a teleprompter.

But what Palin did was jot down a few words on 3 x 5 index cards on order to remind herself of the major points she wanted to make and the order she wanted to make them in. Then she depended upon her knowledge of the issues that she was speaking about and the ability to think logically and organize her thoughts then speak her thoughts clearly in order to give her speech.

On the other hand what Obama does is have his speech written for him by someone else then fed to him word for word on a teleprompter so all he has to do is read each word then pronounce it with his undeniable gift for sounding good (as long as he doesn't have to engage his mind and involve it in the speaking process).

In other words Barack Obama's great talent in life is to be a loudspeaker made out of meat.

No wonder the left finds this to be such a sore spot.

Like the man said, we've kicked them in a soft spot so we should keep kicking.

B. Hussein Obama has awakened a sleeping giant

And filled him with a terrible resolve.

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – Former Florida legislator Marco Rubio has closed the gap in the race for the state's Republican U.S. Senate nomination and is in a virtual dead heat with Gov. Charlie Crist, according to a poll released Tuesday.

Rubio, a lawyer who served as Speaker of the House, was once considered a long shot against Crist, who has widespread name recognition and a significant fundraising lead. But with Florida's primary seven months away, Rubio was favored by 47 percent compared with 44 percent who preferred Crist — statistically a tie in the Quinnipiac University poll that has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.

The random telephone survey, which included 673 GOP voters, was conducted Jan. 20-24.

"The horse race numbers are not a fluke," said Peter Brown, assistant polling director for Quinnipiac in Connecticut. "Rubio's grassroots campaigning among Republican activists around the state clearly has paid off."

The latest survey marks a stunning turnaround for the 38-year-old Rubio, a conservative who trailed Crist by 31 points in a Quinnipiac survey taken in June.

Yet more evidence that the era when the establishment RINO would automatically be nominated is over.

Conservatives have awakened and are taking control of the GOP once again.

Very soon the Boston to DC corridor Republican establishment is going to have to make a hard choice. Either go ahead and admit that they are really Democrats, like Arlen Specter, or reinvent themselves as genuine conservative Republicans.

More fun with Hitler

Have to admit this one rings a bit truer than most.

closing thoughts on the day America didn't die

Mark Steyn on the Miracle in Massachusetts:

On Sunday, the line from Obama, Kerry, and everyone else to the voters of Massachusetts was:

"We understand why you're angry. But don't let your anger with George W. Bush allow you to get tricked into voting for a Republican who'll obstruct the reform agenda you're crying out for."

Presumably even Patrick Kennedy isn't stupid enough to believe this. Even as elite condescension to the boob masses, it barely passes muster. But I wonder if they really understand what took place today. Until a few days ago, conventional wisdom in Massachusetts had it that the GOP had a motivated base but nothing more. Under any normal model, high turnout should have favored the Dems. Instead, significant numbers of people who voted for Obama crossed over to the Republicans. It was as explicit a repudiation of the last year as could be devised.

The course the "post-partisan healer" chose to set on January 20, 2009, led directly to his debacle on January 19, 2010. As a woman who managed to hold at least a couple of Kennedy seats once sang: Happy Birthday, Mister President!

Yuval Levin adds this in a piece called The Self-Inflicted Wound:

It is a mark of the degree of political malpractice the Democrats have been guilty of over the past year, of the degree of their overreach and recklessness, that being left with 59 senators — a huge majority by any measure, and the same majority they had when Obama was inaugurated a year ago — is now somehow enough to make it seem as though they are powerless and is likely to kill the core (and almost the entirety) of their domestic agenda, and leave them rudderless and reeling.

They are of course not in fact powerless at all. But they have adopted an agenda that only a supermajority could pass (if that, even a supermajority couldn’t pass cap and trade), and with every indication of public opposition have only intensified their determination to pursue it, putting themselves on the wrong side of independent voters while persuading themselves that people would come around because this health-care bill is something liberals have wanted for three generations. They have made it impossible for themselves to change course without a massive loss of face and of political capital. But however costly, that change will now need to come. You have to wonder if the people responsible for setting this course — and especially Rahm Emanuel and the House and Senate leadership — will still be standing when it’s all done with.

I agree with Mr. Levin. When the dust settles the House and Senate will have different leadership. In fact I believe that even now Nancy Pelosi is Speaker in name only.

And, yes, there could even be a major shakeup in the White House. Barack Obama was repudiated on Tuesday and no one realizes that more keenly than the preening narcissist himself.

Obama has been wounded and since he is congenitally incapable of accepting responsibility himself and this time George W Bush will not serve as an acceptable scapegoat.

Whose head will roll?

The "former nude model" that saved America

BOSTON – In an epic upset in liberal Massachusetts, Republican Scott Brown rode a wave of voter anger to win the U.S. Senate seat held by the late Edward M. Kennedy for nearly half a century, leaving President Barack Obama's health care overhaul in doubt and marring the end of his first year in office.

Addressing an exuberant victory celebration Tuesday night, Brown declared he was "ready to go to Washington without delay" as the crowd chanted, "Seat him now." Democrats indicated they would, deflating a budding controversy over whether they would try to block Brown long enough to complete congressional passage of the health care plan he has promised to oppose.

"The people of Massachusetts have spoken. We welcome Scott Brown to the Senate and will move to seat him as soon as the proper paperwork has been received," said Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin said he would notify the Senate on Wednesday that Brown had been elected.

The loss by the once-favored Democrat Martha Coakley in the Democratic stronghold was a stunning embarrassment for the White House after Obama rushed to Boston on Sunday to try to save the foundering candidate. Her defeat on Tuesday signaled big political problems for the president's party this fall when House, Senate and gubernatorial candidates are on the ballot nationwide.

So it seems that Democrats are literate enough to read handwriting on the wall.

The lead Democrat lawyer in Al Franken's theft of his Senate seat flew to Boston but it seems that there will be no effort to tie the race up in the courts until every bus station men's room in the state can be searched for bags of uncounted ballots, which would all just happen to be cast for Coakley.

They won't even try to stall Mr. Brown's certification until Pelosi can twist enough House Democrat arms to vote for the Senate bill as-is.

Jim Webb, indicating that he really wants to be reelected, called on his fellow Democrats to hold any vote until Brown was seated and other Dems are calling for starting over on the whole process.

In other words the Democrats are pulling in their horns and starting to act like they actually believe that they owe some deference to the people who put them in office.

Gone is the talk of passing a health care bill no matter what the voters want. Gone is the talk of doubling down on the Obama administration's ultra left-wing agenda.

This change in tone is not coming from the White House. What I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall there tonight and tomorrow as the preening narcissist in chief has to deal with the fact that the entire earth doesn't revolve around him.

All is not well for the little messiah

From Rasmussen:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 25% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-six percent (46%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -21 That’s the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for this President (see trends).

Fifty-three percent (53%) of men Strongly Disapprove along with 39% of women. Most African-American voters (58%) Strongly Approve while most white voters (53%) Strongly Disapprove.

Seventy-four percent (74%) of Republicans Strongly Disapprove as do 52% of unaffiliated voters. Forty-seven percent (47%) of Democrats Strongly Approve.

For the second straight day, the update shows the highest level of Strong Disapproval yet recorded for this President. That negative rating had never topped 42% before yesterday. However, it has risen dramatically since the Senate found 60 votes to move forward with the proposed health care reform legislation. Most voters (55%) oppose the health care legislation and senior citizens are even more likely than younger voters to dislike the plan.

One bright spot in the numbers for the President is that 51% of voters still say former President George W. Bush is more to blame for the nation’s economic woes. Just 41% point the finger of blame at the current President.

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook.

Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-six percent (56%) now disapprove.

Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Democrats approve while 88% of Republicans and 62% of unaffiliated voters disapprove.

One thing I don't understand about this is that his negatives go up after the Senate coughs up the 60 votes needed to advance a socialized health care bill.

Why didn't the people already "strongly disapprove" of the little tin messiah for wanting the Senate to pass socialized health care?

Why is POTUS at war with US

James Lewis wrote this piece for American Thinker a few days ago. It adds to the body of work out there which attempts to explain the very strange behavior of Barack Obama. Strange that is if we assume that his goals are to keep the nation safe, free and prosperous.

That is, after all, the goal that every other president has pursued. Even the extraordinarily bad ones like Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt and Jimmy Carter were at least trying to keep the nation safe, free and prosperous.

But not Obama. Only someone with the limited knowledge base and lack of sophistication of a relatively young child could actually believe that things like closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and bringing the dangerous terrorists being held there into the US prison system is a good idea. Or believe that trying the 9/11 mastermind in a civilian criminal court in New York City is a better idea than trying him before a military tribunal.

Only someone like the above mentioned credulous child could believe that the government could take over auto companies and manage them better than the free market - despite the disastrous examples of the government run auto industries in East Germany, the Soviet Union and even the United Kingdom.

Or that a bloodthirsty enemy whose minds are in the grip of a 7th century religious ideology which tells them that we must die both as individuals and as a culture because we have emancipated our women and refuse to stone homosexuals and behead those who criticize Allah, his prophet or his book will experience a change of heart because our leader travels the world apologizing for our past acts of malfeasance in which we actually had the gall to stand up and defend our vital interests and our allies.

No, the sane adult mind finds Barack Obama's actions since taking office to be extraordinarily difficult to understand if we start from the position that Obama is a patriotic American, however misguided. So the minds of political observers have began to think what would have before been unthinkable. That perhaps the president isn't screwing up the country by accident.

Which brings us back to James Lewis and his essay, Obama the Red Avenger.

The French called Hitler a revanchiste -- a Kaiser soldier of World War I aching to avenge his old defeat. Hitler made no secret of his desire for revenge. He made it a Nazi slogan. Well, you can have ideological revanchisme as well -- for instance, a Marxist determination to take revenge for America's victory against worldwide Communism in the Cold War.

The word "Marxist" is now used as a kind of a sly boast in academia; I just talked with a professor who calls himself a "Marxist historian" and smiles to himself when he says it. He obviously thinks he's a hero by being a Marxist in America. But according to Marxist historians themselves, Red regimes killed at least 100 million people in "crimes, terror and repression," with still more dying today in North Korea. That's not even counting the dead and wounded in wars fought by Communist regimes.

Obama's early life indicates that young Barry may have been brought up as a Red Avenger against America. We know that he talks like an anti-capitalist and an anti-Constitutionalist, and that he compulsively apologizes for American actions during the Cold War. The Cold War was not something we started -- it was started by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and other totalitarian mass murderers long before the Korean War and the Vietnam War, our two hot proxies in the Cold War.

What we haven't understood is how deeply Obama was indoctrinated from childhood onward in the war against America. But every intelligence agency in the world has to have figured it out, because it's all in the public record. Leftists around the world have also known it from day one, and that includes leading Democrats. Obama was not an unknown to Democrat Party apparatchiks. Or the media. Only the American people were kept in the dark. The media and the Democrats are still doing their Obama cover-up today and hoping they will get away with it.

Why is Obama so deeply, emotionally opposed to America's defense of freedom and democracy in the Cold War? Because Barry Soetoro was born in 1961 and lived in the Indonesian capital of Jakarta from age six to ten, the years 1967-1971 --- right after the bloodiest civil war in Indonesian history, which took place from 1965 to 1967. The Indonesian Communist Party, the PKI, was wiped out and massacred during that civil war. There is absolutely no way a left-wing family living in Jakarta could not have been in a constant uproar during those years, even after the massacres had died down. After all, Barry's parents were active sympathizers, if not party members themselves, as was his biological father

Indonesia was host to millions of ethnic Chinese, some of whom were slaughtered in the "communal violence" which followed a failed coup. China was then in the middle of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, which killed from 50 to 70 million people. Ann Dunham, Lolo Soetoro and Barry Soetoro were living in the very midst of the hottest front line between the West and totalitarian Communism.

Indonesia's dictator General Sukarno was overthrown in 1965 by either the Communist Party (the PKI) or the Indonesian army and Islamic parties -- and probably by all three. The PKI was the third biggest Communist Party in the world outside of the Soviet Union and Communist China. (See The Year of Living Dangerously.) PKI members were killed in the resulting riots and massacres throughout 1965 and 1966, starting in Jakarta, where Barry Soetoro's family lived. Imaging living in Atlanta, Ga., right after General Sherman finished marchin' through Georgia, and not knowing anything about it.

There is simply no way those earth-shattering events could not have touched Barry Soetoro's life in Jakarta from the age of six to ten. Barry's temporary dad Lolo Soetoro was originally a supporter of General Sukarno and the Left; Sukarno's party had sent Lolo to Hawaii to get a graduate degree, where he met Ann Dunham. There is no real safety in such conditions. Revenge killings happened after World War II in Europe and after the Civil War in the United States.

The big question is, Why did Ann Dunham risk bringing her young child to Jakarta? She must either have been utterly naïve politically, or, much more likely, she knew that she and Lolo were protected by powerful political forces.

Ann Dunham was at least an active fellow traveler with the Communist Party. Remember, this was just fifteen years after the death of Stalin and the American domestic reaction to Stalinist infiltration, now dubbed "McCarthyism." We now know with historical certainty that the U.S. government, including the State Department and the White house, was in fact infiltrated by Stalin's Communist Party members, and that secrets of U.S. nuclear bombs were instantly passed to the Soviet Union by Manhattan Project member Klaus Fuchs, who was honored by the East Germany Communist Party when he went back there. Stalinist Communists were also very powerful in Hollywood, the newspapers, and the universities.

Barry's childhood and education under the guardianship of Communist Party representative Frank Marshall Davis, followed by an endless parade of far Leftist mentors from Hawaii to Harvard and Chicago, were all shaped by an identical political narrative. Every adult he ever knew told the same story. Everybody hated the same satanic enemy: American capitalism -- also known as freedom and democracy -- the CIA, the U.S. military, Senator Joe McCarthy, President Eisenhower, and Richard Nixon. We now know that Nixon was overthrown by the American Left using the Watergate scandal, including the Washington Post's Ben Bradlee, in close coordination with the FBI's Assistant Director Mark Felt, who was Woodward and Bernstein's Deep Throat.

The Jesuits used to say, "Give us a boy before he is ten and we will have him for life." That's why the Ranting Reverend Wright's Church of Marxism was such a natural place for the Obamas to go every Sunday and bring up their own girls. It's what they were used to; it had that old home feeling.

When kids believe that their mothers and fathers are in danger, they often imagine themselves to be the saviors -- they can get a Savior Complex. (Sound familiar?) Children in abusive families often feel that way. Barry Soetoro grew up needing to rescue his side in the Cold War -- the Red side.

Human beings who think they are world saviors are narcissists from day one because they believe they have God-like powers. How else can you Save the Planet? How else can you "keep the seas from rising," as Obama said in his acceptance speech to the Democrats? Narcissism is a standard character trait on the Left. It's one of the basic differences between ideological Leftists and conservatives. Edmund Burke, the granddaddy of Anglo-American conservatism, pointed that out in his most important book, Reflections on the Revolution in France (1791). Conservatives are generally normal people. Ideological Leftists are ambitious World Saviors who turn out to kill a lot of people who resisted being saved by coercive force. Can you think of any American conservative who acts like Obama?

Take a kid with a savior complex and raise him with an endless slew of Leftist mentors, from Mom onwards. He is the savior child as far as they are concerned -- the Red Avenger. He will redeem them in the bitter aftermath of the defeat of Communism. Barack Obama has had substitute parents -- patrons who eased his way -- throughout his life, including Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and Emil Jones.

Notice that I have not said that Obama is dangerous. A lot depends on defeating ObamaCare, cap-and-trade, EPA regulation of CO2, and dozens of other mad and foolish schemes.

The American political system is resilient, but we must know the truth. I believe that "the Red Avenger" is the ground truth of who Obama really is.

It's not Obama's blackness that's at issue. It's his redness.

When the facts are laid out like that it becomes all but impossible to dispute them.

Barack Obama was born into a bubble universe of profound leftism in which the United States occupied the role of evil empire. The USA was the malignant force threatening human civilization which had to be defeated if there was to be any hope of a true and lasting peace or genuine social justice for the peoples of the world.

Barack Obama never heard this worldview seriously challenged from his parents or grandparents or their friends. He never heard it challenged in school right on through his Ivy League education. He never heard it challenged by anyone in his circle of friends and associates in Chicago - men and women like Bill Ayers and his wife, both unrepentant communist terrorist bombers. He never heard it being anything but reinforced during the nearly 20 years he sat in Jeremiah Wright's church. He never heard it challenged in the daily newspapers he read or on the nightly network news broadcasts he watched or on taxpayer financed public television or radio.

And he never heard that anti-US mindset seriously challenged by any person of significance in the Democrat party.

The only serious challenge to the worldview that the United States sits like a giant poisonous spider in the center of a web of evil which reaches around the world raping, pillaging and polluting everything it touches that might have ever made it over the high walls of the Marxist compound in which Barack Obama's mind has been stewing since birth might have come from talk radio or Fox News. Two sources which Obama's ideological training would have taught him to instantly label as part of the right-wing hate machine and discount - without consideration.

Barack Obama is what he is and if the United States wishes to remain what it has been (a free and prosperous nation kept safe in a dangerous world by our willingness to defend ourselves and our allies) then we must resist with every legal means almost every action of this president.

Obama continues to sink

From Rasmussen:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 24% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -18.

That’s a one point improvement from yesterday when Obama’s Approval Index rating fell to the lowest level yet recorded. Prior to the past three days, the Approval Index had never fallen below -15 during Obama’s time in office (see trends).

As the health care plan struggles in the Senate, public opposition remains stable. Fifty-six percent (56% ) oppose the plan working its way through Congress while just 40% favor it. In Nevada, the health care bill is causing problems for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s bid for re-election.

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook.

Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That’s the lowest level yet measured for this president. Previously, his overall approval rating had fallen to 45% twice, once in early September and once in late November.

Fifty-five percent (55%) now disapprove.

Seventy-two percent (72%) of Democrats now offer their approval while 80% of Republicans disapprove. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, just 36% approve.

Seventy-seven percent (77%) of liberals approve while 76% of conservatives disapprove. The bad news for the President is that there are a lot more conservatives in the country than liberals. However, he gets a bit of a boost because 57% of moderate voters still offer their approval.

And this tells you everything you need to know about the so-called moderates.

Obama insults Norway

Tell me again about how Obama was going to heal the damaged relationships caused by Bush.

Barack Obama's trip to Oslo to pick up his Nobel peace award is in danger of being overshadowed by a row over the cancellation of a series of events normally attended by the prizewinner.

Norwegians are incensed over what they view as his shabby response to the prize by cutting short his visit.

The White House has cancelled many of the events peace prize laureates traditionally submit to, including a dinner with the Norwegian Nobel committee, a press conference, a television interview, appearances at a children's event promoting peace and a music concert, as well as a visit to an exhibition in his honour at the Nobel peace centre.

He has also turned down a lunch invitation from the King of Norway.

According to a poll published by the daily tabloid VG, 44% of Norwegians believe it was rude of Obama to cancel his scheduled lunch with King Harald, with only 34% saying they believe it was acceptable.

"Of all the things he is cancelling, I think the worst is cancelling the lunch with the king," said Siv Jensen, the leader of the largest party in opposition, the populist Progress party. "This is a central part of our government system. He should respect the monarchy," she told VG.

Is there anybody out there on the international stage - other than thug dictators and terrorists - who Obama hasn't insulted?

Does Obama have any appreciation of what the Nobel Committee has done for him? They have sacrificed whatever tiny shred of credibility and dignity they still retained after awarding the Peace Prize to Yasser Arafat by handing the thing to a know-nothing, done-nothing Chicago thug street agitator whose sole accomplishment in the eyes of the Committee was that he was not George W Bush, well that and that he seems to hold the USA in as much contempt as they do.

Yet despite the fact that they have guaranteed that no thinking person will ever take them seriously again, all to heap an utterly undeserved award upon him, this preening little narcissist still sees fit to publicly disrespect them.

What is it going to take to make all the fools who voted for Obama and even continue to support him because they believed that he would restore our shattered international image to wake up and see what a disaster he is on the world stage?

Palin closes in on Obama

From the Los Angeles Times:

Lordy, Lordy, Lordy, look what the pollsters just brought in.

A pair of new surveys revealing that Democrat President Obama is still declining and has hit a new low in job approval among Americans just 56 weeks after they elected him with a decided margin.

And -- wait for it -- Republican Sarah Palin is successfully selling a whole lot more than books out there on the road. Even among those not lining up in 10-degree weather to catch a glimpse of pretty much the only political celebrity the GOP has these days.

First, el jefe. Facing double-digit unemployment, rising spending, deficits and Afghan war casualties plus a keystone but stalled healthcare reform effort that caused a rare Sunday presidential visit to Capitol Hill, Obama recently fell below 50% job approval for the first time.

Then, last week's deft dance of rhetoric over sending reinforcements to Afghanistan but, on the other foot, bringing them home quickly maybe gave him a brief boost. That, however, collapsed with equal rapidity.

Obama's new Gallup Poll job approval number is 47%. Last month it was 53%.

Regular Ticket readers will recall how in this space in late November we pointed out that Obama's closely-watched job approval slide was coinciding with Palin's little-noticed rise in favorability. And it appeared they might cross somewhere in the 40s.

Well, ex-Sen. Obama, meet ex-Gov. Palin.

The new CNN/Opinion Research Poll shows Palin now at 46% favorable, just one point below her fellow basketball fan.

(The same poll, btw, has bad news for Dick Cheney-haters; the outspoken former VP has climbed out of the 29% basement back up to 39% now. How do you suppose he's done that without a new book? But that's another story.)

Not that either Palin or Obama will admit caring about such trivial things as disparate political polls....

Now would all the people who have been saying things like "sure Palin's great, but she's just too unpopular" shut the frak up!

If you don't think she would make a good president fine, just say so. But stop this "she can't win" whine. Like I've told you all along when the people get to meet her, unfiltered by McCain campaign staffers who hated her because she is conservative, they will love her.

Let's remember something. Come 2012 anyone who will not vote for Sarah Palin because she is "too conservative" will wind up voting for Barack Obama anyway no matter who the Republicans run. Colin Powell and a whole raft of so-called "moderates" proved that. When the Republican party nominated exactly the kind of moderate candidate they had been telling us to nominate they repaid the GOP by voting for Obama.

40% of the people in this country identify themselves as conservative. 20% identify themselves as liberal. That means that to win a presidential election Democrats have to convince 30% plus 1 either that they really aren't all that liberal or that being liberal is the way to go.

Republicans, on the other hand, only have to convince 10% plus 1 that conservatism better serves the nation - provided that they can convince the conservative base that their candidate is genuinely conservative.

Which is easier, to persuade 30% of a lie or 10% of the truth?

Fatboy Dim begs Obama

I have said in print before that I am singularly unimpressed when the Left offers us some Hollywood celebrity or group of celebrities advocating for or against some issue. I'm sure we all remember actors like Sean Penn, Alex Baldwin, Eric Roberts, Susan Sarandon and Janeane Garofalo making the rounds of talk shows arguing against the war in Iraq. I'm sure we've all seen comedian Jon Stewart's faux-news show, The Daily Show, and been dismayed when we heard that it was the primary news source for a depressingly large percentage of young people of high school through college age.

Of course celebrities have every right to express their opinions. Too many of America's soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines - not to mention merchant marine and Coast Guard - have bled and died on battlefields ranging from the frozen North Atlantic to the burning deserts of Iraq to preserve our Constitutionally recognized freedoms. Even the freedom of stupid people to express idiotic opinions about things that they clearly know nothing about.

Which brings us to this weird screed from movie maker Michael Moore (who is known on this blog as Fatboy Dim). Moore posted this open letter to President Obama on his blog yesterday:

Dear President Obama,

Do you really want to be the new "war president"? If you go to West Point tomorrow night (Tuesday, 8pm) and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president. Pure and simple. And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do -- destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you. With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they've always heard is true -- that all politicians are alike. I simply can't believe you're about to do what they say you are going to do. Please say it isn't so.

It is not your job to do what the generals tell you to do. We are a civilian-run government. WE tell the Joint Chiefs what to do, not the other way around. That's the way General Washington insisted it must be. That's what President Truman told General MacArthur when MacArthur wanted to invade China. "You're fired!," said Truman, and that was that. And you should have fired Gen. McChrystal when he went to the press to preempt you, telling the press what YOU had to do. Let me be blunt: We love our kids in the armed services, but we f*#&in' hate these generals, from Westmoreland in Vietnam to, yes, even Colin Powell for lying to the UN with his made-up drawings of WMD (he has since sought redemption).

[. . .]

All of us that voted and prayed for you and cried the night of your victory have endured an Orwellian hell of eight years of crimes committed in our name: torture, rendition, suspension of the bill of rights, invading nations who had not attacked us, blowing up neighborhoods that Saddam "might" be in (but never was), slaughtering wedding parties in Afghanistan. We watched as hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians were slaughtered and tens of thousands of our brave young men and women were killed, maimed, or endured mental anguish -- the full terror of which we scarcely know.

When we elected you we didn't expect miracles. We didn't even expect much change. But we expected some. We thought you would stop the madness. Stop the killing. Stop the insane idea that men with guns can reorganize a nation that doesn't even function as a nation and never, ever has.

Stop, stop, stop! For the sake of the lives of young Americans and Afghan civilians, stop. For the sake of your presidency, hope, and the future of our nation, stop. For God's sake, stop.

Tonight we still have hope.

Tomorrow, we shall see. The ball is in your court. You DON'T have to do this. You can be a profile in courage. You can be your mother's son.

We're counting on you.

Yours,
Michael Moore

The thing that occurs first to anyone with a functioning memory is the question, didn't Fatboy listen to Obama during the campaign?

Obama said that the war in Iraq was a waste of time and resources which should be devoted to Afghanistan! Afghanistan was - according to Obama- the "war of necessity", the "war which must be won".

Obama promised the American people that he would provide VICTORY in Afghanistan after Bush's "mishandling" of the war there.

Fatboy, are you so delusional that you simply tuned out Obama's pounding the war drum on Afghanistan all through his campaign or is it that you thought that he was lying?

Ann Coulter thought he was lying. She pointed out in her writings that Obama's rhetoric on the Afghan war matched past Democrat policy of always supporting the war that we were not fighting and never the war that we were fighting.

Mr. Dim, poll the American people issue by issue and you will find that the socialist agenda that you support gets the support of only about 20% of the American people. In order to gain enough support from the other 80% Obama had to pretend to be something that he wasn't. He was successful enough at this to fool a narrow majority of the electorate (a few percentage points dose not a "landslide" make) and so became president.

Obama has shown average Americans over and over again that he is not the man that they thought they were electing.

The question that he must face now is whether to pander to the 20% by surrendering in the war that he said we absolutely had to win or whether he is going to show us one of those rare moments when he manages to rise above the narrow leftism of his inner nature and puts the nation first.

Also Fatboy, do you really want to consign the 25 million people of Afghanistan to the unspeakably cruel rule of the Taliban? Are you utterly lacking compassion for the vast majority of those people who do not wish to see the likes of Mullah Omar returning to torment them?

Is it your attitude that their lives and freedom are worth less than ours because they are not - what - white, Christian, don't speak English? If so have the courage to say so and proudly take your place around the burning cross with others who think like you.

After all one cannot plausibly claim that the war against the Taliban is not morally and legally justified. They invited al Qaeda into Afghanistan. They provided them with land to set up training camps. They provided part of their funding and they used their military to protect them. Osama bin Laden was a part of the Taliban government in everything but name.

So what is the basis of your opposition to the war in Afghanistan, Fatboy? If it isn't racism then what is it? Could it be that you simply hate the United States so much that you don't think we have the right to defend ourselves when attacked?

If that is the case, and I suspect it is, then you should have the courage to come out and say so. But good luck getting anyone other than that 20% who are your and Obama's true soul-mates to go along with you.

Falling like a stone

From the Politico:

President Obama's job approval numbers will dip below 50% for the first time today in Gallup's daily tracking poll, according to a Gallup official.

"Gallup Daily tracking results just in. Obama will be below 50% for the first time when we update our numbers at 1:00 p.m.," wrote Gallup.com managing news editor Lymari Morales on Twitter.

His approval numbers have bounced down to the 50% mark several times, driven by weaker support from independents and Republicans, but hadn't crossed it.

The slide is worrying for the White House, but it's probably not yet panic time. Ronald Reagan's approval numbers dropped well below 40% during the depths of his first term recession. If Obama's bad stretch puts him in the high forties or low fifties, that's not a crippling political problem. If he languishes there or drops further, it may become one.

The critical difference between Reagan and Obama is that Reagan's policies were rooted in conservative free-market principles which could not help but end the recession and usher in an era of unrivaled peacetime economic expansion.

Obama, on the other hand, is pursuing policies rooted in Marxism and cannot help but create an anemic, jobless recovery which will slide back into recession - probably before next Fall.

This 180 degree difference between the orientation of Reagan and Obama will guarantee a 180 degree difference in outcomes.

Reagan is, and will continue to be, venerated as the greatest president of the 20th century.

Obama, name will become an obscenity - literally. In future decades if someone on broadcast television is tasteless enough to utter the word "Obama" it will be bleeped out and the actor's mouth will be digitally blurred so that no one will be able to read his lips and write angry letters to the network.

Here is a video to celebrate Obama's political future.

The people continue to awaken

More bad news for the little tin messiah, from Rasmussen:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 30% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -10 (see trends). Republicans have opened a six-point lead on the Generic Congressional Ballot.

Sixty percent (60%) say that the Fort Hood shootings should be investigated by the military as a terrorist act. Just 27% prefer a criminal investigation by civilian authorities.

This Veterans Day, 81% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the U.S. military. Thirty-six percent (36%) had a close friend or relative who gave their life for our country. A Rasmussen video report notes that 69% say that military service is good for young people.

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook.

Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) disapprove.

[. . .]

Most Americans continue to oppose the health care plan working its way through Congress.

[. . .]

It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. President Obama's numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters. That's because some of the President's most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote.

I am greatly cheered by this. My greatest fear was that too many of the American people would have such an emotional investment is Obama and his "historic" nature that they would be unable to come to grips emotionally with what a failure he was bound to be.

I beleived that there was a strong possibility that they would simply ignore bad news or continue to blame Bush. However it seems that high unemployment numbers have a way of bringing people out of denial and making them face cold hard reality.

And the reality is very cold and very hard. When you add the official unemployment numbers to the "discouraged workers", that is people who are out of work and have given up trying to find a job, you see real unemployment at over 15%. Then add the numbers of "underemployed", those workers who want and need full time employment but are only able to find part time work that does not pay enough for them to make ends meet, and you have an unemployment rate of around 21%.

These are Great Depression numbers.

Then consider the fact that severe inflation is just around the corner as the effect of all the money Obama and congressional Democrats are printing to underwrite their profligate spending begins to hit home.

How will people react when the spending power of their savings and pay checks decreases dramatically?

Do you know what the only part of the economy (other than government) that is growing and adding jobs at a brisk rate is?

It is the health care industry.

What will happen if Obama gets his way and congress actually hands him a socialized medicine bill to sign. What will happen if one seventh of the economy suddenly stops growing and is thrown into reverse as the government starts cutting costs and rationing services?

I fear our worst times as a nation are ahead of us.

National Socialist Health Care passes the House

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Democratic-controlled House has narrowly passed landmark health care reform legislation, handing President Barack Obama a hard won victory on his signature domestic priority.

Republicans were nearly unanimous in opposing the plan that would expand coverage to tens of millions of Americans who lack it and place tough new restrictions on the insurance industry.

The 220-215 vote late Saturday cleared the way for the Senate to begin a long-delayed debate on the issue that has come to overshadow all others in Congress.

When I heard this morning that the House had passed this with a narrow margin under the cover of darkness I had the strong impression that it was nothing more than a bit of political theater. The impression was strongly reinforced by this article on the Financial Times website.

Many Senate watchers are predicting that the measure will die a quiet death in the upper chamber.

When I heard that the House approved the bill I figured that a deal had been cut with enough of the 80+ Democrats who were planning to vote no on the bill to let it pass. They change their vote to yea and and give the little tin messiah and San Fran Nan their little cockadoodle of victory and in exchange it goes nowhere in the Senate.

The thinking is that by next November the voters will have forgotten who voted for a socialized medicine bill that never became law.

I doubt that it will work. The electorate has been too angered by this latest attempt to deprive them of their liberty and their wealth. Add the shear arrogance of the legislators defying such clearly expressed disapproval from the voters and you have a recipe for another 1994 style bloodletting in 2010.

But there will be one important difference. While Bill Clinton had as his number one priority being reelected so that he could continue to enjoy the perks of the office Obama actually believes his own propaganda about being a messianic figure and will redouble his efforts to transform the nation if he senses that he is losing the public.

How this will play out against a Republican dominated congress (or at least a GOP dominated House) will be interesting to see.

Given that Obama is a Marxist whose heroes are people like Arafat, Castro, Che and Chavez it is not impossible that he could attempt some kind of end run around congress by some kind of declaration of martial law. This could set the United States up for the kind of constitutional crisis that Honduras is currently weathering.

Would it not be amusing to see Obama hold up in the Venezuelan embassy issuing manifestos and calls for his supporters to arm themselves and descend on Washington to return him to power.

You know, the more I think about this the more possible it seems. . .

Can you imagine what a lunatic asylum it would be sealed in with Obama and his loyalists, sort of like the fuhrer bunker under Berlin, but less mature and more delusional.

Cry me a river

MADISON, Wis. (Reuters) - A year after his historic election, President Barack Obama sought to remind Americans on Wednesday the biggest problems he is grappling with -- from the economy to the war in Afghanistan -- are the legacy of his predecessor, George W. Bush.

With his approval ratings down from once-lofty levels and Tuesday's Democratic election losses raising questions about his political clout, Obama held no special ceremony to mark the anniversary of his election as America's first black president.

He instead traveled to Wisconsin to appear before a friendly audience in a school gymnasium and promote education as a pillar of his economic recovery efforts.

Obama was elected on a promise of sweeping change after eight years under Bush, but many Americans are increasingly expressing impatience that his pledge has yet to bear fruit.

He used the preamble of his speech to insist his administration had indeed had important successes and also to remind Americans of the litany of daunting challenges he inherited when he took office in January.

"One year ago, Americans all across this country went to the polls and cast ballots for the future they wanted to see," Obama said.

But he said his administration was also confronted with a "financial crisis that threatened to plunge our economy into a Great Depression, the worst that we've seen in generations."

"We had record deficits, two wars, frayed alliances around the world," Obama added.

President Obama, or the manchild as Rush calls him, is emotionally incapable of accepting responsibility. Credit he will claim even when it is not due him, but responsibility is alien to him.

This is why Mr. Obama's crybaby whinging about the mess the previous president left him with has to be examined closely.

The Financial Mess. It is true that exercised almost no restraint on a Republican congress that was determined to spend like Democrats. It is also true that Bush authored some big spending programs of his own. But here are some facts.

One, while it is true that the first big budget-busting chunk of money to be spent by the government to help the financial markets recover (TARP) was a Bush administration program it enjoyed more support among Democrats than Republicans. Then Senator Obama supported and voted for TARP, as did the entire House and Senate Democrat leadership.

Two, the meltdown in the mortgage lending industry which triggered the current financial crisis was caused by government policies which were authored by Democrats. The idea that people should be given home loans that they have almost no chance of being able to pay back because everybody has a "right" to a house was something so stupid that not even a RINO like Lindsey Graham could have come up with it. Ultra-left legislators like Barny Frank acted as human shields to protect Fannie Mae and Fredie Mac from the kind of regulation (which George W Bush wanted to impose on them) which might have prevented the current crisis.

Three, Obama complains about Bush's deficit but he has increased that deficit by orders of magnitude and is seeking to increase it even more. If the problem is that Bush spent too much isn't the answer to spend LESS?

Two Wars. Yes we are fighting two wars in response to an attack on American soil which killed more Americans than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Afghanistan was not simply sheltering Osama bin Laden he was acting as an unofficial participant in the Taliban government of that nation. And Saddam Hussein was writing large checks to the families of suicide bombers, giving more and more young men - and women - incentive to strap on an explosive belt and murder innocent people.

Frayed Alliances. If Mr. Obama is so worried about our relationship with our allies then why is he offering a series of calculated insults to those same allies? Obama has insulted the British people as a whole and both the Prime Minister and Queen individually. The French have been so disappointed with Obama that they have largely given up on trying to forge a closer relationship with the US and are now looking to do military and nuclear deals in Asia and the Middle East. And in the latest flipping off of a European ally Obama is boycotting the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.

The reasons for Obama's refusal to acknowledge the significance of the event which symbolizes the end of the Cold War, the fall of the Soviet Union and the reunification of Germany are not entirely clear but among them are probably these.

The defeat of the Soviet Empire was done before Obama became president and in Obama's world the USA only became capable of doing anything good when he was elected president.

Ronald Reagan was responsible for the final victory over the Soviets and Obama hates Reagan because Reagan, as a free market capitalist and enemy of big-brother nanny state government, is the exact opposite of Obama.

The celebrations will be held at the Brandenburg Gate which is where Ronald Reagan made his "tear down this wall" speech. The Gate's reopening is a symbol of German reunification which was only possible because of the fall of the USSR. As a Marxist Obama resents the fact that the world's first communist nation was beaten by the capitalist West.

And finally, and with what we know about Obama's massive narcissism perhaps the most likely reason for Obama's refusal to attend the festivities in Germany is that Obama had wanted to address the German people from the Brandenburg Gate during the campaign but had to back off after too many objections were raised about his plan to use such a potent German symbol as a prop in a campaign speech. Having had his whim denied Obama is still in a snit and he won't go unless they beg him.

And we won't even talk about how Obama has alienated the Israelis (one of our strongest allies in the world and the only true friend we have in the region).

For a president who was supposed to heal the damage allegedly caused by the Bush administration in our international relationships seems to be doing little more than driving away our closest friends.

I like the fact that Obama keeps trying to play the "Bush card". Every time he does he simply makes himself look smaller and less to be taken seriously. In the short term this is bad for America because as our enemies take the measure of the insignificant little punk that sits in the Oval Office they will be emboldened. However in the long run this is good for the country because it will pave the way for an easy GOP victory in 2012 as Sarah Palin, or any other conservative Republican, will win simply by demonstrating to the nation that they are a fully functioning adult.

VOTE!

If you live in New York's 23rd district, New Jersey or Virginia it is critically important that you vote today.

These elections will be seen (and, in fact are) a referendum on the Obama presidency. They are being closely watched by all elected officials, especially by members of the House or Representatives, who all must stand for election next November.

Republican victories in these three races will send a loud message to House Democrats that their political futures are in danger if they continue to carry this administration's water on issues like socialized medicine.

GOP victories in these races could literally spell the defeat of the current socialist health care takeover and if it dies this time it will probably be at least ten years before any serious attempt is made to resurrect it.

This will buy Republicans a decade in which to bring about market based reforms like health savings accounts, tort reform and insurance deregulation which will begin to reduce health care costs and greatly lessen the pressure for any renewed attempt at a government takeover.

Another positive effect of Republican victories today will be the way in which Obama will react to them.

Obama is a narcissist who has never been forced to cope with defeat and failure. His response to what he cannot fail to see as a personal rejection will be to fly into a rage and start seeking scapegoats. This will further diminish him in the public's eyes as they see him acting like a punk rather than a president and it will further divide and destabilize the Democrat party.

As Democrats wishing to win reelection come to the full realization that Obama is a liability rather than an asset they will seek to distance themselves from him and his policies.

This will further enrage him and as we have seen in his foolish vendettas against Fox News and Rush Limbaugh he will strike out at what he sees as his new enemies, within his own party.

This will further divide and destabilize the Democrats, setting them up for a historic defeat in 2010.

So even if you looked at the polls and figures that our guys were ahead so you didn't need to make the effort to go to the voting place and stand in line. Even if you are in New Jersey and think that the Republican is too liberal suck it up and go vote.

Because a vote in any of these races is a vote against Obama.

Thomas Sowell's Dismantling America, parts 1 and 2

Part 1

Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent?

Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers-- that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would depend on the government liking what they publish?

Did you imagine that anyone would even be talking about having a panel of so-called "experts" deciding who could and could not get life-saving medical treatments?

Scary as that is from a medical standpoint, it is also chilling from the standpoint of freedom. If you have a mother who needs a heart operation or a child with some dire medical condition, how free would you feel to speak out against an administration that has the power to make life and death decisions about your loved ones?

Does any of this sound like America?

How about a federal agency giving school children material to enlist them on the side of the president? Merely being assigned to sing his praises in class is apparently not enough.

How much of America would be left if the federal government continued on this path? President Obama has already floated the idea of a national police force, something we have done without for more than two centuries.

We already have local police forces all across the country and military forces for national defense, as well as the FBI for federal crimes and the National Guard for local emergencies. What would be the role of a national police force created by Barack Obama, with all its leaders appointed by him? It would seem more like the brown shirts of dictators than like anything American.

How far the President will go depends of course on how much resistance he meets. But the direction in which he is trying to go tells us more than all his rhetoric or media spin.

Barack Obama has not only said that he is out to "change the United States of America," the people he has been associated with for years have expressed in words and deeds their hostility to the values, the principles and the people of this country.

Jeremiah Wright said it with words: "God damn America!" Bill Ayers said it with bombs that he planted. Community activist goons have said it with their contempt for the rights of other people.

Among the people appointed as czars by President Obama have been people who have praised enemy dictators like Mao, who have seen the public schools as places to promote sexual practices contrary to the values of most Americans, to a captive audience of children.

Those who say that the Obama administration should have investigated those people more thoroughly before appointing them are missing the point completely. Why should we assume that Barack Obama didn't know what such people were like, when he has been associating with precisely these kinds of people for decades before he reached the White House?

Nothing is more consistent with his lifelong patterns than putting such people in government-- people who reject American values, resent Americans in general and successful Americans in particular, as well as resenting America's influence in the world.

Any miscalculation on his part would be in not thinking that others would discover what these stealth appointees were like. Had it not been for the Fox News Channel, these stealth appointees might have remained unexposed for what they are. Fox News is now high on the administration's enemies list.

Nothing so epitomizes President Obama's own contempt for American values and traditions like trying to ram two bills through Congress in his first year-- each bill more than a thousand pages long-- too fast for either of them to be read, much less discussed. That he succeeded only the first time says that some people are starting to wake up. Whether enough people will wake up in time to keep America from being dismantled, piece by piece, is another question-- and the biggest question for this generation.

Part 2

Many years ago, at a certain academic institution, there was an experimental program that the faculty had to vote on as to whether or not it should be made permanent.

I rose at the faculty meeting to say that I knew practically nothing about whether the program was good or bad, and that the information that had been supplied to us was too vague for us to have any basis for voting, one way or the other. My suggestion was that we get more concrete information before having a vote.

The director of that program rose immediately and responded indignantly and sarcastically to what I had just said-- and the faculty gave him a standing ovation.

After the faculty meeting was over, I told a colleague that I was stunned and baffled by the faculty's fierce response to my simply saying that we needed more information before voting.

"Tom, you don't understand," he said. "Those people need to believe in that man. They have invested so much hope and trust in him that they cannot let you stir up any doubts."

Years later, and hundreds of miles away, I learned that my worst misgivings about that program did not begin to approach the reality, which included organized criminal activity.

The memory of that long-ago episode has come back more than once while observing both the actions of the Obama administration and the fierce reactions of its supporters to any questioning or criticism.

Almost never do these reactions include factual or logical arguments against the administration's critics. Instead, there is indignation, accusations of bad faith and even charges of racism.

Here too, it seems as if so many people have invested so much hope and trust in Barack Obama that it is intolerable that anyone should come along and stir up any doubts that could threaten their house of cards.

Among the most pathetic letters and e-mails I receive are those from people who ask why I don't write more "positively" about Obama or "give him the benefit of the doubt."

No one-- not even the President of the United States-- has an entitlement to a "positive" response to his actions. The entitlement mentality has eroded the once common belief that you earned things, including respect, instead of being given them.

As for the benefit of the doubt, no one-- especially not the President of the United States-- is entitled to that, when his actions can jeopardize the rights of 300 million Americans domestically and the security of the nation in an international jungle, where nuclear weapons may soon be in the hands of people with suicidal fanaticism. Will it take a mushroom cloud over an American city to make that clear? Was 9/11 not enough?

When a President of the United States has begun the process of dismantling America from within, and exposing us to dangerous enemies outside, the time is long past for being concerned about his public image. He has his own press agents for that.

Internationally, Barack Obama has made every mistake that was made by the Western democracies in the 1930s, mistakes that put Hitler in a position to start World War II-- and come dangerously close to winning it.

At the heart of those mistakes was trying to mollify your enemies by throwing your friends to the wolves. The Obama administration has already done that by reneging on this country's commitment to put a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe and by its lackadaisical foot-dragging on doing anything serious to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. That means, for all practical purposes, throwing Israel to the wolves as well.

Countries around the world that have to look out for their own national survival, above all, are not going to ignore how much Obama has downgraded the reliability of America's commitments.

Iraq, for example, knows that Iran is going to be next door forever while Americans may be gone in a few years. South Korea likewise knows that North Korea is permanently next door but who knows when the Obama administration will get a bright idea to pull out? Countries in South America know that Hugo Chavez is allying Venezuela with Iran. Dare they ally themselves with an unreliable U.S.A.? Or should they join our enemies to work against us?

This issue is too serious for squeamish silence.

Damn.

We are so screwed.

This is what we get for electing a know-nothing, done-nothing radical who never grew out of his college Marxism - with a giant racial chip on his shoulder to boot.

"Saved and Created"?

If your bullshit detector went started screaming bloody-murder when the little messiah and his surrogates started crowing about all the jobs that they had "created or saved" here's some evidence that it is properly calibrated.

Oct. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Heresy, thy name is Christina Romer.

Last week, the chairman of President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers -- a position that carried the title “chief economist” until Larry Summers took up residence in the White House -- testified to the Joint Economic Committee on the economic crisis and the efficacy of the policy response.

Here’s the executive summary in case you missed it:

The crisis: “Inherited.”

The economy: “In terrible shape” (the inherited one).

The shocks to the system: “Larger than those that precipitated the Great Depression.”

The policy response: “Strong and timely.”

The efficacy of the policy response: a 2 to 3 percentage point addition to second-quarter growth; 3 to 4 percentage points in the third; and 160,000 to 1.5 million “jobs saved or created,” a made-up metric if there ever was one. (More on that later.)

What was most puzzling about Romer’s Oct. 22 testimony was her comment on the waning effect of fiscal stimulus.

“Most analysts predict that the fiscal stimulus will have its greatest impact on growth in the second and third quarters of 2009,” Romer said. “By mid-2010, fiscal stimulus will likely be contributing little to growth.”

At first it was just fringe elements, such as conservative blogs and the not-really-a-news-organization Fox News, that pounced on Romer’s statement. Then other news outlets started to question her statement, which seemed to fly in the face of White House assertions that only a small portion of the stimulus -- $120 billion, or 15 percent -- has actually been spent. Most of the criticism of the stimulus coming from the president’s own party has been, “too little, too late,” and here’s Romer saying it’s kaput.

Thanks for That

Instead of being banished to the woodshed, Romer was consigned to the White House blog, where she slipped into professorial mode to explain the arcane distinction between the effect of the stimulus on the change in gross domestic product and its effect on the level of GDP.

Stimulus has its biggest impact on the growth rate of GDP when it’s implemented, Romer said, using a car-and-driver analogy: Step on the accelerator, the car goes from zero to 60.

Stimulus will keep the level of GDP and employment higher than they would have been even after the growth-rate effect fades, she said.

Her logic is impeccable. It’s her premise that’s flawed.

Dispensing Lucre

When the government distributes lucre or loot, people spend it. If your interest is national income accounting, spending other people’s money is great. Spending is a back-door way for government statisticians to measure what matters, which is the real output of goods and services.

But the government has no money of its own to spend; only what it borrows or confiscates from us via taxation. Oops.

“Government job creation is an oxymoron,” said Bill Dunkelberg, chief economist at the National Federation of Independent Business. It is only by depriving the private sector of funds that government can hire or subsidize hiring.

That’s why “jobs created or saved” is such pure fiction. It ignores what’s unseen, as our old friend Frederic Bastiat explained so eloquently 160 years ago in an essay.

Econometric models synthesize all sorts of variables and spit out a GDP forecast. From there they derive the change in employment using something called Okun’s Law, named after the late economist Arthur Okun, which describes the relationship between the two.

Fiction Lags Reality

Actual hiring seems to be lagging behind the model’s land of make-believe. For small businesses, which are the source of most job creation in the U.S., the government’s increased and changing role in the economy isn’t a confidence builder. Businessmen have no idea what health-care reform will mean for their cost structure or what whimsical tax policies the government might impose when it realizes those short-term deficits are running into long-term unfunded liabilities.

No wonder capital spending plans were at an all-time low in the third quarter, according to the NFIB monthly survey.

Only 30,383 jobs were created or saved by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, according to Recovery.gov, the government’s once-transparent Web site that has become a complex blur of numbers, graphs and pie charts. These are only the jobs reported by federal contract recipients. The Obama administration will report the larger universe of ARRA-related jobs on Oct. 30.

An extrapolation of what would have happened without the fiscal stimulus isn’t much consolation to the 9.8 percent of the workforce that is unemployed. Nor is Romer’s prescription for the economy and labor market very comforting in light of the trillions of future tax dollars that have been spent, lent or promised by the federal government.

“If you take your foot off the gas, the car goes from 60 back down to a slow crawl,” Romer said in clarifying blog post.

Gentlemen, start your engines.

(Caroline Baum, author of “Just What I Said,” is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)