facetwitch

The Statist State of the Union Lecture Tonight!

2012-01-24T16:59:00.000-06:00

One thousand days without a budget, $4 trillion of new debt and counting, 100 rounds of golf, lavish vacations, axing thousands of jobs with the Keystone XL Pipeline in the hopes that it will secure his, and this president wants to lecture us on shared sacrifice and living within our means? No thanks.

Which is why I'll be at the movies. The Academy (elite snobs, really, but who can resist?) announced their ten nominees for Best Picture today and I've only seen two of them. Truthfully, I think Rango should have been up for more than just Best Animated Feature, in which case I could say I've seen three. Either way, you're likely to get a truer version of reality out of Hollywood than Hollywood's Favorite Orator. Besides, the president's lecture, er, speech, will be posted online and you can probably find the entire text on twitter to read during the previews.Why put yourself through the agony of the agitprop, the rehearsed standing Os for O, and the gushing commentary from tingly-leg types trying to sell four more years of faux recovery? Heck, that could be new Democratic slogan... Faux More Years! Faux More Years!

Screw the sanctimony. Do yourself a favor and go see a flick! The Left can't complain, because as much as they love Obama, they love it even more when you go to their movies. However, if having a dishonest narcissist whisper sweet nothings in your ear is your cup of tea, and you already divorced Newt, well, by all means don't miss the Statist State of the Union tonight at 8 pm. As one astute blog commenter put it, what's twinkles for "you lie"?

Tyranny's Friend

2012-01-08T17:40:00.000-06:00

The greatest enemy that exists to freedom is tyranny. Tyranny is above the law, ignores the law, makes up its own rules, steals power from others elected to govern, and defends the actions of lawless men. President Obama has increasingly shown himself to be a lawless man, whether its failing to enforce laws he doesn't approve of (see DOMA, immigration) or making up his own rules. We are either a nation of laws or a nation of men. We can't be both.

The president's recent appointment of questionable candidates to head bureaucratic agencies with broad regulatory authority without seeking the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate is just the latest example that he is turning us from a nation of laws into a nation of men. This skirting of the Constitution is not only unprecedented in our history, but it fits the very type of executive fiat that is almost exclusive to banana republics.

Liberals, leftists, and apologists for the Democratic Party have tried to downplay the concern by confusing the issue and slyly spinning the president's non-recess "recess appointments" as some ambiguous legal matter open to broad interpretation. It's not. The arguments they have mounted are weak and ill-advised. They are made not out of a desire to defend America's Constitution or the Republic for which it stands, but to defend one single ruler with which they sympathize. President Obama's actions and their successful defense of them could be the downfall of our representative democracy, bringing an end to the checks and balances that keep our government from abusing power.

The left's first inclination is to compare anything President Obama does to George W. Bush, because of course Barack Obama ran on four more years of governing exactly like Bush. But any comparison to President Bush's appointments falls flat. President Bush never made a recess appointment during a pro forma session. In fact, the pro forma sessions were started by Harry Reid to prevent President Bush from making recess appointments. Even Harry Reid won't dispute this.

The left has also attempted to justify Obama's actions by blaming Republicans. This argument goes something like, "well, he tried to do it the right way, but Republicans are too much of obstructionists, so he had to bend the law." Okay, first off, either you have principles or you don't. You don't just have principles when its convenient. Secondly, Democrats used the same tactics to bottle up President Bush's appointments, and yet the conservative leader most vilified and despised by the left in the last 30 years, called everything from "illegitimate" to "Hitler", never felt compelled to make such an overreach.

More importantly, two of the appointments President Obama made to the NLRB were new names that have not had a chance to be interviewed by the U.S. Senate. In other words, their appointments hadn't stalled anywhere.

While recess appointments have been ruled constitutional, that doesn't mean they aren't ripe for abuse. It's true that both President Clinton and Bush made over 100 of them, but none occurred while the U.S. Senate was actually in session (pro forma or not). Further, it has been generally agreed by legal advisors to the last three presidents, including Obama's own Justice Department, that a recess must last longer than three days for a president to enact his recess appointment authority.

Frighteningly, President Obama has thrown all the rules out the window and challenged the Senate's power to approve any presidential appointment at all. Based on this new logic, he could make an appointment while the Senate adjourns to lunch. Not needing any votes of confirmation, one supposes he could even appoint whomever his leftist heart desires to the Supreme Court. Sure, it all sounds like fun and games to clowns like Jon Stewart, but some of us take this kind of fundamental shift in power seriously.

The left has never been a big fan of the Constitution, seeing it as an obstacle to all the Big Government they are sure we must desire, but let's take a look at it anyways. Article 1, Section 2 is very clear:

"He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law."

Since the nation's founding, the U.S. Senate has had the power to reject poorly vetted presidential appointees. Even the great George Washington's nominees faced scrutiny, proving no one is above reproach.

By skirting the U.S. Senate, President Obama has challenged the very core of our system of government, and it was not by accident. If he had acted just one day sooner, the president could have tempered this crisis by at least making an intersession appointment. While still shorter than the usually agreed-upon three day recess, he would have at least had Teddy Roosevelt's precedent from 1908 to stand on, albeit under completely different circumstances. Instead, the president waited to make an intrasession appointment during the shortest of short recesses. There's only one logical reason for this, and that's to permanently seize power from a legislative branch that has repeatedly been a roadblock to much of his socialist-progressive agenda.

If Obama's actions are allowed to stand, it opens the door for him or any future president (should we be so lucky) to appoint whomever he wants to any bureaucratic or judicial position without the consent of any other elected representatives. Congress, the closest government body we have to the voice of the people, will be weakened to a whisper, and the president will be more empowered to act like a monarch or despot. The decisions of 1 man will be greater than the voices of 535 members of Congress, greater than the voices of 50 states, and yes, greater than the people. Tyranny has a friend in the Oval Office and his name is Barack Obama.

Who is Ben Breedlove and Why His Story Matters

2011-12-30T14:04:00.000-06:00

In the grand scheme of things, Ben Breedlove's story wouldn't seem to matter much. Two weeks ago, he was just another teen who enjoyed music, hanging out with his friends at the lake, and posting youtube videos. And yet, Ben Breedlove matters a great deal. His life, which ended tragically short on Christmas night, is inspiring millions around the world.

As it turns out, he also goes to my church, which has brought a lot of media attention. It's a large church, and I did not know Ben Breedlove or his family personally. I certainly feel I missed out. But I have a friend who is a youth minister who did know him, as well as my pastor. They now find themselves thrust in the spotlight to tell not just Ben's story, but God's story and the significance it holds for each of us.

If you are not familiar with Ben Breedlove, he has become an internet sensation. Ben passed away at the age of 18 from a heart attack due to a genetic condition which he had lived with most of his life. Before his passing, Ben's heart shut down several times, the latest at school on December 6, 2011. He stopped breathing for three minutes before he was revived. During that time, he witnessed what is clinically called a near-death experience and made a video describing what he saw and felt. The video has gone viral and received almost two million hits.

Ben admits in the video that he did no want to leave that peaceful place, what could be described as his own personal glimpse into heaven. Then he asks on a notecard, "Do you believe in angels or God?" and answers for himself. "I do." While the theme of the video is "cheating death", Ben could not have known God would call him home a few days later, on Christmas no less. I have little doubt that if Ben could describe his final transcendence to heaven with us, it would be in the most peaceful and beautiful imagery imaginable.

It's a cliche to say the Lord works in mysterious ways, and yet I can find no other words to describe this. Because Ben told his story, because of the video he posted on youtube (which was an afterthought encouraged by a friend), because Ben shared his testimony and challenged our perceptions of life after death, he has become famous. But more importantly, he has impacted countless lives by delivering a message of hope and grace.

The powerful message Ben delivered to us will touch people for a long time to come, far longer than the 18 years Ben spent touching lives here on earth. Ben was gracious enough to allow God to use him for a greater purpose than most of us could suspect.

You can imagine if an ordinary teenage kid had kept these visions to himself. You can imagine if Ben had kept quiet, rather than face possible ridicule and skepticism. You can imagine if he had gone on like nothing happened. The whole world would have missed out on a beautiful message. But Ben didn't, because Ben wasn't ordinary. He aspired to reveal the Christ within him, as C.S. Lewis would say, to share God's love and hope for humanity. He shared his story and it mattered. Just like all of our journeys matter to God.

Ben's story has given me comfort. I have a four year old nephew who has spent the last year going through cancer treatment. He has had brain surgery, radiation, and four doses of chemo, along with stem cell therapy. His cancer may be in remission, but it is too early to tell for sure. The whole year has been a struggle, but we have always focused on the positives. God is good, and even when bad things happen, God uses them to do good in the world.

We hope my nephew is cancer-free. We feel blessed that he hasn't had a seizure (after as many as 40 a day) since the tumor was removed from his brain. But rather than stress and worry about it, we choose to thank God for each precious moment.

Someday those precious moments will be gone for each of us with every loved one we know. Thank you, Ben Breedlove, for reminding us that God has a greater purpose for our lives than we could ever imagine. Sometimes the little things, like sharing our personal journey of faith in a video, turn out to be quite big indeed.

Underestimating Tim Tebow and God's Magical Season for Each of Us

2011-12-18T06:30:00.001-06:00

"The only thing I know is I know nothing." -Socrates

Too much of what passes for expert analysis today is just strongly-worded opinion. Take Tim Tebow's success in the NFL, for example. It wasn't supposed to happen. It's still not supposed to be happening. The Denver Broncos are supposed to go back to playing like the 0-4 team that started the season under Kyle Orton. So say the experts as if its scripture, and the minute Denver loses the talking heads in the media will start a celebration of their own that you can bet won't include Tebowing.

Today could be that day. The Broncos are a heavy underdog against the New England Patriots despite playing at home. Many so-called analysts are vested in the outcome. If the Patriots win, they will double down on Tom Brady and highlight every Tebow flub. The chatter that the Denver Broncos are a quarterback away from being a complete team will increase. If the Patriots lose, they will tell us it's only because of their porous defense, even though Tebow will likely cap the game with another come-from-behind drive. The experts, in other words, are only in the business of verifying their own opinions with utter nonsense.

Despite what happens today, conventional wisdom has failed to account for Tim Tebow's 7-1 record as a starter this year. Thus, we can already say with certainty that the conventional wisdom was wrong.

Character counts. It used to count for more. Forty or fifty years ago, the conventional wisdom would have probably predicted success for Tim Tebow. He would have been the exact kind of quarterback coaches wanted. He doesn't turn the ball over. He's tough to bring down. He can turn a busted play into positive yardage. He's a general on the field with strong intangibles. He makes every player on the team better by bringing out the ultimate effort in each of them. These are qualities that more often than not lead to victories.

However, in today's NFL more emphasis has been placed on a quarterback's arm strength, their throwing mechanics, the tightness of the spiral, and the ability to audible. Leadership is way down the list, something I suppose most coaches and scouts think can be taught so long as the quarterback carries the pedigree of a true passer.

In some cases, conventional wisdom has been right. Aaron Rodgers was valued highly by pro scouts and has turned in close to the perfect NFL season. His team is undefeated. But for every Aaron Rodgers, there's a Jeff George, Jamarcus Russell, Ryan Leaf, Akili Smith, and David Carr. These guys all had strong arms with good mechanics, they were highly drafted, but none of it translated to success on the football field.

I can't help but think of the talking political heads who make these same type of prognostications when it comes to which candidates can and can't win, which ones will alienate too many voters. Ronald Reagan, we were told, wasn't supposed to win. According to conventional wisdom, Sarah Palin can't either. And yet in the same sentence, these experts tell us the most divisive, partisan, and petty president in our lifetime is the guy with the winnable message. Again, utter nonsense.

Leadership isn't taught and it can't be faked. In their own way, many golden armed quarterbacks who fizzled out in the NFL have shown us that much. Leadership is built on a strong foundation, and it takes a lifetime. When discerning leadership, we would be wise to look at the virtues men have always valued as a strong foundation for success - faith, honest, perseverance, accountability, humility, grace under fire. More likely than not, this comes from a believe in something far greater and more meaningful than ourselves. It comes from God.

I can't help but think in discounting the qualities that make Tim Tebow so outstanding, many of us are really underestimating God's glory. Sadly, that means we are underestimating ourselves and the great purpose God has for each of us. Even if its only for one season.

Prediction: Broncos 24, Patriots 23 (but does it really matter?... I'm no expert)

10 Things I Learned This Week (12/12/11)

2011-12-12T17:02:00.003-06:00

I have decided to introduce a new and recurring blog feature: 10 Things I Learned This Week. Hopefully, it will allow me to summarize a few of my tweets into something for my blog readers, assuming some of you may not follow me on twitter. Speaking of, why don't you? Go there now and add me.

What I Learned Over the Past 7 Days:

1. Osawatomie is a Native American word meaning "stumping for votes with class warfare." (in a total coincidence, it also rhymes with Obama's a Commie)
2. $10,000 > $900 billion, at least according to liberals. The former was wagered by Mitt Romney, the latter by the Obama Administration on a failed stimulus (including $530 million of bad bets on Solyndra).
3. Unemployment benefits create more jobs than building a transcontinental pipeline. Based on this lefty logic, more people need to lose their jobs so the economy will rebound.
4. The Cowboys should burn their timeouts early so they don't risk icing their kicker.
5. Unless you are winning the Heisman or under the age of five, you really can't get away with wearing Superman socks.
6. GOP Debates are more boring without Herman Cain. Also, fewer pizzas sold.
7. Obama told 60 Minutes that he's the Captain. I guess that makes the mainstream media Tennille. Love will keep them together.
8. Texas A&M probably should have hired Gary Kubiak when they had the chance 8 years and 3 coaches ago. Congrats to the Houston Texans.
9. Rick Perry has the same barn jacket as Brokeback Mountain. Come to think of it, so do millions of ruggedly handsome American men. Okay, now I'm questioning my sexuality.
10. Pretty sure Dr. Pepper 10 is just regular Dr. Pepper and Diet Dr. Pepper mixed together in the same can.

Why Obama Can't Create Jobs (or Money: It's Not Just for Democratic Fundraisers)

2011-12-08T23:47:00.001-06:00

Sometimes clarity comes at the strangest hours. Tonight it happened when I fell asleep after enjoying a few libations while watching Anthony Bourdain's entertaining travel + food + booze show on the Travel Channel. If you've ever watched Anthony Bourdain's show before, you know he has a way of speaking plainly and saying exactly what's on his mind. Abrasive? Sure. But that's how the truth rolls sometimes.

Taking a cue from Mr. Bourdain's style of breaking down basic absurdities, I began to dissect President Obama's speech in Kansas the other day, you know the one where he said the economy has gotten too efficient to employ human beings and blamed the internet, ATMs, and technology in general for his three year reign over the worst streak of unemployment since the Great Depression, pining instead for the days of elevator operators, full service gas stations, and switchboards.

The president delivered his words where Teddy Roosevelt gave a famous (and often misunderstood) speech over 100 years ago, but I don't think we were expecting Mr. Obama to also champion the technology from that era. If I didn't know better, I would have sworn Osawatomie was Native American for "Soviet style economic planning." So much for winning the future.

As Pundette eloquently pointed out, Obama basically spent 30 minutes "lamenting that unions aren't strong enough to force buggy whip manufacturers to give raises to their employees." And who doesn't wonder what happened to all those great buggy driving jobs? They must have gone overseas to cheap labor.

If his speech clarified one thing, it's the president's complete failure to understand job creation. Having never worked in the private sector, he has no idea why jobs exist in the first place. Seriously. Someone should ask him - what is the point of employment?

If you listen to Mr. Obama, you are likely to think the purpose of a job is to provide someone with work. It's not. Nor is it to provide someone with benefits or to ensure every family gets to own a house. The point of a job is to make money, usually for someone else, and unless you are self-employed, that usually means a corporation. If the employer can't make a profit as a result of your labor, they won't hire you. If your labor loses them money, you aren't worth employing. And if government regulations make hiring more expensive, fewer jobs are created. It's really that simple.

But when the leader of the free world demonizes profits, when successful businesses are called greedy, when corporations that do most of the hiring are told they are not paying their fair share, when the private sector is told there will be a time to profit later, you end up with a business environment that stinks. Obamanomics discourages job growth and encourages stink. Period. Unless the government is doing all the hiring (and that's called Communism), you need profitable companies to hire productive workers who will increase profitability, allowing for the creation of even more corporations.

Computers, technology, ATMs, machinery, and the internet all increase productivity. They make businesses more productive and hence, more profitable. Therefore, "greedy corporations" can grow and keep hiring. I know, how dare they. Today's progressive, not too far removed from Marxism, will tell you corporations should only exist to serve at the government's whim.

Jobs aren't just for keeping people busy. The fact President Obama fails to grasp this simple economic reality is why we have a failing economy with such an anemic recovery. Mr. Obama can't create jobs, because like most leftists, he's never understood the purpose of work in the first place. He thinks hiring 10,000 people to dig a ditch and handing them all a spoon is the key to full employment. That's how we got a trillion dollars of wasted stimulus.

A president who values employment has to value profit, and Mr. Obama has proven himself incapable. There will be no job recovery until he is out of the White House.

Superfreaks and Supercommittees

2011-11-29T10:12:00.001-06:00

Question: How many Supercommittees does it take to change a light bulb?

Answer: Who knows? No Supercommittee has ever carried out such a feat.

I made that observation in a tweet back in August, half joking, half prepared to watch the chosen twelve member panel display the ineptness of so-called bipartisan committees. So when the Supercommittee did indeed "fail" last week, it barely registered on my radar. After all, why should the Supercommitte succeed in reaching a debt deal where all of Washington had failed, including the President, Vice-President, Speaker of the House, and two previous commissions?

Democrats, of course, are blaming the Tea Party and uncompromising fiscal conservatives. As E.J. Dionne at the Washington Post writes:
"It’s absurd to pretend that we can shrink the deficit over the long term without substantial tax increases... The least we can do under those circumstances is to repeal the tax cuts for the wealthy enacted under President George W. Bush. Yet the only revenue conservatives on the supercommittee put on the table involved $300 billion, most of it from ill-defined tax reforms, in exchange for lower tax rates on the rich and making something like $3.7 trillion worth of tax cuts permanent."

Exactly which tax reforms set to bring in $300 billion are so ill-defined, E.J. Dionne doesn't specify. But let's examine the absurdity of his first statement, that deficits can't be solved without substantial tax increases. Doesn't it seem convenient that this is always the favored argument of the very people who want Big Government?

Imagine a struggling business that does $400,000 in revenue but has $450,000 in annual expenses. Isn't the simplest way to get back in the black to cut $50,000 of expenses? Of course. Elementary, my dear Watson, and why not? The only other alternative, absent more customers, is for the business to raise prices in an effort to raise revenue, but higher prices could actually discourage sales. In many cases, this is exactly how tax increases work - money is maneuvered to avoid the increase, and the net result is a loss of revenue.

If we had a revenue problem and not a spending problem, you would see years of decreasing revenue despite flat or decreasing spending. But revenue over the past few years is only down slightly, while spending has increased almost twofold since 2006. Why do I bring up 2006? That was the year that the federal government brought in the most revenue, four years after the Bush tax cuts took place. The dirty little secret that progressive like E.J. Dionne don't want you to know is that revenue went up, not down, as a result of the Bush tax cuts. Unfortunately, spending has gone up way more during the same period.

The truth of the matter for most Democrats, and for progressives in particular, is they have yet to experience a level of government spending that is too much. Even today's stimulus stacked upon outrageous stimulus is insufficient to meet their wants. Thus, any deficit talk is only about one problem in their mind - not raising enough taxes to cover all the wonderful programs they have plans for. After all, how can a Supercommittee on deficit reduction take their job seriously when the president is out there proposing a half trillion dollar spending increase at the same time?

President Obama has taken three stabs at deficit reduction now, including the appointment of two separate bipartisan commissions, and gotten nowhere. A simpler tax code with lower overall rates and fewer loopholes has been endorsed by key members of two separate commissions. But apparently, the president doesn't like those solutions. And while Obama himself wisely extended the Bush tax cuts last December, signing a bill passed by a Democratic controlled House and Senate, he and his base now want to pretend it's Republicans who are unreasonably adding to the deficit by blocking revenue.

If I didn't know better, I would think the whole thing is a charade to stall meaningful legislative progress so Obama can claim he tried to cut the deficit but was stymied by a no-good, do-nothing Congress. But no leader would dare act against the best interest of the country for a little more political power, would they?

It's super debt, that's for sure. And the more it piles up, the more future generations are on the hook to pay for it while the superfreaks of statism use it as an excuse to strip more wealth and property away from what was once America's enterprising private sector.

Campaign 2012: Empty Words vs. Awkward Silences

2011-11-16T05:40:00.001-06:00

In the modern political climate, it seems that the worst offense a candidate can commit is to be rendered speechless. By now, we are all familiar with Rick Perry's unintentional imitation of Colin Firth in The King's Speech during last week's debate in which the Governor spent a half minute stammering over which bureaucracies he would eliminate. And now Herman Cain is on the hot seat, this time not for what he allegedly said to a former female employee, but what he failed to say to an editorial board about Libya and the time it took him to answer their question.

To be sure, it's important for a president to be able to articulate his views and demonstrate a broad knowledge of the issues facing our country. But in the YouTube era where gaffes become instant viral sensations spread like wildfire by social media, are we becoming hypersensitive to these moments of human fallibility? After all, they're nothing new. Just ask Howard Dean.

I have heard a number of Republican donors and strategists say it's over for Perry and Cain, that they don't have what it takes to be president because they fumbled their words. Maybe they're right. Or maybe, just maybe, we have formulated a process for electing our leaders that borders on the absurd. We parade candidates through more goofy debates than a season's worth of Curb Your Enthusiasm episodes, turning game show style questions into game changers while ignoring the substance of their positions. We hang on every word and measure the evening's performance far more than we measure how their policies have or actually will perform.

I have always referred to President Obama as the first American Idol president, an inexperienced half-term senator with a paper-thin resume elected by a generation conditioned to text in their vote for whoever puts on the best show. Experience and achievement don't matter to this crowd. It's all about the moment. Team Obama gave us plenty of those made-for-TV moments during the 2008 campaign. It hasn't translated to a competent presidency or a prosperous four years for America.

Herman Cain and Rick Perry have more executive experience than every other candidate in the field with the exception of Mitt Romney. They have demonstrated leadership and proven results that others only wish they could emulate. But unlike Romney, they haven't mastered the showmanship we demand to be fooled by. We have told our candidates that words matter more than actions or accomplishments. And in the Age of Obama, empty words matter most of all, certainly more than empty silences.

It's a strange way to pick a president, but at least it boosts cable news ratings.

Occupy Wall Street Marches for Billionaire George Soros, Multi-Millionaire John Kerry

2011-10-08T00:24:00.001-05:00

If there is a point to Occupy Wall Street, it seems to be bemoaning what some consider an unfair distribution of wealth - even though our nation provides the greatest opportunities for success of any nation on earth. Go ahead. Find me the Oprah Winfreys and Steve Jobses of China. Find me the Google and WalMart of France. Find me the European leaders born to immigrant parents who overcame poverty and made a name for themselves. Find me the Nikki Haleys, Condi Rices, Herman Cains, and Bobby Jindals.

Certainly America has become less of a meritocracy under President Obama, where cronyism (see Solyndra, GM, and GE) is rewarded to the detriment of free enterprise. And yet the Occupy Wall Street crowd isn't protesting the interference of government to unfairly influence and corrupt business, but instead asking for more government meddling and less free enterprise. In essence, the solution they offer is to strip wealth away from MILLIONS of shareholders, investors, entrepreneurs, and financial decision makers and put it in the hands of ONE centrally planned government. That's hardly what one would call fair distribution.

No wonder the protest has garnered the sympathy of America's hardest working poor. You know, the likes of John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Alec Baldwin, and Micheal Moore, not to mention our arugula chomping Millionaire-in-Chief and his jet-setting wife. These big government pariahs have actually seen their share of wealth increase during the Great Recession. Obama's biggest donors include Goldman Sachs, and the president regularly charges more per plate at his fundraisers than the average American makes in a year. But don't worry, because they feel your pain.

"I'm very understanding of where they're coming from," boasted the richest guy in Washington, Senator John Kerry, who owns a 76 foot luxury yacht he doesn't think he should pay taxes on and claims a net worth of $200 million.

"God bless them for their spontaneity. It's independent, it's young, it's focused. And it's going to be effective," parroted the wealthiest former Speaker in the history of the U.S. House, Nancy Pelosi, who continues to ask lobbyists to write the bills she passes to find out what's in them.

"I think it expresses the frustrations the American people feel... I'm going to fight every inch of the way to make sure that we have a consumer watchdog that is preventing abusive practices by the financial sector," added President Obama. No word on whether that same watchdog would prevent $500 million of corporate welfare from being handed out to failed companies backed by his biggest fundraisers like Solyndra.

With Occupy Wall Street, it appears our uber-wealthy politicos have found a group of useful idiots to march on their behalf and help pry the rest of America's wealth into their greedy government hands. And yes, that includes billionaire George Soros, now that his well-funded MoveOn.org has endorsed the protests. Got that, occupiers? You're now marching for the richest 1%.

This whole campaign reeks of misdirection to take attention away from the president's failures. The underlying message behind these disgusting protests is it's not government's fault for misallocating a trillion dollar stimulus bill and passing job-crippling regulations. No, it's your neighbor who drives a nicer car than you and works for an evil corporation.

Nothing unusual for Obama's America, where envy is a virtue and accountability is a vice.

UPDATE: Hollywood Occupies Wall Street? Millionaire Celebrities Now Flocking to Zuccotti Park (presumably to see how the other 99% live)

Our President: The Greatest Orator Like Ever

2011-10-03T15:39:00.000-05:00

I'm paraphrasing former Rep. Harold Ford, who last month said "I think this president's the greatest orator the office has ever known" while giving a tough-as-smores interview to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on where else but MSNBC. The evidence, of course, speaks for itself...

Class warrior? More like class clown. But if completely lying to sell your position, pausing awkwardly, mispronouncing words, inadvertently using the word Jew when talking about money hoarding (a Freudian slip?), and a false sense of bravado is your definition of a great orator, then sure, Obama certainly excels at this gobbledygook.

Too Green to Fail: Crony Capitalism in America II

2011-10-02T10:07:00.000-05:00

Since President Obama came into office, the Department of Energy has become a piggy bank for some of the wealthiest venture capitalists in the world, a money-pumping machine that rewards the richest of the rich with multi-million dollar grants and loans under the guise of green energy. So far the DOE has awarded $20 billion in government handouts, far exceeding what the private sector spent on green energy according to the DOE's own website, and plans to hand out as much as $38 billion.

While most people recognize the potential benefits of green energy, dispersing billions to billionaires to create "green jobs" has failed to live up to any measurable standard. In fact, when government intervenes in a crowded industry of for-profit startups and strips away risks for some investors at the expense of others, that's the very definition of crony capitalism. Even more troubling, it suggests corruption by an administration that is willfully using taxpayer money to only prop up businesses with ties to the president.

Everyone is familiar with the case of Solyndra, which we already covered in detail, but Solyndra isn't an isolated incident. As government auditors pointed out last summer, The Energy Department's loan guarantee program "has treated applicants inconsistently, favoring some and disadvantaging others." At what point do we start to recognize a pattern of corruption and call out the president for these continued conflicts of interest?

Take the Sunshot Awards. On September 1, the DOE announced $145 million dollars in government grants awarded to companies with investments in solar energy. Being grants, this money that does not have to be paid back. It is, in essence, corporate welfare. Winners of the Sunshot Award this year include GE, Solexel, and Dow Chemical. All three have strong ties to the Obama administration. GE, in particular, has been under the spotlight recently, given a NY Times article reporting that the multi-billion corporation paid no federal taxes last year despite earning billions in profits.

GE is led by Jeffrey Immelt, who also heads President Obama's Jobs Council and has a cozy enough relationship with the commander-in-chief to indulge in international travel on Air Force One. So it was no surprise to see Immelt sitting in the House Chamber as a special guest of the president when he touted his second stimulus, or $447 billion jobs bill, which promises to send more grants and corporate welfare Mr. Immelt's way.

President Obama, of course, has spent the better half of the year criticizing those who make hefty profits for not paying their "fair share", but apparently GE gets a waiver from this administration, just like all those waivers being handed out by the HHS to exempt companies from complying with the egregious costs of Obamacare. If the president is upset GE didn't pay more taxes given their profit margin, the least he could do is stop handing them free money. And yet the DOE awarded millions in corporate welfare to the under-taxed GE, collected, ironically, from American companies and individuals who did meet their tax obligations and pay their "fair share."

Dow Chemical is another Sunshot grant winner with deep ties to the Obama administration. Their CEO, Andrew N. Liversis, has been labeled "Obama's Aussie" and sat on the president's Export Council before being appointed co-chair of the president's Advanced Manufacturing Partnership (which brings with it another $500 million of U.S. government investment). He has visited the White House at least 18 times. As a token of his appreciation, Andrew Liversis has already endorsed Obama's $447 billion Baby Stimulus (or Porkulus II), one of the few CEOs to do so, and just weeks after receiving his company's grant.

Cynics may shrug their shoulders at these instances of cronyism and insider deals, but it's important to recall President Obama ran as a different kind of candidate who was going to "lead the most transparent administration in our nation's history." Even now, the president continues to blast special interests and lobbyists who demand special deals, but as Solyndra, GE, and Dow Chemical have proven, the president is encouraging these very deals behind closed doors. This administration is bought and paid for by Big Business, and vice versa.

All of which leads to Solexel, another California solar company like Solyndra. Solexel received $13 million from President Obama's DOE, which is fine and dandy except that surprise! the investors behind this company include two of President Obama's biggest fundraiser, John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (which also has ties to Al Gore), and Steve Westly of The Westly Group, who bundled half a million dollars for the president's campaign and sat on the Secretary of Energy's Advisory Panel.

Steve Westly wrote about the underlying spoils of his privileged position on his website in 2010, bragging, "We believe that with the Obama administration, and other governments … committing hundreds of billions of dollars to clean tech, there has never been a better time to launch clean tech companies. The Westly Group is uniquely positioned to take advantage of this surge of interest and growth."

Uniquely positioned indeed. Like Mr. Liversis, Mr. Westly has also vocally supported the president's $447 billion "jobs plan", no doubt expecting billions of the second stimulus to land squarely where the first stimulus did - in his wallet. Mr. Westly has already pocketed $500 million from the Department of Energy for his investment in Tesla, which manufactures and sells high-end electric cars to millionaires.

If you want to see what greasing the wheels of crony capitalism will do for a president's re-election efforts, just watch the clip below as venture capitalist Steve Westly gushes over everything Obama has done for him. This is a man who won't give an on-camera interview to ABC News to answer questions about how so much taxpayer money just happens to find its way to his pockets, but he certainly isn't camera shy when it comes to praising his sugar daddy in the White House. Heck, he can probably even afford to throw some of that free government money back at the president's re-election campaign. What? You say he already has? No kidding.

None of this is by accident. It's a pattern. And not surprisingly, it's terrible for the economy, as those with rich connections get richer while an increased regulatory climate squeezes small businesses and entrepreneurs from hiring and investing. Meanwhile, private sector dollars follow the path of least resistance, investing where government protects them from risk - i.e. inefficient government projects.

We are now on the brink of a double dip recession. Unfortunately, the mainstream media is asleep at the wheel while President Obama and his cronies take the rest of us to the cleaners.

Too Green to Fail: Crony Capitalism in America

2011-09-17T10:12:00.000-05:00

You would have to live in a cave to not know about Solyndra by now. Either that or get your news from MSNBC, were the network has failed to mention the story at all, obviously too busy questioning the sexuality of Michele Bachmann's husband and whether or not the outspoken candidate submits to him. If only MSNBC would submit to facts and cast some sunlight on the Enron-esque collapse of the president's pet energy project.

SolarGate, as some are calling it, revolves around a solar company (no pun intended) that received $535 million from President Obama's Department of Energy as part of the stimulus bill. In this case, the loans were guaranteed, meaning the government has promised to make good on them even if the company can't.

Guess what? The company can't.

Not only that, but Solyndra's loan was fast-tracked for approval by the administration despite red flags about its potential to pay the money back... kind of like those subprime mortgages the government used to guarantee way back in 2007 before the housing sector collapsed and caused the Great Recession. Nevertheless, Solyndra lobbied hard and eventually secured funding for their questionable business plan. According to records, company executives visited the White House at least 20 times before the loan was approved, and newly discovered emails show staffers pleading for the Department of Energy to move quickly so the vice-president could use Solyndra for an upcoming photo-op (NOTE: this could make Biden a potential fall guy for Democrats wishing to revitalize the 2012 ticket).

Since then, the company has been nothing less than a disaster, first canceling its IPO, then closing its factory doors, laying off its employees, and declaring bankruptcy before being raided by the FBI. This, just months after President Obama toured the factory, hailing it as "the true engine of economic growth."

But in case you think this was just another bad decision by an administration famous for bad economic decisions, be aware that Solyndra's private sector investors were offered the loan at a fraction of the interest rate that other companies received from the DOE program. And one of the chief benefactors of this favorable loan was none other than George Kaiser, an Obama donor who raised $50,000 for the president's campaign in 2008. Even worse, the terms of the agreement put the taxpayer on the hook, allowing the Tulsa billionaire's foundation to recoup any of his investment before the government.

All of this would be bad enough if Solyndra was as an isolated incident. It's not. In fact, Solyndra is just the tip of the iceberg, not only an example of failed policy and a waste of a half billion dollars when government debt is discouraging job creation, but part of a bigger pattern of crony capitalism that is emerging with green energy. Incidents of the president's donors receiving loans and grants from the Department of Energy over the past two years are almost too numerous to count. And with the Obama campaign's stated goal of raising $1 billion for 2012, it's no wonder the president is paying back his friends so they can enrich his campaign coffers.

The truth is very little stimulus actually went to help the middle class or small businesses. That's why one trillion dollars later unemployment is still the worst it's been in 20 years. A large chunk of Obama's spending spree is redistributed not among the needy, but among the wealthy and influential, somehow seeming to trickle its way up to the biggest financial backers of the Democrat Party every time.

For the next few weeks, this blog will examine the seedy relationship between the Department of Energy and Obama's biggest donors. Make no mistake. It is a culture of corruption.

With Big 12 in Turmoil, Is This Baylor's Last Hurrah?

2011-09-04T12:45:00.002-05:00

Friday night the Baylor Bears achieved excellence on the football field with a victory over old Southwest Conference foe TCU, which came into Waco ranked 14th in the country and riding a 25-game winning streak. It was a marquee win over a well-respected program on national TV. For the first time in a long time, Baylor football is relevant. Unfortunately, the Big 12 may not be.

Since Texas A&M announced their intention to leave the conference, the college football landscape for Big 12 schools has changed dramatically. It was one thing to lose Nebraska and Colorado, but the Aggies jilting of the conference a mere year after agreeing to the terms that kept it together is back-breaking. Now the Big 12 is left with nine teams, and it's going to be hard to find a school that fits the gaping hole left by A&M's departure.

The Aggies claim they left for the SEC due to the University of Texas' arrogance and the formation of the Longhorn Television network, but the truth is Texas A&M has been crying about Texas arrogance as long as there has been a Varsity football team, and the Aggies flirted with going to the SEC last year before the Longhorn Network even existed.

Now it appears the Big 12 is on its last legs, done in by the pride and hubris of the maroon and white. True, BYU would be an interesting addition and save the conference for at least a few more years. And BYU brings more national exposure than Texas A&M did in terms of television audience. TCU, loser of the thrilling 50-48 finish to Baylor, would also be a desirable addition, but just agreed to terms with the Big East and may not have an out.

Should no marquee university be willing to step in to fill the shoes of the Aggies, the next most likely scenario has Oklahoma bolting for the Pac-12, forcing Texas, which turned down the conference's offer last year (partly because they couldn't entice the Aggies to come along), to reconsider and follow suit. A football landscape that doesn't include TX-OU seems unimaginable, but then again a season without UT-A&M also seemed like a longshot a few months ago.

This leaves the smaller schools of the Big 12 scrambling to find a new home and a way to replace the $15 million they currently receive thanks to their affiliation with a conference that includes Texas and Oklahoma. It is assumed Oklahoma State and Texas Tech, with pressure from the state legislatures, would also get invites to the Pac-12, giving the new superconference 16 teams.

Left behind in the wreckage would be Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, and Missouri. That's a shame given Kansas' basketball pedigree. And it's a shame given the programs Baylor has built in basketball and football, including a Heisman candidate in Robert Griffin III and a realistic chance to finish second this year in the Big 12.

In other words, 2011 could be Baylor's last hurrah, but don't blame the Longhorns. Texas has used its position of strength to try and keep this conference and its traditional rivalries together. Meanwhile, A&M is jumping ship for a place among the nation's most competitive football programs before they have built anything remotely competitive. Evidence of a premature move by the Aggies includes an 0-5 record in recent bowl games, no BCS bowl appearances, and just one Big 12 title way back in 1998.

You can catch what may be the last possible football game between Baylor-A&M on October 15. Here's hoping the electrifying RGIII solidifies his Heisman Trophy campaign that day and gives Bears fans something to remember for a long time. The future looks less promising.

UPDATE: There is no Big 12 South anymore. I fixed this part of the post.

Democrats, Unions, and the War on Small Business

2011-08-28T14:47:00.000-05:00

When a business closes its doors, there are no mass protests. There are no advocates marching in the streets demanding the business be kept open. You won't see a publicity push from the mainstream media to save working class jobs even though middle class families are affected. The free market has spoken.

This is not the case with public sector jobs. What a relief it must be to know that if your job is ever on the chopping block, if one small cut is suggested to reduce the burden of government on taxpayers, thousands of demonstrators can be organized at a moment's notice to raise a ruckus and make class warfare on your behalf.

While most of us sacrifice and put less into our retirement during tough times, while businesses actually face difficult decisions in order to survive a downturn, public sector unions threaten to take more. They protest every measure of government austerity as the end of civilization while private sector jobs are lost everyday without much of a fuss.

Let's be clear. Public sector unions don't represent the working class. They represent the freeloading class. They demand small businesses and family farmers work longer hours, pay higher taxes, and sacrifice more to subsidize union pensions and give members access to higher wages for shorter hours of work. This is immoral behavior.

How awesome it must be to fund your political activities on the very taxpayers you wish to take advantage of, to use large union coffers funded by tax revenue on successful small businesses to smear them. This is the Leftism that always comes to fruition in the long run, a built-in hatred of those who dare succeed as individuals, to demonize those self-made businessmen who refuse to allow their hard work to be used to make the fiefdom wealthy. It's a medieval mentality, the same mob mentality that buses paid activists to protest outside the homes and businesses of private citizens.

Meanwhile, the Democrat Party's entire means of survival rests on this dubious scheme. Higher taxes mean more excuses to spend, and more money coming into the government means more money for union coffers (which also means more money for Democrats). Thus, public sector unions, government workers, and the politicians they support have a vested interest in always supporting bigger government and higher taxes. It's not really about the "poor" or "working class" at all.

How is this good for the local mom and pop store or the entrepreneur with a great idea trying to build a company in their garage like Apple or Dell? The plain truth is it isn't, but the minute one hard-working family farmer or small business owner who risks their job security everyday, who puts their savings back into the business to keep it going, stands up and points this incestuous relationship out, they are immediately demonized as "greedy" and "against the working class." Worse, they are smeared using their own tax dollars by groups who couldn't exist without their productivity.

Nothing has highlighted the bad behavior of the Left like the budget battle in Wisconsin. Unions have demanded to have their pensions completely funded by the same taxpayers who struggle to afford their own pensions, the same farmers and business owners who risk their savings while the government worker risks nothing. And as the unions lose the debate, they have staged mobs and vandalized schools. They have been a force of destruction, not an example, for the very children they claim to want to educate. Even still, they are threatening to cost taxpayers more money in the form of recall elections to try and dispose of legitimate and law-abiding elected officials. Governor Scott Walker may just be latest to face a recall, who by standing up to public sector unions has saved schools (and taxpayers) millions.

Ultimately, there is nothing a union shill won't do to keep the free rent coming, including the attempt to isolate, ostracize, and starve the families of those in the community who disagree with them. In Wisconsin, that has included organized boycotts of small businesses who refused to display pro-unions signs in their window. Not only do they not care if private sector jobs are lost as a result of government excess, the greedy union machine is literally trying to force entrepreneurs out of business in their own communities.

The absurd mantra of the Left can easily be summed up as, "Let's fight poverty by destroying wealth." But in the case of public sector unions, it's worse than that. It's literally the behavior of a parasite feeding off it's productive host until eventually the host can no longer survive and both parties collapse in chaos and ruin, or what Marx called "an endless revolution." That is a far cry from utopia.

President Gutterball

2011-08-10T23:09:00.014-05:00

In 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama showed off his bowling skills on the campaign trail by scoring an embarrassing low 37. Granted, he gave up after the 7th frame or he might have broken 50. But even more telling were the words he used to shrug off his performance, reassuring voters that he did indeed know what he was doing:

"My economic plan is better than my bowling," Obama told fellow bowlers at the Pleasant Valley Recreation Center.

Three years in, the results say otherwise. His economic policy, which is nothing more than borrowing obscene amounts of money to throw at government, has been one gutterball after another. Here is an up-to-date snapshot of the president's economic scorecard:

Unemployment: 9.2%
Underemployed: 16.5%
Total Debt Added: Over $4 trillion
Current GDP Growth: 0.9%
Debt to GDP Ratio: 90%
Average Annual Deficit: $1.4 trillion
Credit Rating: Downgraded (first time in U.S. History)
Dow Jones: Negative for the year, Down 19% since April
Budgets Proposed: 1 (Defeated 97-0)

None of this has stopped Barack Obama from squeezing in 80 rounds of golf or his wife from taking lavish vacations while the American worker watches their retirement savings go down the drain. I don't suppose they'll be any bowling at Martha's Vineyard next week, do you? Lawn bowling, perhaps?

Like he pretended to be a bowler, President Obama pretends to care about spending and deficits, pretends to want to compromise, pretends his stimulus saved and created jobs, pretends the government made money on the auto bailouts, pretends to want a military victory in Afghanistan, pretends he has answers on the economy, pretends to have quit smoking, pretends to be from Ireland, and generally pretends to govern (although apparently he has given up pretending to care about the economic damage being done by his policies). He is as ineffective leading our nation as he was at rolling strikes, not just another Jimmy Carter, but a real President Gutterball.

How to Be a Liberal Activist (In 10 Easy Steps)

2011-08-04T23:33:00.008-05:00

1) Find a grave injustice:

Does the grave injustice affect individuals from all walks of life equally regardless of ethnicity? If so, pick again.

Does the grave injustice involve anti-smoking/tobacco laws? If so, pick again.

Is the grave injustice a result of the government taking away an individual's property or personal freedom? If so, pick again.

2) Now that you've found your grave injustice, you will become a spokesperson for this group. Call attention to these once-proud individuals as victims. They are helpless without you.

3) Set up a commission or organization to study why this group has been victimized. Don't forget to include a salary and pension for yourself.

4) Find and publish the cause of said injustice - lack of funding. NOTE: The solution is always "more money."

5) Suggest someone else pay to fix it. Go to the government.

6) Ask the government to fund a program for the victims. A couple hundred million dollars will do at this point.

7) Watch your organization grow while the grave injustice fails to improve. Clearly, the solution is "more money". Ask for additional funding. Include a raise for yourself and a budget for nicer office digs. When the government points out that they are $15 trillion in debt, suggest raising taxes.

8) Defend your right to exist at all costs. If a fiscally minded conservative suggests cuts to your program (cuts being not actual cuts, but simply a refusal to increase funding), call them extremists who want to kill the poor and elderly. No matter how outrageous your claim sounds, it will be treated as reasonable by the mainstream media.

9) Watch injustice get worse despite success of funding by government. Start to use financial windfall to support candidates who promise you more money. For your victims, of course.

10) Repeat ad nauseam until the people wake up.

America's Compromising Position

2011-07-31T23:20:00.017-05:00

What can be said about the debt ceiling debate that hasn't already been said? The truth is even if a deal is struck to raise the debt ceiling for the promise of offsetting "cuts", the debt march will continue full force to the brink of fiscal calamity. We are drinking ourselves to death in debt and we badly need an intervention.

The nation is nearly $15 trillion in debt. That number isn't going down. Last year's federal budget was, wait, that's right, the Democrats didn't pass a budget last year. Needless to say, government spending last year without a proper budget was a whopping $3.8 trillion. That's 35% more than the last budget passed by Republicans in 2006 before Democrats took control of Congress. So exactly who inherited what crisis from whom?

The minute Nancy Pelosi says she can't support the cuts proposed by House Republicans, remind her that she put us in this position in the first place. The Tea Party didn't create this debt. They were elected for the exact purpose of dealing with it. That's what last year's tidal wave election was about. The debt ceiling gave them the opportunity to take a stand.

For calling attention to the perils of debt at this moment in history and taking steps to deal with runaway government spending, Tea Party members have been called extremists, terrorists, suicide bombers, and all sorts of new tone rhetoric that progressives supposedly wanted to ban after the Gabrielle Giffords shooting. For promising spending we can't afford and creating this government mess, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and his ilk have been referred to as "reasonable" and "pragmatic." Since when was proposing a budget that doubled the national debt in ten years reasonable? This in itself is proof that the debate is being framed left-of-center by a biased media.

Yet still, conservatives have somehow won the messaging battle. You can't find an independent or moderate Democrat voter who doesn't think government cuts should be a large part of the budget solution. This is conservative turf and hopefully it will translate to Republican votes next November.

Does the supposed debt deal go far enough to limit government spending? Did George Lucas ever justify those final three Star Wars movies? Reports suggest that the compromised bill will cut $900 billion over 10 years, but depending on the baseline used by the CBO that could mean less than $150 billion of actual spending reductions. That's a mere $15 billion in cuts a year to budgets in the $4 trillion range.

More concerning, $350 billion of the proposed spending reductions, or nearly 40%, will be cuts to defense. That's a heavy price to pay in a dangerous world where Iran is developing nuclear weapons and Communist China is increasingly flexing their military muscle. Liberals like to laud military cuts they made in the 90s under Clinton, but it was those same cuts that forced the U.S. to send men into Iraq and Afghanistan a decade later without safe Humvees or proper body armor.

Perhaps the president sensed John Boehner and Republicans were bluffing all along and wouldn't allow the default date to pass. True, the Tea Party has stood firm, wanting to use the debt ceiling as a firewall to force an immediate reduction in government expenditures, but political reality has interfered. They don't have the numbers in Washington and the press has been especially hostile to their aggressive tactics of reform. Ultimately, it was a gambit other Republicans weren't willing to take.

In chess terms, what the Tea Party proposed was bringing the queen out early and attacking. The strategy is bold and shortens the battle, but can be risky. Republican leadership preferred to take a long-term approach, castle and move some pawns to control the center of the board and hope voters will hold Barack Obama responsible for the mess he's left behind. There's no need for sudden moves in a bad economy when the public is increasingly holding the president responsible, especially given the weak economic data and a potential double dip recession on the horizon (first quarter GDP has already been downgraded to an anemic 0.9%).

Unfortunately with spending still unchecked and a phony solution in the works, we may be running out of time for anything close to a soft landing.

The Gang of Six: Summer's Worst Sequel

2011-07-20T17:03:00.024-05:00

They're back! And this time they're going for broke. Call them the Dirty Half Dozen.

The Gang of Six rides again in the U.S. Senate. This is the summer sequel none of us were looking forward to, well except for maybe the damsel in distress in the Oval Office. Like any summer sequel, the script is a lightweight seven pages with huge plot holes, tired characters, and no substance. It's so full of the usual "bipartisan" schlock it's like waking up and seeing Arlen Specter back in the Senate... as a Republican. What is it about real spending cuts and no tax increases that these so-called conservatives don't get?

As the Heritage Foundation reports:

The Gang of Six circulated a plan that has Congress enact a law now whose principal elements (1) make unspecified spending cuts and unspecified tax increases to yield a $500 billion reduction in the federal deficit, and (2) impose spending caps on discretionary spending, but not on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and welfare programs that are the main cause of out-of-control spending. Then the Gang of Six promises — an unenforceable promise — that some time in the next six months Congress will enact a second law with all kinds of Christmas presents for everybody.

All the hard negotiation of spending is being undercut by the usual "kick-the-can-down-the-road" clan in Washington. This is winning only as Charlie Sheen defines it. I suppose when you only run for re-election every six years as senators do, you may not fully comprehend the mood of the electorate. America's hardest-working citizens have drawn a line in the sand. They have said no more empty promises, no more trillion dollar deficits, no more shady backroom deals, and no more business as usual. So typically, the Gang of Six gave us a shady backroom deal of phantom cuts they can't deliver to cover for business as usual.

Oddly enough, this budget battle hasn't even moved from the baby pool into the shallow end of what most of us would consider meaningful cuts, yet Republicans are already coming up for air. Few in Washington have suggested anything as extreme as living within the parameters of the fiscal budget of oh, say, five years ago. That budget, nearly one third smaller than this year's current projections, was considered egregious enough at the time to fire a third of Republicans in Washington. Now Democrats completely refuse to propose a budget for fear of giving drunk sailors a good name. Wow, how times have changed.

As the debt ceiling looms and credit agencies warn our government to cut back, the Democrats are unwilling to put even boondoggles like the president's proposed high speed rail on the chopping block. That's $55 billion of unnecessary spending that hasn't taken place yet, doesn't push seniors over a cliff, and can be eliminated immediately. Speaking of, what's faster than a speeding train proposed by the federal government? A bus ride that gets you from Iowa City to Chicago faster at a fraction of the price.

George W. Bush was supposed to be the big spender who drove our economy into the ground, but his average budget deficits are low enough as to be unreachable by the current administration. We have a president making more detailed plans for his 50th birthday party than producing any specifics whatsoever for halting the debt crisis as the deadline looms on August 2. Where's the beef, as they used to say, Mr. President? Probably being smoked and marinated for that August 3 blowout bash, which you too can take part in from your own home.

President Obama seems annoyed that he is being asked to clean up a crisis he shares a large responsibility in creating. As he used to say on the campaign trail, we can't afford four more years of the last eight years. Instead he has given us eight years of unaffordable spending in a mere four. Now when looked upon for a solution, he wants us to just let him eat his waffle. Even though he is asking us eat our peas.

Sadly, the Gang of Six seems to be okay with that.

The Debt March: A Dialogue in Absurdity

2011-07-10T10:05:00.030-05:00

Setting: Anywhere in America where Fact Robots are prevalent.

Lefty: These terrorists are out to destroy America.

Fact Robot: It's true radical Islam poses a threat to society.

Lefty: What? No, you Islamophobe. I'm talking about Republicans and the tea party.

Fact Robot: I do not understand.

Lefty: These teabaggers are holding America hostage, refusing to raise the debt ceiling.

Fact Robot: America is running $1.5 trillion dollar deficits. Why would they want to borrow more money?

Lefty: If they don't, we can't pay our obligations. There could be a financial meltdown.

Fact Robot: Isn't $15 trillion dollars in debt already a financial meltdown?

Lefty: No, you don't get it. This is domestic terrorism. The markets will crash. Investors will lose confidence. The rest of the world will see America as a banana republic.

Fact Robot: You are saying America has to go further in debt in order to show that they are fiscally responsible?

Lefty: Exactly.

Fact Robot: Let me ask the question differently. You are saying America has to approve borrowing trillions of dollars more that the government can't afford to pay back to prove that the nation is serious about getting out of debt?

Lefty: Yes.

Fact Robot: That is illogical. Didn't you also say America had to pass the stimulus to keep unemployment below eight percent?

Lefty: The stimulus was a huge success.

Fact Robot: Current unemployment is 9.2% and has reached as high as 10%. That does not meet your own criteria for success. Do you think it would be fiscally responsible for America to pass a budget?

Lefty: Of course.

Fact Robot: But America has not passed a budget in two years and the president's budget was rejected by the Senate 97-0.

Lefty: That's because the teabagger Republicans won't agree to tax increases.

Fact Robot: I don't see what tea bags have to do with it. Last year, Democrats refused to vote for these same tax increases, which would have kicked in automatically if they had not extended the Bush tax rates.

Lefty: The Bush tax cuts only favored the rich. Republicans are the party of millionaires.

Fact Robot: Then why did Democrats and the president pass legislation to keep them from expiring?

Lefty: To help the poor.

Fact Robot: Have you ever listened to your own arguments?

Lefty: The debt wasn't as large then. Now we have to raise taxes to shore up America's finances.

Fact Robot: If the president didn't pass the stimulus, the national debt would be reduced by one trillion dollars. This is the same amount of revenue Democrats are trying to raise with proposed tax increases on millionaires who make $250,000. One might conclude from this data that the president doesn't understand basic math and the stimulus hurt the American economy.

Lefty: No. The stimulus wasn't big enough. The poor are suffering while the rich get richer and all Republicans care about is fat-cat corporations. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to attend a $35,000 a plate fundraising dinner for President Obama, paid for using stimulus dollars he kindly granted my company.

Forget American Girl, Here's 10 Tom Petty Songs to Describe the Obama Administration

2011-07-01T11:43:00.010-05:00

That Tom Petty, he's a heartbreaker. Just ask Michele Bachmann.

Tom Petty, perhaps the greatest three-chord songwriter ever, has sent a cease-and-desist letter to Michele Bachmann for her use of "American Girl" on the campaign trail. I suppose it's weird for a presidential candidate to refer to themselves as a girl in the first place. "American Woman" by the Guess Who would seem to be the more sophisticated choice, if the band wasn't Canadian and it wasn't actually an anti-American diatribe. But if Ronald Reagan could make Born in the U.S.A. work, why not?

Anyway, in honor of the songwriter's whining, I present 10 Tom Petty songs to describe life under the Obama administration.

10. You Don't Know How it Feels (to be paying $4 for gas)
9. Time to Move On (One term only)
8. Free Fallin' (as in the dollar, the economy, the president's approval ratings)
7. Breakdown (of the American Dream)
6. Even the Losers (get recess appointed sometimes)
5. You Got Lucky (on capturing Osama)
4. Don't Do Me Like That (as ObamaCare will)
3. Refugee (cuz your policies have us living like one)
2. It's Good to be King (not so good to be your subject)
1. Let Me Up (I've Had Enough)

Don't worry, Mike Campbell. I'm still your biggest fan.

Let Them Eat Hope n Change

2011-06-29T16:42:00.003-05:00

As promised, the president is focused on jobs like a laser. His job, that is, and the jobs of his wife's travel staff. Which is why he and the First Lady will be holding seven fundraisers next week, including five in one day.

(White House Dossier)— First Lady Michelle Obama will appear at three fundraisers next Thursday, June 30, bringing to seven the number of fundraisers she has held this month.

The heavy schedule of money raising this far out from Election Day suggests that the Obama reelection campaign is going to make frequent use of the first lady, both to raise money and campaign. By comparison, former First Lady Laura Bush held 13 fundraisers in all of 2003, the year before George W. Bush’s reelection.

All of this travel takes place on the taxpayer dime, nothing new for presidential elections, but the number of $38,000 per plate fundraisers sandwiching official state business is growing out of proportion and looks especially thoughtless given the train wreck of an economy facing everyday Americans who only wish they had jobs.

Of course, one must wonder how the First Lady will hold up after completing her own personal Amazing Race, freshly back from an African holiday just two months removed from a family getaway to Brazil, three months after a jaunt to Vail, and five months after an extended sabbatical to Hawaii. These are on top of her transatlantic trips to London and Spain last year, where entire hotels and beaches were reserved and boulevards closed off so Michelle could hit the resort avenue shops. Let's Move, indeed.

Forget Where in the World is Carmen San Diego? The question du jour is Where in the World is Caravan Obama? Can we afford to pay for four more years of these extravagant excursions? Michelle Obama is intent on seeing the world while most families are lucky enough to afford Sea World. It's hardly partisan to ask for some restraint during these tough times, for our leaders to not take advantage of some of the privileges we allow them as public servants.

But not to worry, because we have it from the president's mouth that the economy is the first thing he thinks about from the time he gets up in the morning to the minute he puts on his golf spikes for that 75th round of golf. Has it really been two years since his administration passed a budget? Well, what's the big rush. When you're this far in the red you can pretty much guesstimate. After all, a decline is a decline.

I'm sure the Obamas have some wonderful souvenirs to show for their time in office, but what America has to show for it is worth less than a lousy t-shirt - three years of 1.5 trillion dollar deficits, creeping inflation, sinking GDP, high unemployment, and the longest length of unemployment since the Great Depression, not to mention a 35% increase in the national debt since 2008, but at least we have a president who looks fabulous in $10,000 suits and a First Lady who spends as much per hour jet-setting around the world.

If the POTUS finds any time for the inconvenient business of governing between the hard work of running a billion dollar campaign, we should be so lucky. If he calls for more than a symbolic budget meeting with Republicans, we should be even luckier. If the president listens to some of the nine month old recommendations of his now defunct Debt Commission, we might even have a chance to save this great nation for future generations.

Or we can just live vicariously through our nation's first family of grifters.

Hat Tip: Bluegrass Pundit

UPDATE: White House Dossier is now reporting the First Lady's African vacation cost taxpayers at least half a million dollars.

What Do Tiger Woods and God Have in Common? Both Missing from NBC's Coverage of U.S. Open

2011-06-20T21:52:00.025-05:00

NBC wants to end the Pledge of Allegiance as we know it. At least that's what their manipulative editing of children reciting the pledge during Sunday's broadcast of the U.S. Open suggested, casually eliminating the phrase "one nation under God." As you may recall, the POTUS himself is a big proponent of omitting "endowed by our Creator" when reciting the Declaration of Independence. Men intoxicated by their own self-worth often have trouble recognizing the truths others hold as self-evident.

To their credit, NBC has apologized to those who were offended by the omission, but hasn't apologized for the decision per se. Keep in mind this happened during the broadcast of a golf tournament, arguably a more conservative venue than your neighborhood Methodist church, where commentators whisper between shots and often explain in meticulous detail arcane rules and traditions. And yet we are supposed to believe that editing God out of the pledge was a whoops-wasn't-paying-attention momentary lapse of oversight.

In other news, NBC also left out Tiger Woods, but to be fair he voluntarily withdrew from the contest before the cameras began rolling. God, to my knowledge, had every intention of being part of the event assuming he was invited. And therein lies the problem. We live in a nation that is increasingly ashamed to invite God into their lives, both publicly and privately.

Walk through the urban centers of America's biggest cities and you will hear talk of horoscopes, yoga, feng shui, and all sorts of new age recipes for healthier minds and bodies, nearly every one a belief anchored in superstition, but the absence of talk about God is deafening. How did this come to pass in a nation where every state constitution makes mention of the Almighty? Is our Pledge of Allegiance still meaningful without including this phrase? What does it mean to be "one nation removed from God"?

At this point, the agnostic, master-cleansing Leftist (though probably not an atheist) would bring up the fact that "one nation under God" wasn't added to the pledge until 1954 as a response to the red scare prompted by the dangerous "us vs. them" mentality of McCarthyism. This statement is only partially true, underselling the threat of Communism and the strong impression made by Soviet-produced propaganda of the era.

Communism was by its own design completely devoid of the idea of a higher power. It was sold as an ideology that rejected God, placing all its faith in man's ability to remake a utopia here on earth. As a result, Communism had to kill God and replace Him with government. Otherwise, people might get the idea that God blessed them with personal wealth and property that they were free to do with as they chose, to share with their poverty-stricken neighbors and hoard from the government thieves. Worshiping the state became the Soviet Union's New Religion - a way of preventing individual altruism. Either the Motherland provided you with every one of your needs or no one could. And the latter wasn't an option, because it would prove Communism failed to live up to its utopian promise

Meanwhile, Americans had spent the previous decade disposing of a German nation that practically worshipped the Nazi flag and a national socialism that sold the idea of state-controlled destiny, ignoring the law of God and destroying millions of innocent lives without remorse. The Soviet Union under Stalin sold a similar dangerous ideology, although under the guise of Communism. Combined, both nations were responsible for the genocide of over 50 million people.

You can imagine hearing the Pledge of Allegiance in the United Stated during this era, itself only 60 years old and the brainchild of American socialist Francis Bellamy (who did not write, as rumored, the hit song "If I Said You Had a Beautiful Banner, Would You Hold it Against Me?"). It didn't help that Mr. Bellamy also invented the Bellamy Salute, in which American children recited the pledge while saluting the flag with their arm extended in a gesture eerily similar to "Sieg Heil" (see photo above).

Thus, in an effort to stand out from the murderous and godless Soviets and Nazis, our Judeo-Christian roots became crucial to our national identity. Since God was not a controversial figure in America at the time, credited by George Washington, John Adams, Ben Franklin, James Madison, and Abraham Lincoln as being the guiding Light that brought Liberty to our shores and freed men from tyranny, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the bill to add the language "one nation under God" to our pledge. The rest is history, although not exactly well-known history.

It seems strange to me to think many Americans would prefer to ignore this part of our heritage, even though it is Christianity more than any other factor that led slavery to be abolished and later reignited Martin Luther King's civil rights movement. In fact, a pledge that fails to reflect our community of founding values and instead focuses on our common statehood seems alien to me, crossing the line into what some might describe as idolatry. In fact, this case has been made by many Jehovah's Witnesses, with or without the God language included, and the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance has been challenged (unsuccessfully) all the way to the Supreme Court both before AND after "under God" was added.

Unfortunately, the only thing being challenged on Sunday was the decision-making skills of NBC producers. I, for one, would like to see them attempt the same thing at the next NASCAR event.

The Lost Art of Creating Joyous Art

2011-06-12T16:37:00.130-05:00

There is both good news and bad news in the easy accessibility computers and the internet provide for aspiring artists today. The good news is almost anyone with a vision and the right software can turn their home into a recording or TV studio. The bad news is there are now hundreds of thousands of bad, poorly produced songs and videos to sort through. This makes finding the rare piece of undiscovered art all the more worth sharing.

Conservative commentator and author Dennis Prager has lamented the lack of art celebrating the simple joys of life. I couldn't agree more. We seem to have too much serious art, often political art, more likely than not Leftist in nature, that casts beauty and grace aside for shock value; to provoke, mock, and offend our everyday sensibilities. I wouldn't argue there isn't a place for such expression, just that it is most effective when it's rare. Unfortunately, today we are inundated by it.

On the bright side, I did find this home-created fan video to the song "Swing Tree" by Discovery that incorporates use of dance footage from the 1942 film "Ship Ahoy." It is everything I want 21st century art to be: whimsical, fun, and pushing our expectations by juxtaposing the old and the new. The old-fashioned dance choreography itself is very unique and graceful, a celebration of human movement from a simpler era. Setting it to a computer-generated, digital sound only makes it that much more appealing, tickling the ears and bringing a smile to my face every time I watch it.

The dancer is Eleanor Powell, and I am disappointed to say I hadn't heard of her until discovering her talents in this number. I would like to thank Dolezal06 on youtube, whoever you are, for creating this slice of joy.

Palin's Unfit to Lead (and Other False Assumptions)

2011-06-11T12:29:00.024-05:00

Sometimes even reporters stumble upon the truth.

Did you know Sarah Palin was a charismatic and competent governor who took on the political establishment in her home state of Alaska? Politico accidentally lets the secret out:

The emails from her governorship, released Friday, brought back the memory of a long-lost Palin: the popular, charismatic, competent woman of the people.

Wow. Imagine if someone in the mainstream media had described her as a popular, charismatic, competent woman of the people when she came on the scene three years ago. Imagine if instead of trying to play gotcha politics, responsible reporters had actually reported the facts about her record - a positive record in Alaska. But wait, the emails redeem her even further:

She was hands-on and averse to partisan politics. She championed openness in government and had normal relations with the media. She was a little starstruck by her interactions with national politicians but unafraid to do battle with the chief executives of the world’s largest oil companies.

Amazing what a little empirical evidence will do to set the record straight. Unfortunately, the feeling of generosity at Politico is short-lived. Getting back to their preferred portrayal of the governor, writer Molly Ball reminds us the kind of person Palin really is:

Together with the newly released, pro-Palin documentary “The Undefeated,” which focuses on her rise to the spotlight, the emails are reminders of a sympathetic figure who was not yet the brittle, divisive caricature Palin has become. [emphasis mine]

And how, one might ask, did Palin become a brittle and divisive caricature? Is it some piece of legislation she signed into law? Something unsavory about her personal life? Fat chance. It's because the minute she was tapped as a vice-presidential candidate, the Left along with Hollywood and the hoity-toity political class had a desire to paint her that way. A smear job was conducted in order to ensure victory for their anointed prince and scare self-made, pro-life women from voicing their conservative values. One could reasonably conclude that if Palin had never accepted the GOP veep nomination and remained in the remote political wilderness of Alaska fulfilling her duties as governor, all the praiseworthy descriptors would still apply.

As I wrote about previously, no political figure has been attacked more viciously in my lifetime than Sarah Palin. The objections to Palin's leadership have never been objections to policy or objections to her governing style in Alaska. She has flubbed no executive decision as governor or mayor. The objection to Sarah Palin is that she's Sarah Palin, that she hasn't gone to Harvard or Yale (she's working class all the way) and that she doesn't sound like Barack Obama when he's speaking from his teleprompter. For the record, neither does Barack Obama (see below):

We have been told repeatedly that political animals like Anthony Weiner, despite his flaws, are the smart type of Washington leaders we need more of and the Sarah Palins of the world are divisive simpletons unfit to lead our nation. When will we stop listening to such false kernels of conventional wisdom from the political class?

Palin's emails don't prove there is a long-lost Sarah Palin as Politico suggests. Just that a nation has lost its mind, and any ounce of journalistic integrity is now buried under 24,000 documents.

It Used to be Memorial Day

2011-06-01T00:17:00.004-05:00

Memorial Day has come and passed and I couldn't help but offer a few observations. First and foremost, I was saddened by the fact that Austin schools, and I later heard some Houston and San Antonio schools as well, held classes. We have one day set aside on the entire calendar to honor our fallen heroes, those brave men and women who paid the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom. There wouldn't be a United States of America without their service, without their courage under fire, and without their willingness to stare tyranny in the face with the fate of future generations at hand. We owe these patriots as much or more reflection as we give our forefathers on the Fourth of July. Memorial Day should be as sacred a holiday on the school calendar as Christmas, Thanksgiving or Good Friday. Shame on the administrators who treated it so callously.

Of course, it occurs to me that most kids probably just wanted the day off to go see the Hangover 2, and even President Obama felt it was an appropriate day to play his 70th round of golf. I'm actually surprised he didn't schedule a fundraiser. In fact, the media seems to treat the whole weekend as some leisurely holiday invented by Hollywood to sell more popcorn. Hence, we get 30 minute updates on box office receipts while stories of America's glory are all but ignored.

There is no greater day than Memorial Day to thank God for delivering us from slavery, for uniting us as one nation under God, for the right to worship freely, and for the fortitude to defend these principles at all costs. The words "land of the free and home of the brave" take on extra significance this day or at least they used to. There are so many American heroes to honor, and yet we spend our time idolizing superheroes at the multiplex. As I posted for my friends on facebook this weekend:

"Our forefathers sacrificed their lives to guarantee freedoms that would enrich future generations. Today, we sacrifice our freedoms to live cheaper, more convenient lives at the expense of future generations."

Such is the Age of Narcissism. It used to be Memorial Day. Now it's just a Memorial Daze.

Five Reasons a Sarah Palin Run Helps the GOP

2011-05-30T13:45:00.009-05:00

Every pundit on the Left desperately wants us to believe that a Sarah Palin presidential run will be devastating to Republicans and hand the 2012 election to President Obama. Don't listen to them. If they didn't fear her, they wouldn't spend so much time and money smearing her. The purpose of their constant badmouthing of the former Alaska Governor is to cast doubts. Period. And among the Republican party elites and strategists, it seems to be working. But keep in mind these folks don't know how to plan for a campaign that doesn't pay lip service to at least some statist Democratic ideas and policies. Trying to win the votes of Democrats, of course, is exactly how to lose an election if you're a conservative.

A Sarah Palin presidential run, contrary to the conventional wisdom of political pundits, is exactly what the Republican Party needs. Here are five reasons why:

1) She's the only candidate with Rock Star Status: As much as I like Tim Pawlenty, he doesn't exactly draw a crowd. Same goes for Newt and Mit. Campaigns, more than any other form of marketing, operate on the basis of a "bandwagon" psychology. Even if Palin doesn't emerge as the nominee, her entrance into the race boosts enthusiasm and expands media coverage to get more people paying attention to conservative ideas.

2) She's relentless and fearless defending conservatism: While a good portion of the GOP field will want to carefully watch their criticism of President Obama's failures and offer measured responses to left wing talking points, Palin won't back down and is the most likely candidate to take her critics on and call their demagoguery out. She has a way of looking strong when attacked and making naysayers look petty. This makes it a lot harder for the liberal media to paint Republicans as being against women, children, minorities, seniors, and puppy dogs. In fact, we might get to watch the Left self-destruct trying to paint her as a monster.

3) Fundraising draw: Her high profile and the media coverage that comes with it should provide GOP candidates down-ticket with more opportunities to raise cash. Her appearance among the tea party crowd is a huge fundraising boost for congressional candidates.

4) Makes other GOP candidates raise their performance: The Left will find this statement laughable, and yet who can they offer (besides Obama and Hillary) to compete with Sarah? Does Debbie Wasserman Schultz realize the beat-down Palin would give her in a head-to-head national election? Palin's entry into the presidential race makes her a top three contender and forces the other top GOP candidates (in my opinion Pawlenty and Romney) to step up their game. This means by the time the general election rolls around, Republicans should be well polished and better organized to take on the Obama/OFA machine.

5) The Win/Win Theory: If Sarah Palin emerges as the nominee, she has built a groundswell of support, survived tough questions, performed well at debates, shed the lightweight celebrity moniker and positioned herself as a serious contender. If she loses the nomination, it's because she was more celebrity than expert and hey, don't those Republican voters look smart and mainstream for not choosing her?

The Boy King's Speech

2011-05-19T23:10:00.021-05:00

President Obama's speech from Cairo Thursday has been getting hammered by conservative pundits and Republican presidential candidates alike. Newt Gingrich called it one of the most dangerous speeches given by a sitting American president. Mit Romey said the president threw Israel under the bus. Even timid Jon Huntsman, who served under Obama and might be the biggest RINO to ever run for president since, well, John McCain, had choice words for the president's failure to stand by Israel.

Obama's Cairo speech was so one-sided in its criticism of Israel for failing to deliver peace in the Middle East, Jimmy Carter immediately wished he had given it.

I have not heard the speech in full, and frankly I'm not going to waste my time. What I have heard sounds like the same old cliches and strawmen that always show up on The One's Teleprompter. However, it does seem a tad transparent (if not politically astute) for those Republican candidates with the weakest conservative credentials, many of whom are struggling in the polls and have failed to make headway against the president's domestic agenda, to suddenly rabidly attack him for not cuddling up close enough to Israel. In other words, a few folks might be trying too hard.

I know I may be the only conservative blogger to make this observation, and I don't mean to downplay this administration's hostility to Israel - it has been close to disastrous. But was this really any worse than Obama's first Cairo speech? Or his Fourth of July invite to Iranian ambassadors for hot dogs while demonstrators in Tehran were being beaten and tortured? Or his support of an impeached Honduran president trying to become dictator for life? No. Today's speech, even with the articulation of a return to Israel's 1967 borders, hardly veered from the status quo. The president rehashed and recited political grievances without ever taking a serious stance. No sharp turn was made in U.S. foreign policy.

What continues to be dangerous is this president's belief that his placid prose is some type of panacea, that his soaring rhetoric can actually solve the problem. Arabs killing each other, protests turning violent, churches burnt, autocratic regimes suppressing dissent, bloodshed along the border with Israel, hey, no problem. Obama's got a speech for that.

President Bush was criticized by the Left for allowing his Christian faith to guide him in his decisions, as if following Jesus' teachings could somehow be a bad thing. But President Obama's overblown confidence in his own messianic abilities seems to be far worse and the consequences of such delusions of grandeur are undoubtedly more destructive.

All of this leaves the casual observer asking: What's the point? The president's speech won't change Cairo (which may already be changing for the worse). It won't change Syria. It certainly won't change Hamas or Hezbollah. And the president already won his Nobel Appeasement Prize, so it's not like he needs to campaign for another one. Unless you think of yourself as a god with the ability to make oceans recede and a planet heal, seriously, what's the point of delivering a speech for every would-be crisis?

Talk is cheap, but Obama seems to think he has the golden tongue.

That $10,000 Suit Looks Good on Obama, Not so Good to America's Underemployed

2011-05-15T23:29:00.009-05:00

Who knew an empty suit could cost so much? In the Guardian's reporting of the Dominique Strass-Kahn sexual assault case againt a New York maid, mention was made of the IMF chief's penchant for luxury items, including specially tailored suits that can cost anywhere between $7000 and $30,000. But buried in the copy is an even more interesting tidbit that applies to our fashion chief. It seems President Obama has also purchased some of these suits, at least according to France Soir:

Strauss-Kahn is suing a French newspaper that claimed staples of his lifestyle included luxury homes and sought-after works of art. France Soir also said he had several handmade suits made by Barack Obama's tailor – a claim hotly denied. The tailor, a 75-year-old Frenchman from Marseille, sells suits for between £4,300 and £21,000.

For the record, the piece was originally published without the phrase "a claim hotly denied". A few hours later when I returned to the site, it had been magically added. Guess someone on this side of the pond wasn't happy with the coverage they were getting. But the Guardian isn't the only one to notice Barack's new wardrobe. A Politico article back in March observed:

From the moment he stepped into the public eye as the junior senator from Illinois, nothing much had changed in Barack Obama's sartorial world until this year, when he suddenly gussied up his closet with a rack of new suits. For the most part, the president has shed his traditional center-cut suit coats in favor of jackets sporting two side vents, a sleeker look that originated on London's Savile Row to cater to the riding set.

Of course, being dressed to kill is not a crime and we should want our president to look nice. But any wardrobe that runs into the hundreds of thousands of dollars while most Americans are struggling to survive a recession mired by inflation and record gas prices is tone deaf to say the least. Throw in the 70 plus rounds of golf, the family vacations on taxpayer dime, all the lavish parties thrown at the White House, etc., and it paints a picture closer to His Royal Highness than an American President. Let them wear cake, indeed.

There's a lot more to dissect about Strass-Kahn, who represents a whole new breed of socialists to say the least, rich and pampered playboys who can afford $3000 a night hotel rooms while guarding the people's money, never have to pay taxes, and are so comfortable putting their hands on what doesn't belong to them, a lowly chambermaid seems to be their's for the taking.

House of Common

2011-05-14T16:51:00.041-05:00

It makes a good headline so I might as well write about it.

I have no major qualms about the White House's invitation to rapper Common as part of the poetry festivities this week. If anything, I might be offended by what's considered good poetry by today's standards, but the pathetic state of art is a long topic for another day.

I also don't have any qualms with those who find the WH decision offensive given some of Common's lyrics. For the lazy thinkers like Jon Stewart who argue Common's defense of cop killer/fugitive Assata Shakur is the equivalent of a Johnny Cash song, though, I would like to point out that Cash's lyrics dealt with fictional characters.

To address Stewart's point, there wasn't really a Boy Named Sue. Eric Clapton's "I Shot the Sheriff" (technically Marley's) was also a fictional song. Common's lyrics glorifying the coward responsible for slaying Trooper Werner Foerster and wishing President Bush dead are about very real people.

Then there's this gem from his track Sex 4 Suga:

I like your way, it's going down
Hips are moving all around
Round and round, upside down
A once was lost but now I'm found

Sweetheart that you get me another round
Sweat in like you loosing pounds
Touch the ground, make a sounds
Sugar, ooh, sugar, you wear the crown

Doesn't exactly scream Wordsworth, does it? If this is what our First Lady considers outstanding achievement in poetry, then the English language is truly on its way to becoming as dead as Latin.

Let's be honest. Older Americans generally don't like rap music. Not even the lamest Vanilla Ice tune. It would be foolish to suggest a generational gap doesn't play some role in this controversy. However, I find it insincere that the Jon Stewarts of the world would mock those who think the White House should use better judgment in picking their guests. And I find it ridiculous Jon Stewart would in essence mock law enforcement officers and the family of the slain trooper who have expressed concern over the invite.

We all know if any performer was ever stupid enough to include a song lyric about "burning Obama", the Left would throw a fit, demand the label remove the artist, and attack any conservative who appeared within a country mile of them, let alone the White House. Which is how I knew Mike Huckabee wasn't running for president yesterday the minute he hauled Ted Nugent on stage.

The inclusion of Common at the White House for an "Evening of Poetry" says more about how pathetically common our president is than how uncommon the rapper's lyrics rate. The poem Common performed for Mr. Obama ends with the line "For One King's Dream He Was Able to Barack Us" repeated over and over, and could be easily summed up as "Sweet Sweet Barack's Badasss Song." It's brown-nosing and it's lame. Sex 4 Suga would have been a more appropriate choice given the sycophancy offered by so many celebrities to this administration.

Art is supposed to reveal truth to power, not flattery at the expense of truth. You would have found very little of that from any of the poets at the White House Thursday night. And Common might have been the most talented there. One poet read what I can only describe as a traffic report. Another observed her shoes in nauseating detail. Not only are our kids being indoctrinated at school, they're being taught by illiterate English professors.

I'd be far more satisfied if the administration did get radical and invite someone more willing to shake things up, not kiss up, because ultimately, shouldn't poetry be about an exchange of ideas? Maybe Paul Ryan can break down his Path to Prosperity in verse next year (don't worry, I'm half-kidding).

There are plenty of real issues for Americans to focus on, and I would argue rap lyrics are among the least newsworthy. But it would be nice if the so-called intellectuals in the White House had a propensity for encouraging discourse rather than creating an echo chamber of cliches and self-worship.

Seinfeld, Animal Kingdom, and the Triple Crown

2011-05-12T16:00:00.014-05:00

I love horse racing. I know that's a completely random fact about me, but growing up I had the chance to spend a few summers in Ruidoso, N.M. where the family used to pass a day or two at the track. I could have spent the whole summer there learning the ins and outs of handicapping, but fortunately my folks were wiser. I found the whole process fascinating, especially trying to decipher the racing form and follow the statistical trends that would lead to the clues of the eventual winner. Needless to say, I've been hooked ever since. Kentucky Derby Day is must-see TV in my house (hats are optional).

This makes missing this year's live event all the more heartbreaking. Our cable went out (thanks Time Warner) and I was forced to find the race online at the last minute. In case you missed this year's derby, Animal Kingdom, a European horse at 20-1 odds, came from behind down the stretch to claim its first victory on dirt. Amazingly, it was only the horse's fourth career start, the fewest for a Derby winner since Exterminator in 1918.

Whether or not the grass specialist has a chance at the Triple Crown is anyone's guess. Dialed In, the favorite at Churchill Downs, ran the fastest last half mile since Secretariat in 1973, managing to close from last to 8th after a slow start, and might provide the toughest competition of The Preakness. Nehro, the runner-up in in the Race for the Roses, may not race again until the Belmont. Shackleton is another horse which finished fourth at the Kentucky Derby after leading for most of the last half mile and could be stiffer competition at the shorter distance (by the way, is there a rarer skill than calling the action of a live horse race?)

Besides the exhilaration and pageantry, one of the most creative aspects of horse racing is in the names themselves. This led to a game on twitter, well, a couple of games actually, where I am increasingly spending more of my time. One was called #DCDerbyNames (making up horse names having to do with Washington politics) and the other was called #SeinfeldDerby (horse names taken from expressions and/or characters from the TV show Seinfeld).

Since I am a huge Seinfeld fan, I mostly played the second game, although Jim DeMint's Julep, Between Michelle and a Tamale, and Rein In Spending were three of the more clever DC Derby names we came up with.

Below, my friend Charlie (@NotUFatJesus on twitter) and I have compiled a list of what we felt were the best Seinfeld Derby Horse Names. That is to say besides being memorable Seinfeld themes, you could actually imagine these names showing up in a race (speaking of pop culture, there was a horse in this year named Stay Thirsty, My Friend after the Dos XX ad)

BEST SEINFELD DERBY HORSE NAMES:

1. Serenity Now
2. Master of My Domain
3. Rochelle Rochelle
4. Yada Yada
5. Hate the Drake
6. Indian Giver
7. Bosco
8. Spare a Square
9. On a High Note
10. Del Boca Vista
11. Real and Spectacular
12. Cherish the Cabin
13. Maestro
14. Urban Sombrero
15. Summer of George
16. Top of the Muffin
17. Feats of Strength
18. Unbridled Enthusiasm
19. Man Hands
20. Poppy's Sloppy
21. Newmanium
22. Tippie Toes
23. Rhymes with Delores
24. Hold the Reservation
25. A Horse About Nothing

Coming soon, links to all the pertinent episodes (hopefully).

Note: this was previously posted on Tuesday before blogger.com went down and started having issues.

It's Not About Islam

2011-05-04T19:32:00.024-05:00

Setting: The USS Carl Venson, an aircraft carrier somewhere in the Arabian Sea.

ENSIGN: So this is it. The body of America's most wanted. Know what's planned for it?

LIEUTENANT: Shark chum. Take some photos, weigh the son of a bitch down, and throw him overboard.

CAPTAIN: Not so fast, lieutenant. I just received my orders from the president. He wants to make sure Bin Laden has a proper burial in accordance with Sharia Law.

ENSIGN: Are you kidding me?

CAPTAIN: Nope. We're a civilized country and we're going to do this civilized.

ENSIGN: Are you kidding me?

CAPTAIN: Nope.

LIEUTENANT: Compared to what some of our men have been through, I'd say dumping him overboard without much fuss is civilized.

CAPTAIN: Sorry, gentleman. I have orders. Shouldn't take more than 45 minutes.

ENSIGN: That's longer than it took the second tower of the World Trade Center to collapse.

CAPTAIN: I'm sorry, but the president is worried about a retaliation if we don't give the body an Islamic burial.

ENSIGN: Retaliation from who? Al Qaeda? They hate us anyways.

CAPTAIN: No, from more mainstream Muslims.

ENSIGN: I thought this wasn't about Islam?

CAPTAIN: It's not.

LIEUTENANT: What about the 9/11 families who never found their loved one's bodies in the rubble, let alone the chance to give them a proper burial? Giving the killer such dignified treatment seems unjust.

CAPTAIN: While I'm sure it may be difficult for some of them to understand, we must show the world this isn't about Islam. That outweighs everything.

ENSIGN: But by conducting a religious ceremony in accordance with Sharia Law, aren't we in essence letting Osama's religious convictions outweigh everything?

CAPTAIN: We don't want angry Muslims rioting in the streets.

ENSIGN: Why would they be angry if it's not about Islam?

CAPTAIN: It's not about Islam.

LIEUTENANT: This man perverted Islam. He insulted Allah. He killed hundreds of Muslims. There is no place other than Hell for such a man. We should dump his body into the ocean and be done with it. Hitler was Roman Catholic, but obviously he gave God the middle finger. I think Catholics would have been offended if Hitler had been given a Catholic funeral, if his religion was elevated beyond who he was in real life. But somehow you are saying with Bin Laden it's the opposite.

CAPTAIN: Hitler wasn't given any type of funeral. His body was confiscated by Russia.

LIEUTENANT: You're dodging the question.

CAPTAIN: I understand your objections, but you have to see the bigger picture. We wouldn't want to piss off the Imams. We have to take their sensitivities into account, or it could make an already delicate situation more dangerous for our troops on the battlefield.

ENSIGN: You're saying we have to take the sensitivities of radical Imams into account but not the sensitivities of Americans, and it's still not about Islam?

CAPTAIN: That's right. Islam is peace. Now I want you to meet the Muslim cleric who will be conducting the ceremony...

LIEUTENANT: A cleric who is not about Islam?

CAPTAIN: No, he's Muslim and he's brought his Quran. The whole thing shouldn't take more than fifty minutes. We'll have the body wrapped appropriately. And of course no women should be present. Sharia is very specific about this. Also, try and look solemn. We'll be filming it for Al-Jazeera just in case his execution is viewed unfavorably by the Muslim world.

ENSIGN: But it's not about religion.

LIEUTENANT: Nope. Of course not.

MUSLIM CLERIC: (begins praying) O Allah, forgive Osama and have mercy on him, keep him safe and sound and forgive him, honor the place where he settles and make his entrance wide; wash him with water and snow and hail, and cleanse him of sin as a white garment is cleansed of dirt. O Allah, give this warrior a house better than his house and a family better than his family. O Allah, admit him to Paradise and protect him from the torment of the grave and the torment of Hell-fire; make his grave spacious and fill it with light. O Allah, do not deprive us of the reward and do not cause us to go astray after this.

CAPTAIN: Thank you. Would anyone like to add a word to the prayer?

LIEUTENANT: Yeah. God bless America. Now send this devil back to Hell.

WaPo Fact Checker Attacking GOP After 2 Year Absence Under Obama

2011-05-01T11:03:00.018-05:00

Democrats don't lie. They are such outstanding purveyors of truth that it would be foolish (and possibly racist) to fact-check their claims as they radically expand the powers of the federal government. Either that, or the Washington Post is just a shill for the Democrats.

I suspect most of us would bet our lives on the latter. It's hard to find more obvious proof than the fact that the Washington Post Fact Checker was inoperative for the two years in which Democrats overwhelmingly controlled the federal government and held a supermajority in Congress. Not one claim was fact-checked during this period of unprecedented government expansion to radically intervene in more citizens' lives from health care to financial reform. The WaPo watchdog became a lapdog, going completely AWOL from Barack Obama's election in November of 2008 until January of this year.

Now that Republicans have some power in Washington again, it's been fired up to attack them of course, misrepresenting Paul Ryan's proposed solution (the only solution from either party on the table) to shore up America's finances and steer clear of government insolvency.

Here's Washington Post's Glenn Kessler's own statement about the revival of Fact Checker after a two year absence:

Welcome to the new Fact Checker column. My colleague Michael Dobbs started the column during the 2008 campaign and now The Washington Post is reviving it as a permanent feature. We will not be bound by the antics of the presidential campaign season, but will focus on any statements by political figures and government officials... we will not be limited to political charges or countercharges. We will seek to explain difficult issues, provide missing context and provide analysis and explanation of various "code words" used by politicians, diplomats and others to obscure or shade the truth.

The only one shading the truth is the Washington Post. Their perversion of fact checking is mired by which statements are chosen by whom in an effort to spin their own ideology. Ever since Media Matters was founded, it's been the new favorite tool of the Left. You have to hand it to the Democrats for finding more clever ways every year to be deceitful.

Hat tip to Karl at Hot Air.

Birther Mania! Or How Obama Vetted Obama on His Own Birth Certificate

2011-04-27T19:37:00.031-05:00

Like all important decisions of this administration, Obama dithered on whether or not to come out as a natural born U.S. citizen before releasing his birth certificate. I can't say I'm surprised that he finally gave in to the pressure, only that he didn't appoint a special commission to do a study and make the recommendation for him. Then again, maybe that's why it took three years.

With the release of the "long form" certificate, proving Barack was indeed born this way (to a woman named Stanley nonetheless), the president has lost the greatest race-baiting tool at his disposal since Van Jones left the White House. Is the document real or all part of a grand conspiracy? Depends on who you believe, which blogs you read, and how wrapped up you are in the whole birther movement.

I'm not wrapped up in it at all. Never took the time to write a word about it. Admittedly, I'm less interested in Obama's birth certificate and more interested in the expiration date of his presidency. I figure even if the president did manage to pull the wool over our eyes and get elected with questionable documentation, it's the least damaging aspect of his legacy.

What Obama's done to the country since he got elected is another story. That's where the meat is, so to speak, and what Republicans or third party candidates (if we end up with any) will hammer the president on. Record deficits. High unemployment. Three wars. Skyrocketing inflation and gas prices. Fading prosperity.

The real question is why does President Obama get to keep vetting Obama? Couldn't the mainstream media just do their jobs for once? We know less about our president's formative years than we know about the dressmakers from William and Kate's royal wedding.

There is an interesting aspect to why this story has legs. It's not because the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has a funny name or doesn't look like all the presidents on the dollar bills. No, the truth is a large portion of Americans have watched President Obama in action and concluded, rightfully, that he acts unlike any American president before him. Well, okay maybe a little like Nixon, but only the tricky parts.

President Obama doesn't act like he has the best interests of Americans at heart, but instead those of some imaginary world citizen, not the innocent Iranian or Syrian protesters being shot in the streets for democracy mind you, and certainly not our allies like Great Britain or Israel, but some transnational, downtrodden, pseudo-Marxist out there somewhere, you know, the kind Rev. Wright spent 20 years defending in his quest for social justice (assuming you believe millionaire pastors can defend anyone other than their own selfish interests).

The lowly, helpless peasant Barack Obama and his ilk think they are championing is a fictional character, one they have invented to inflate their own egos and give their leftist policies purpose. When such helpless figures do actually reveal themselves, in desperate need of aid and moral clarity, the would-be heroes never recognize them, preferring instead to prop up those who can offer them the most politically. And as it turns out, the downtrodden always have the least political clout.

You'll notice the Left never offers assistance until you line their coffers, it's never enough for them to make do with what they have, and in fact, they demand more be taken from others as a condition of their charity. Such is the Left's altruistic nature, desperate to steal in order to give, mostly to their friends and donors. A leftist leader always pretends to look out for the worker, while really looking down on them, pitying them most for having to work. They wouldn't be caught dead in the same room with most of the people they claim to represent, at least not for longer than thirty minutes.

Barack Obama is no different than the typical leftist, but he is atypical when it comes to American presidents. In the last election, American voters sought to choose a leader who would steer the nation through difficult waters, who could shore up our finances, reduce our debt, and make our nation stronger. When that leader instead plays 70 rounds of golf in the middle of a recession, goes around the world apologizing for America, and enacts policies that reward other nations at our expense, then given the unique circumstances of his birth to a foreign father, it's not outlandish to ask: Is our president really American?

The birth certificate says yes. His policies say no. Most people believe in President Obama's American birth, but they don't know if President Obama believes in the birth of America as founded under the Constitution. And politics aside, that's all that really matters.

President Obama's Working Class Tour Hits the Millionaire Fundraising Circuit

2011-04-22T13:42:00.018-05:00

There's nothing like standing in front of a room full of millionaires, some who paid as much as $35,800 a ticket to hear the president speak, and waxing on about how the wealthy don't pay their fair share, that if only we raised their tax rates the economy would rebound and the deficit would decrease and the so-called "working class" would have pain-free lives of rainbows, unicorns, and two dollar gasoline.

This is the state of modern Leftism. Talk about the sham of all shams.

How many of these fat cat contributors to the president do you think paid the maximum amount on their income tax without taking any deductions? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the same number who wrote checks to the U.S. Treasury above what they owed. Big Fat Zero. The way the income tax is currently structured, it truly favors the uber-wealthy, and yes, they like it that way. They're the only ones who can afford the accountants and lobbyists and offshore accounts to move and hide their assets and minimize what they pay the government through loopholes. The middle class can't and so individuals making $90,000 a year end up being taxed at a higher rate than those making a million or more.

Meanwhile, successful companies who would like to create jobs here are forced to keep more profits overseas while struggling, unprofitable companies are granted subsidies by Obama and friends. The president appears to not only favor this status quo system, he is ready to double down on crony capitalism.

When Hollywood and Silicon Valley rock stars stand up and applaud the president's proposal to soak them, beware the wolves cloaked in sheep's clothing. What they are really celebrating is the fact that they are all phonies in a room full of narcissists, getting credit for making a sacrifice none of them plans to make, pretending to care for the downtrodden while knowing damn well they are going to seek every measure possible to avoid paying out one dollar that doesn't promise a return on their investment. If the rich demand big government, it's because big government is making them richer.

The current American era of endless self-promotion, social networking, cries for attention, and celebrity worship could easily be called the Age of Narcissism.

In the Age of Narcissism, giving is considered the smallest reward while vocalizing concern about how surely others are not receiving enough is considered the height of compassion. Thus, $35,000 donations are made to rub elbows with the president and $350 donations are made to the local homeless shelter, or better still, in the name of some women's art charity - all to receive adulation while actually avoiding rubbing elbows with the lower members of society. This is a win-win for the phonies who fill the banquet halls of Brother Obama's Traveling Salvation Show. It is they who are looking to be saved by Big Government, to avoid being thrown into the swamp of middle class banality by a system based on true meritocracy.

There is no better era for an opportunist like Barack Obama, who has spent a lifetime pretending to make a difference while shamelessly promoting himself to the top. You can count the number of people Barack Obama has actually helped on one hand, perhaps even one finger. These are the rich and famous. George Soros, Jeffrey Immelt, Steven Wesley, and any of the top executives at Goldman Sachs. All the while, middle class families continue to struggle in an economy with 9% unemployment, where the work force is shrinking and wages remain low, with the price of everything from food to medicine skyrocketing and the gap between rich and poor continuing to widen under the guided hand of socialism.

If you make between $30,000 and $100,000, everything the government claims it's doing is for your benefit, to help you afford more by taking more from somebody else. Yet the only difference you see is in higher gas prices, higher college tuition, higher health care costs, and more restrictions on they type of insurance or light bulb you can purchase.

For the middle class, Obama has laid out a path not to prosperity, but to economic stagnation. That means less opportunity, less disposable income (the president is even telling many Americans that they shouldn't expect to be able to afford a house, that "frankly, they are probably better off renting"), and eventually higher taxes when the government programs go further into bankruptcy.

The fact is Obama's crowd of limousine liberals isn't looking out for the "working class." They are looking down on them. And they will gladly pay a small fee to keep their distance.

Libyan Oblivion

2011-04-01T20:05:00.003-05:00

I have no idea why we're involved in Libya. Does the president?

All I heard for the last eight years, especially from Democrats, is you can't go to war without an exit strategy, that we needed to announce a withdrawal date the week we entered a conflict. Well, what's our exit strategy? This is, after all, the president who felt the need to temper his troop escalation in Afghanistan by announcing half of them would begin coming home in exactly 18 months. I realize this is an idiotic way to run a war, but don't tell that to the Left. They think FDR should have announced an exit date the minute we entered World War II.

The fear now from most pundits is that stopping our assault on Libya without removing Col. Muammar Gadhafi (or is it Gaddafi... or Qaddafi?... this guy has more ways to spell his name than Hanukkah) will only embolden him and other tyrants around the world. Perhaps. Isn't that the reason we had to finish the job in Iraq? Wouldn't it have encouraged terrorists and would-be martyrs if we had allowed them to bully us into leaving prematurely?

Bush and Cheney said yes, and thus the surge was implemented, the one Democrats wrongly predicted would lead to our demise. It didn't, Iraq stabilized, and Obama and Biden are suddenly ready to take credit for our success there.

Have the Democrats learned their lesson from Iraq and suddenly switched to the neocon position? It's doubtful, unless Democrats have learned the wrong lesson.

In fact, Libya isn't Iraq. We aren't worried about weapons of mass destruction there (Gaddafi ceased his chemical and nuclear ambitions and allowed inspectors into the country after he saw what happened to Saddam Hussein). Nor does Gaddafi have a recent history of aggression against neighboring states. We haven't overthrown a regime there, and we aren't leading the reform of their government into a democracy. We certainly aren't battling factions of Al Qaeda in Libya, and might even be arming them by supporting the rebels. In fact, Muammar Gaddafi is quite contained by international standards when compared to other threats around the world.

Meanwhile, it's hard to say that folks like Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il haven't been emboldened by Obama's kowtowing already. Who's to say whether or not the Muslim Brotherhood or Iran isn't behind the rebel uprisings against Gadhafi? In fact, there is strong evidence to suggest they are connected. We could be emboldening militant Islam by helping them overthrow a dictator who hasn't been militant enough in instituting Sharia law.

Now I'm willing to argue we don't want that, as I think are most proponents for human rights, but the president seems reluctant.

If the goal is simply to enforce a No-Fly Zone in Libya and weaken Gaddafi's military, making it harder for his regime to assault innocent civilians, we have achieved our objective. Let's announce victory and focus on a containment strategy to keep Gaddafi in check. The real question is what to do in other Arab nations facing similar uprisings. Are we prepared to intervene to protect their civilians, in particular the brave demonstrators in Syria who are standing up to an authoritarian government unfriendly to U.S. interests and whose leader represents a proxy of Iran?

I get the feeling from the president's statements that we are only prepared to make war in Libya, and even there he has promised to do it nicely. Oh right. I forgot. This isn't war. It's kinetic military action. In truth, the only kinetic action seems to be the indecisiveness pulling America further away from a leadership role in the world and into international oblivion.

March Maddening

2011-03-20T21:00:00.005-05:00

Since I just finished portraying him in a short musical, allow me to quote the great philosopher Socrates: "I only know that I know nothing." Or as I often write here, it's amazing how often we don't know what we think we know. This applies to libelous liberals more than conservatives, but nevertheless, no words could do a better job of reflecting how I feel after watching my NCAA bracket evaporate this year in the first two rounds. And that means I'm getting my butt kicked by President Obama, which only adds insult to injury.

Given all the crazy, questionable, never-in-my-lifetime calls the refs have been making lately, I'm beginning to think the NCAA tournament was rigged this year to make sure the president's picks advance. The end of the Texas-Arizona game was mind-numbing. Even Rick Pitino said it felt like an awfully quick 5 second count, and one that basically handed the game to Arizona (which, by the way, was one of the president's upsets). Then there was the no-call at the other end of the court as Gary Johnson got mauled grabbing the rebound. I don't even need to go into the Pitt-Butler game. Has a foul ever been called when rebounding a free throw with less than one second left, let alone 90 feet away from the opposing team's basket? Something stinks and it smells worse than pro-union protesters camped out in state capitols.

After bragging about my record in recent office pools (and it was stellar), my can't-miss tips have missed badly this year (the ones I always rely on) and my expertise has apparently expired as my bracket has been blown to smithereens. Two of my Final Four teams have already been eliminated, and it looks like I will only get 10 of my Sweet 16 teams correct. VCU? Never saw it coming. Utah State as an upset? Complete bust. About the only thing I can brag about getting right is 12 seed sleeper Richmond, and hopefully Ohio State as the eventual national champ.

Not that I even like the Buckeyes or plan on rooting for them now that my bracket is shot. San Diego State is my favorite team due to Steve Fisher's back story. Besides, how can you not root for a team called the Aztecs? It sounds like a Mexican restaurant. Aztecs all the way, baby!

It's just basketball. And I guess that's the point. Have a little fun, don't take it too seriously, and enjoy the distraction from real world problems. It would be nice if I thought that's how the president felt about it, too, but I have an inclination he put way more effort into his bracket than taking any type of leadership role on Libya or Japan. Or the crippling national debt. Or the economy. Or skyrocketing gas prices.

Sure. It's March Madness, but America's march to obscurity is even more maddening.

5 Tips to Win Your NCAA Bracket

2011-03-17T01:07:00.008-05:00

Why is March Madness my favorite time of year? It's the week a giant puzzle called a bracket is thrust in front of almost every casual sports fan in America. A student at heart, I have put in a lot of long hours studying trends and statistics, hanging on to old brackets to see what I got wrong, and refining a system that uses 80% numbers and 20% intuition to pick winners and losers. It is with this history of modest success that I present these 5 simple tips to finish at the top of your office pool. Good luck!

RULE 1: Defense Wins Championships - It sounds like a cliche, but no maxim is truer in March. Teams face new types of adversity in the tourney including opponents they're not used to playing in arenas (and football stadiums) far from home. Shooting droughts, jitters, and lower scoring games are not uncommon. As a result, those teams who have relied on their defense throughout the year rather than shooting have a distinct advantage. In fact, only one team in the past eight years has played in the championship game with a defensive efficiency ranked lower than 15 and that was North Carolina. They ranked 16 (and number 1 in offensive efficiency).

This year three number 1 seeds have kenpom defensive efficiency rankings in the top ten - Kansas, Duke, and Ohio State. Two number 2 seeds have defenses ranked in the top 10 - San Diego State and North Carolina. That means defensively challenged Notre Dame and Florida are good candidates to be upset early.

RULE 2: Free Throws Count (especially in the later rounds) - Just ask Memphis. They blew a huge lead to Kansas three years ago in the NCAA Finals because they couldn't sink several crucial free throws down the stretch. When two teams have similar offense and defense efficiency numbers, free throws are likely to be the difference. Pick against teams with a glaring weakness at the charity stripe. This year, the worst highly ranked teams for FT% include Texas, Florida, North Carolina, Kansas State, and Syracuse.

RULE 3: Pay Attention to Home Court Advantage - It's not going to matter as much when there is a huge disparity in ranking and/or seeding, but in a close matchup it can be the difference maker. It's no coincidence that Michigan State won their title playing the Final Four in Detroit. Butler was given a boost (and almost stole the entire tourney) by playing a few miles from home in Indianapolis last year. Likewise, Texas made it to the Elite Eight twice by playing their regionals in Texas. This year the four regionals will be played in San Antonio, Anaheim, Newark, and New Orleans. Pay attention to who plays closest to home.

RULE 4: Don't Pick Too Many Upsets - You will be tempted to try and pick several Cinderellas, usually seeded 11, 12, or 13. It's human nature. Taking the chalk is boring. Any idiot can look at the seedings and put four number one seeds in the Final Four. Even the president. But you know what, taking the chalk ensures you more favorable odds to earn points, especially in the early rounds. Pick the wrong upset and you end up losing the easy points that everyone else is getting from a highly seeded team that keeps advancing. It's statistically stupid to eliminate any number 1 seed before the Elite Eight and at least 13 of your Sweet 16 teams should be seeded 5 or better. I usually throw one 11 or 12 seed in using kenpom to determine the most underrated team in the tourney, but it has its risks.

This year's most underrated/underseeded team in my opinion is #12 Utah State (30-3). They get a favorable matchup in the first round against a very inconsistent and overseeded #5 Kansas State (22-10) which is actually ranked lower in the coach's poll than Utah State. They would then would face a Wisconsin team with a porous defense. By the way, Utah State's defensive efficiency ranks number 7 according to kenpom. This team has senior leadership and reminds me of the George Mason team that made a surprise run to the Final Four a few years ago.

RULE 5: Fill out your bracket from the inside-out - Pick the championship first, then the Final Four, Elite Eight, Sweet 16, etc. That way you start with the strongest teams and slowly eliminate the weak. Otherwise, if you go matchup by matchup from the round of 32 to the round of 16 to the round of 8, you might be tempted to put a 6 seed or worse in the Final Four. There's no point in losing potential points no one else is losing by taking an unnecessary risk unless you are playing for pure fun and feel the need to take your alma mater all the way.

FACETWITCH POWER RANKINGS 2011:

Sure, anomalies happen but statistics say the two teams who meet in the championship will be from this elite group (the only teams with a top 15 defensive ranking and top 20 for offensive efficiency):

1. Duke
2. Ohio State
3. Kansas
4. Purdue
5. Texas
6. San Diego St.

Oddly enough, Duke, Texas, and San Diego St. are seeded 1, 2, and 4 respectively in the same region (with UConn at number 3) making the West Regional the toughest of the tournament. Of these, Duke measures up best statistically. Meanwhile, none of these elite teams are in the Southeast, making it the easiest region.

7. Pittsburgh
8. Connecticut
9. Kentucky

The above group makes up teams with offensive and defensive rankings in the top 20. They have decent odds of making the Final Four, but slim odds to win it all.

Finally, we have teams with top 15 defenses or top 15 offenses who also have defense/offense efficiency rankings in the top 40. They have a good chance of advancing to the Elite Eight, but advancing further will take some luck:

10. North Carolina
11. BYU
12. Louisville

My gut tells me Florida is the most overrated team and won't survive long. The winner of the UCLA/Michigan State game could give Florida fits and even if they advance to the Sweet 16, St. Johns or BYU could also upset the Gators.

Sleepers: Utah State, Richmond, Clemson, St. Johns, Gonzaga, Washington

My Final Four: Duke, Purdue, Pitt, Ohio State (champ)

Japan, Daylight Savings, and Barack's Bracket

2011-03-16T17:33:00.003-05:00

I'm exhausted.

SXSW interactive and film are wrapping up, SXSW music is just starting, I'm performing in a short play I wrote involving a karaoke contests between Jesus and Socrates, and on top of all that we have to deal with daylight savings. I may welcome spring, but I'll never welcome springing forward.

Call me uber-libertarian, but I don't believe I should have to change my entire routine and circadian rhythm at the arbitrary whim of the government. It's one thing to adjust the calendar to compensate for the math like we do with leap year, but it's quite another when the change is a cosmetic one that will only be changed back in a matter of months. Kudos to Arizona for having the sense to avoid this bizarre ceremony.

And so I look at my blog and recognize a huge absence, mainly me for the past week, one almost fitting of the current leader of the free world. I have barely mentioned Libya or Japan - just like President Obama. In fact, it occurred to me this week that Obama would have made a great veep. He avoids tough decisions, hides during times of leadership, and shows up graciously for all the political fundraisers and ceremonial events like filling out one's NCAA bracket. You might say he is focused on his job approval rating like a laser.

Someone should tell the president you usually wait until after the midterm election of your second term to become a lame duck. For whatever reason, Obama has voluntarily chosen to become one when the world actually needs American leadership. You can only imagine what a weaker United States would mean should any of these calamities become a full-blown international crisis.

As for the situation in Japan, all I can offer right now is prudence and prayer. I have heard the radiation leak resulting from the tsunami described as everything from greatly exaggerated to apocalyptic. I certainly don't believe it's apocalyptic, and I know the drive-by media has an agenda when it comes to nuclear energy, but I'd rather gather more information before making an overall assessment. One thing is certain: older nuclear facilities are less safe than newer facilities with modern technology and the more we put off building new modern plants in safe, stable locals, the longer old plants are forced to stay online to meet our robust demand for energy (which is only increasing and can't be met w/ alternative sources). Also keep in mind what kind of strain plug-in hybrid cars are going to put on electric grids in the coming years and you have a recipe for disaster.

In the meantime, enjoy SXSW and the NCAA tournament. If you want a kick out of ridiculing Obama's basketball picks, go here and follow @baracksbracket on twitter. As for my picks, I have almost always finished in the top five of my office pool and have plenty of wins to boot, so the least I can do is fill you in on some tournament tips that usually give me an edge. Look for that post first thing in the morning so you can adjust your bracket before the 11 am deadline.

I'm off to rehearsal (and hoping to catch up on my sleep).

The Kids Are Alright

2011-03-09T10:10:00.002-06:00

Good news from America's public schools. They've heard enough from President Obama, or at least that's what one could ascertain from their underwhelming participation in this year's "Race to the Top Commencement Challenge". After students from more than a thousand schools applied to have the president speak at their commencement ceremony last year, a contest which was won by Kalamazoo Central High, the Obama administration was expecting record participation this time around. However, to date they have only received 68 applications, of which only 14 came in by the original February 25 deadline. If that's not a "let me be clear" message to the president from America's youth, I don't know what is. That's the problem with cults of personality and fickle teenage audiences. What was cool to your older sibling, usually ain't cool to you. Even Justin Bieber has a shelf life. Better go back to the drawing board on that indoctrination.

Exit Question: Could Barack Obama even win a student council race today?

Dispelling More Koch Brothers Hysteria

2011-03-01T10:39:00.005-06:00

We already spent time a couple of days ago discrediting the argument that the Koch brothers, private businessmen who have spent money donating to conservative and libertarian causes, would benefit from the termination of collective bargaining agreements for public sector unions. Even progressive friends of mine have admitted the Koch brothers have nothing to gain from this personally. The attacks on the Koch brothers are a distraction, an effort to put the target of public outrage anywhere but where it squarely belongs in Wisconsin - on the money funneled from taxpayers to unions who then use the money to grease the wheels of government to forcefully take more from the taxpayers.

The latest charge against the Koch brothers involvement in Wisconsin politics is even more mysterious and conspiratorial, but just as easy to disprove. This charge revolves around a provision in the proposed legislation allowing the governor to sell Wisconsin power plants without going through a competitive bidding process first, supposedly allowing Koch Industries to purchase them on the cheap.

Is there evidence that Koch Industries is interested in purchasing these plants or that they will be sold at discount rates? Of course not. Just like the Left attempted to connect Jared Lee Loughner and the shooting of Gabby Giffords to Sarah Palin's map, this is once again an imaginary line between two dots only liberals can see based on pure assumption.

But let's indulge them and use our critical thinking skills to dissect this conspiracy for a second. Are we really supposed to believe that out of the two million dollars the Koch brothers spent contributing to candidates nationwide during the 2010 election, their priority was getting some cheap power plants in Wisconsin for a mere donation of $43,000 to Scott Walker? As John Hinderaker points out, that's one-tenth of one percent of what was spent on Wisconsin's gubernatorial campaign. In Democratic circles, that's not even enough to get Rahm Emanuel to take a phone call.

Speaking of phone calls, union goons and leftist supporters point to a prank phone call Scott Walker took from a progressive blogger posing as a Koch brother as proof of the cozy relationship with the governor. I argue it's just the opposite. If you have a cozy relationship with someone, you don't stay on the phone for twenty minutes with an imposter because you would know the person's voice, personality, and style of speaking. In fact, Scott Walker has never met the Koch brothers, which is not something that can be said of President Obama and billionaire financier George Soros. No conservative blogger could pull off the same stunt by calling the White House and posing as Soros or say, AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka, because the White House really does have a cozy relationship there.

Finally, if we assume the Left's false accusation that this is a corporate handout, why put it in such a controversial bill that is going to get so much media attention? Why not sneak it into something the Legislature's going to pass with flying colors and won't send Democrats fleeing the capitol building? The two issues are unrelated.

The hypocrisy of the Left hyperventilating over an imagined quid pro quo for a few thousand dollars when there is so much evidence of billion dollar paybacks to campaign contributors by Barack Obama in the stimulus, auto bailouts, and health care legislation is revealing. Democrats are projecting. This is more faux outrage by the very people who call for more civility while acting less civil, who promise more transparency while making government less transparent, and who believe they have every right to your personal wealth and property, just don't you dare touch theirs. There's still no honor among thieves.

Facetwitch Goes to the Oscars

2011-02-27T19:14:00.006-06:00

I'm sad to say we don't have any exclusive interviews with celebrities like last year, but we are brave enough to list our annual Oscar picks, as well as the fan favorites according to yahoo.com. This year does seem to lack the buzz of years past. Who would have thought the real news could take away from celebrity news in today's America? Yet that's exactly the case as events in Egypt, Libya, and Wisconsin have taken the spotlight off Hollywood. Will these Oscars stand and deliver or will there be blood? One thing's for certain, there's no film to root against this year like 2010 (when we rooted whole-heartedly against James Cameron's Avatar). We won't be watching the whole thing, of course. We do have lives. But we'll be tweeting the lowlights.

For a unique look at the ten nominees for Best Picture, MTV has a cool feature with 2 second GIFs that provide an idea of the theme and look of each film. As for our picks, The King's Speech could easily be renamed The King's Acceptance Speech after tonight. We are predicting it to come out the winner in several categories, including top honors.

FACETWITCH PICKS (fan favorite in parenthesis)

BEST PICTURE: The King's Speech (fan favorite: The Social Network)
BEST DIRECTOR: David Fincher for Social Network (Darren Aronofsky)
BEST ACTOR: Colin Firth for The King's Speech (same)
BEST ACTRESS: Natalie Portman for Black Swan (same)
SUPPORTING ACTRESS: Melissa Leo for The Fighter (Hailee Steinfeld)
SUPPORTING ACTOR: Christian Bale for The Fighter (same)
ADAPTED SCREENPLAY: The Social Network (same)
ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY: The King's Speech (Inception)
CINEMATOGRAPHY: The King's Speech (Inception)
ART DIRECTION: Alice in Wonderland (Inception)
FILM EDITING: Black Swan (same)
BEST ORIGINAL SCORE: The King's Speech (Inception)
BEST ORIGINAL SONG: "We Belong Together" from Toy Story 3 (same)
BEST FOREIGN FILM: Biutiful (same)
BEST ACCEPTANCE SPEECH: Natalie Portman
WORST ACCEPTANCE SPEECH: David Fincher
MOST INTERESTING SPEECH: Christian Bale
BLANDEST HOST: James Franco

Shepard Smith: "Facts are Troublesome Creatures" - Probably Why He Gets Them All Wrong Discussing Unions

2011-02-26T18:23:00.006-06:00

Who says Fox News isn't balanced? Leave it to liberal pundit Juan Williams to have to set the record straight when discussing Wisconsin teachers unions with Fox News' other liberal, Shepard Smith. Shep, who I lost respect for when he freaked out in New Orleans and reported every bit of innuendo and rumor as fact during Hurricane Katrina, gets hysterical and fails to tell the truth again, this time blaming Wisconsin's current battle over public sector unions on the Koch brothers.

"This is 100% political... This started with the Koch brothers, right? The Koch brothers were organizing... I'm not taking a side on this. I'm just telling you what's going on... The Koch brothers were organizing, among others, to try and bust labor. That's what big business wants to do, this isn't a new thing. So they started getting organized, they gave a bunch of money to the governor's campaign. The governor's campaign is over and away we go! We're going to try and bust this union up... This is political!"

Only one problem. Governor Walker's legislation to limit collective bargaining on health care compensation and pensions - but not on salaries - only addresses public sector unions. How that benefits the business of the Koch brothers is uncertain and Shepard Smith fails to provide any reason it would. As private business owners, the Koch brothers would deal with private unions. The Wisconsin teachers unions work for the taxpayer, not private business. So the effort to paint this bill as payback to big business for a $40,000 campaign contribution to bust unions rings hollow. In fact, it's completely fictitious. Fortunately, Juan Williams, also a Democrat, is there to correct Shep's spin.

Perhaps Shepard's been doing his research at Media Matters or maybe he was just fired up after finishing his diary entry for the Daily Kos, but he also erred in reporting that 7 of the top 10 contributors in America were Republican. That's flat out false as this chart, courtesy of opensecrets.org, details the largest campaign contributors since 1989. You won't find the Koch brothers anywhere on the list and in fact, 8 of the top 10 (and 16 of the top 20) contributed heavily to Democrats. Powerline has more on this.

Ultimately what we have in Wisconsin is the most important union in the nation, that of taxpayers and voters, flexing their collective muscle and telling their elected officials to get control of the runaway public unions. After all, many taxpayers are having trouble saving for their own retirement. Why should they see their taxes go up or have to sacrifice opportunities for their families in order to keep funding the entire pensions of union members? They shouldn't. This is democracy in action and the people, not the union bosses, are winning.

The ugly truth is that over the past two decades the Democrats have abandoned the people for their special interests - public sector unions, trial lawyers, and wall street bankers. It's been a very lucrative racket for them with more millionaires coming out of "public service" than ever before, but as it turns out these parasitic groups feed on successful companies in America without producing any wealth of their own. They require other people's money to enrich themselves and that's devastating the economy, something the people of Wisconsin and Joe Taxpayer are finally waking up to.

Exit Question: Is Shepard channeling Olbermann?

The Absurdity of the Left

2011-02-25T11:45:00.001-06:00

...can be summed up in six words:

Let's conquer poverty by destroying wealth.

Protesting Democracy in Wisconsin, You Know, For the Kids

2011-02-20T09:49:00.013-06:00

"For the kids!" teachers union members chanted in Wisconsin while protesting Governor Scott Walker's modest proposal to make public sector union employees contribute 5% toward their pensions and kick in roughly one-tenth of their health care costs. These are benefits most private sector employees would jump at - assuming they still have jobs in Obama's economy. But the Left is hot for teachers unions so they have declared such measures the stuff of authoritarian regimes, with many protest signs comparing Governor Walker to Mubarak or worse, Hitler.

Leave it to the misplaced priorities of the Left to make a hero out of John Walker Lindh and a villain out of Scott Walker. So much for the new civility.

Lost in all the hubbub is the fact that a protest for more government goodies at the expense of taxpayers is anything but good for the kids. These kids are future taxpayers after all, and nothing could be more liberating than a vote to remove the massive shadow of big government that will be limiting their opportunities and strangling their future paychecks.

No, if anyone is for the kids in this case, it's the voters of Wisconsin who elected Scott Walker just months ago to address the cozy and crippling relationship between union special interests and government. In limiting the damage public sector unions can do to the state budget and bringing government costs in line, Walker is shoring up the state's fiscal health and ensuring future generations won't face an insurmountable tax burden. Scott Walker is creating more opportunities for these kids while the unions, concerned only with enriching themselves, steal from Dick and Jane.

Has anyone seen the unemployment rate for teens recently? It's almost 25%, a record high since they started keeping track of such statistics in 1948. The greedy teachers unions are basically demanding generous benefits (for only nine months of work) at the expense of the kids by insisting budget gaps be closed with tax increases in the middle of a recession on the very companies who give so many teens their first job. Meanwhile, they expect the rest of us to keep working overtime to pay for more than 95% of their retirement.

Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas illustrated the Left's temper tantrum in Wisconsin perfectly when he tweeted, "Sorry Teabaggers, it's our turn now." Our turn? How about the kids turn?

The Tea Party, for those who were paying attention, has been about stopping the massive deficits that so many have rightfully described as generational theft. The union protest in Wisconsin, put together by the president's own Organizing for America, is the rallying cry of government thieves who refuse to be held accountable to the taxpayers who pay their salaries. Big difference.

Meanwhile, 14 Democratic lawmakers fled the battlefield and crossed state lines in order to prevent a vote from taking place. Say what you will about the Republicans being the Party of No when opposing President Obama's radical agenda, but at least they showed up and voted. It appears the Democrat Party of Wisconsin represents far worse, a Party of No Shows for No Democracy.

Nothing like running away from the problem, shirking responsibility, and refusing to participate in the process of democracy when you don't think the vote will go your way. That's a lesson that should serve our kids well.

To Stop the Crippling Debt and Save America, It's Time for an Intervention

2011-02-17T20:35:00.020-06:00

What behavior defines a junkie? Needy, erratic, self-destructive, delusional, blind to the harm they are causing others, determined to continue their ways at all costs, unable to listen to reason, lashing out at those who most wish to help. This is the American Left, addicted to government growth and unable to fathom less spending no matter the cost to future generations.

America is being run by junkies and just like a junkie's personality is no longer recognizable to their family and friends, we are unrecognizable to our forefathers. Our addiction is government - big government, more government, government as God, massive spending and entitlements, programs out the wazoo, an agency for every day of the year, a bureaucrat for every minute of our lives and then some.

We are no longer a nation of self-reliant men and independent women yearning for freedom from an intrusive state. What we are, like all junkies, is myopic and self-centered, more interested in our next fix than the nourishing values we were brought up on and built this country into something great.

Sadly, President Obama's latest budget does nothing to curb our appetite for destruction (with apologies to Guns n Roses). While some on the Left will spin it as a step toward recovery, a "spending freeze" after greatly expanding the size and role of government over the past two years (including an 84% increase in discretionary spending) falls dramatically short of a reliable 12 step program. This is like a heroin addict saying, "I won't cut back on my habit, but how about I promise not to be more strung out than last year?" (again, apologies to Guns n Roses).

Looking down the road, the fiscal path Obama has laid out for America becomes even more disheartening. By 2021, government spending is projected to be a whopping six trillion dollars with deficits still hovering around one trillion. To put that in perspective, the entire fiscal budget was less than two trillion as recently as 2002 and the deficit as low as $200 billion as recently as 2007 (you know, during those irresponsible Bush years).

Obama's threats to veto GOP budget cuts after two years of massively expanding government and super-sizing bureaucracy prove he's the last advocate for restraint. And he's unwilling to even mention entitlement reforms. If the Republican plan can be described as budgetary rehab, what the president proposes is no better than free needles for addicts.

While not all of the debt is President Obama's fault, he has exasperated what was once a manageable crisis, doubling down on bad fiscal policy. What we are left with is a crippling disease in terms of economic growth. Without massive reforms to shore up America's finances, even under the president's rosiest scenario the national debt will increase from $14 trillion to $25 trillion in 10 years. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will swallow up huge chunks of discretionary spending. The economy will flat line, our nation's line of defense will crumble, and all we'll have to show for it are brand new choo choos that go an average speed of 80 mph and make putting a man on the moon look like cost-efficient transportation by comparison.

The last time the federal government actually spent less money than the year before was, well... nevermind, because it hasn't happened in our lifetimes. We have been conditioned to accept the endless march of big government as the norm, something unfathomable to our founding fathers. As John Adams once warned us, "There are two ways to enslave a country. One is by sword, the other is by debt."

Our future does not look promising. In the last four years, the federal budget has doubled and the deficit has quadrupled. These are record low points for our nation's fiscal health. We are obese, at least as far as governments are concerned, and this alone should concern the First Lady if not the president. Let's move! If we are going to fight obesity, shouldn't we start with those unnecessary pounds of bureaucracy? To quote the concerned mom in one of those Lifetime movies (or perhaps my high school guidance counselor), "Can't you see you're ruining your future?!"

It's hard to convince a junkie. If a sea change election won't cut it, Republicans should hold their ground in the face of a temporary government shutdown. It's time for an intervention.

Skyrocketing Medicaid Costs Will Swallow Up 40% of State Budget in Less Than 30 Years

2011-02-12T15:35:00.006-06:00

Medicaid's growth rate is unsustainable and will swallow up 40% of the state's budget by 2040, threatening to bankrupt Texas and force huge cuts to future investments in education and public safety, according to the latest comprehensive report by the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

At the current rate of growth, Medicaid costs will double every ten years, reaching a total of $38 billion in 2020 and $144.5 billion by the year 2040. If ObamaCare is allowed to stand, the report shows that the consequences will be even more devastating.

Medicaid has grown faster than any other government program since the 1990s. As Medicaid costs have increased, the rest of the budget has suffered. In 2000 Medicaid accounted for 17 percent of the state's general revenue budget, but by 2007 had grown to 22 percent. At the same time, education spending dropped from 62 to 57 percent and the public safety's portion from 12 percent to 11 percent. Should this trend continue, education and public safety will take the brunt of the cuts, and Texas will find it harder and harder to meet its constitutional obligations.

Without sweeping reforms, the state stands to lose $155 billion for education, $21 billion for public safety, and $26 billion for business and economic development, proving the Medicaid program is too large and comprehensive to tweak here and there.

One alternative is for the 82nd legislature to raise the sales tax by at least three cents. This would cover the $10 billion needed for Medicaid by 2014, without offsetting budget cuts, but fail to solve the problem long-term, essentially punting on it for four years. It would also give Texas the highest sales tax burden in the nation. This, as the TPPF report indicates, is not a viable option.

If the state can find a way to keep Medicaid costs at the same percentage of the budget as they now stand, the taxpayer would actually save money, Texas could shore up its finances, and more funds would be available for other services. If not, by 2040 Medicaid will have become the principal service to voters and taxpayers, but the majority of Texans will not see benefits from this program.

The full report, “The Big Squeeze”, can be viewed at www.TexasPolicy.com.

BREAKING: Dog Catches Car: Mubarak Resigns (Updated)

2011-02-11T10:44:00.007-06:00

Now what?? Ramifications are huge. The chances of a democracy forming that is recognizable to the West are very slim. Israel certainly has reason to be anxious, and the military is still in control. I would argue once again that a revolution without a foundation that champions individual liberty and limited government is doomed for failure. What failure looks like in this case is anyone's guess, but let's hope the end result is closer to Turkey than Iran.

More details here, but I'm linking to Al Jazeera so take it w/ a grain of salt. Certainly the photo of mass protesters bowing to Mecca raises questions.

UPDATE: This from Legal Insurrection: "If I were the Israelis, I'd be dusting off the old Sinai tank battle maps and strategies, and calling on the veterans of the prior Sinai battles for wisdom. Because at 3 a.m. there isn't going to be any help." Read the whole thing.

The Top Ten Slogans for High Speed Rail

2011-02-10T11:35:00.017-06:00

(with inspiration from Todd E. Herman & the imagination of the twittersphere)

10. Now taking union bribes... er, bids.
9. Run by the same folks who brought you Amtrak.
8. Two words: Pickaxe Ready
7. No Caboose Left Behind
6. Yes, we'll still find a way to lose your bags.
5. Safer than traveling by that other great 19th century invention, the blimp.
4. Biden loves choo choos!
3. Only 20% of funding guaranteed to end up in Democrat Party coffers.
2. Saul Alinksy Presents Rails for Radicals
1. When it comes to the economy, we've got tunnel vision!

In Egypt, the Revolution Will Be Televised, but Is it the Right Revolution?

2011-02-04T09:40:00.015-06:00

They said the revolution won't be televised, but that was before social networking. Egypt may be the first made for TV revolt, an uprising that has been tweeted, blogged, youtubed, and manufactured to look like a grassroots protest when it is an entirely different animal, a youth riot over unemployment and food inflation hijacked by Islamist groups to overthrow a pro-Israel government.

The production is well orchestrated with media savvy protesters carrying more signs in English than Arabic, trying to convince the news networks this is a pro-democracy movement. It's not, at least not in the western sense, and signs in Arabic are more likely to quote the Koran than any thinkers of the enlightenment. With so much playing to the camera, one half expects to see Rev. Al Sharpton pop into frame and co-opt the whole affair.

No word yet on how many throngs of people are being CGI'd into the picture, but such propagandizing is having the desired effect. Regime change is the word du jour, and President Mubarak, who at first balked like an Egyptian, has at the very least agreed to not run for an umpteenth term. Nevertheless, the protesters continue their push for change now. An orderly transition overseen by the military in September is unacceptable. They are the jihadists they've been waiting for, community organizers every one of them, and ready for their close-up.

The only remaining question is will their close-up lead to democracy, theocracy, or an even worse autocracy? This is where the whole affair gets muddled, and I part ways with a lot of my conservative American brethren. I have no expectation for any type of government to take shape in Egypt that we would recognize in the United States as free and democratic. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that this is a foundation Egyptians are capable of building on, no history of individual liberty or freedom of worship or equality under the law. To most citizens of the Middle East, democracy simply means mob rule and/or tyranny by the majority. That majority, of course, happens to be Islamic. Thus, when rioting protesters have moved beyond the anti-Mubarak rhetoric to express the principles on which they wish to replace their current regime, the most common references are to Sharia Law and "Death to Israel."

While I'm no expert on Egypt, I'm well-practiced in discerning misinformation spread through the media. I know when I'm being played for a fool and when it comes to the uprising in Egypt, we're all being played. Consider how often you have heard the demonstrators called "peaceful protests" by the mainstream media, the same media who described every tea party event as an angry mob. Yet 100 Egyptians were killed during the first three days of "peaceful protesting." Banks were robbed, homes were set on fire, foreigners were attacked, and businesses were looted. These are not the acts of Gandhi. Meanwhile, the villain we are being sold, President Mubarak - and no one is pretending he is a saint who hasn't violated human rights - didn't open fire or aggressively run over protesters with tanks. He showed great restraint in the face of huge adversity - the potential loss of his entire regime.

In recent days, the news of a restrained Mubarak has not been as encouraging, although oddly enough most of the reports of plainclothes police officers beating protesters are second hand accounts relayed by the very people who want to violently overthrow Mubarak. We are, in essence, only getting one side of the story. This should give pause to the reporters in the field, but they are so obsessed with selling their ratings-winning, coca-cola and iphone uprising, that all prudence has gone out the window. Facts aren't verified. Grains of salt are offered sparingly. It's certainly interesting that as Mubarak makes his first move to restore order, having promised to hand power over in a matter of months, the body count is suddenly front page news and the violence is all the president's fault.

There are two reasons the coverage by the American media can't be trusted. The first is Hurricane Katrina. Remember all the killing, stabbing, raping, and thuggery that supposedly took place in the Superdome that had Shepard Smith and other members of the MSM hyperventilating? Turns out it never happened. Mobs of crowds feeding misinformation to reporters trying to scoop their competitors in this digital age of megabytes and milliseconds means globs of misinformation and few retractions until the hysteria is all but gone and the 24/7 news cycle has moved on to the latest faux Palin family scandal.

The second and more significant reason I don't trust the coverage of Egypt is a lot of it is originating with Reuters and Al-Jazeera, both of which have a long history of making up facts, publishing staged photos, and using events in the Middle East to further the cause of a Palestinian state and turn public sentiment against Israel, the one true democracy in the region where residents are guaranteed an impressive array of human rights and liberties. No wonder Israel thrives while the rest of the Arab world disintegrates.

To want a free and democratic Egypt is noble, I don't blame anyone for their pollyanna tendencies, but it's also dangerously naive. The history of the world if rife with revolutions in which displaced rulers end up looking like wallflowers compared to the newly installed regimes: Russia, Iran, China, Cuba, Venezuela, and the Gaza Strip to name just a few. With the rare exception of Iraq (thanks to us), most of the Middle East is moving further toward Islamic theocracy than secular democracy, with Turkey and Tunisia leading the path into darkness.

America must continue to psychologically nudge repressive societies toward the beacon of freedom, but when it comes to Egypt, we are seeing the devil we know replaced with the devil we don't know. Make no mistake they are both devils.

New Civility Doesn't Last Long

2011-01-25T14:32:00.003-06:00

Tonight, Rep. Paul Ryan will give the Republican response to the State of the Union address. No one has heard it. No one can say for certain what it will focus on. One hopes Mr. Ryan's comments will commit our elected leaders to shoring up America's finances, reducing government bureaucracy, and saving taxpayers money - "three pillars to prosperity" that would go far in getting our economy going again and putting Americans back to work. Even the president is expected to support (at least vocally) finding new ways to reduce the $1.2 trillion deficit he and the Democrats in Congress created last year.

No matter. Rather than listen to Paul Ryan's address tonight in that dashing new tone of civility the Left has been pining for, the Democrats have gone on an all out war path to paint Mr. Ryan as a radical monster.

“This is an initial volley in a three-day effort — 72-hour window — to try to muddle Paul Ryan’s foray onto the national scene,” said a senior Senate Democratic aide.

As the Hill reports, Budget ax-man Paul Ryan is Senate Democrats New Villain:

“It’s clear from the Republican Party’s selection of Paul Ryan to be spokesman and the decision to vote on giving him unfettered control on what to cut that [Republicans] are getting behind his plan, and that makes clear they’re coming after Social Security and Medicare,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) told reporters.

“In an unsettling development for America’s seniors, ending Social Security and Medicare is now the official position of the Republican Party,” said Jon Summers, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

“We will be putting a focus on the fact that on spending matters, the Republicans are making judge, jury and executioner out of someone who, according to his Roadmap, wants to privatize Social Security,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer

Of course, these are all lies, as even the New York Times reluctantly points out:

Mr. Ryan’s plan includes an option for retirees to invest one-third of their Social Security taxes in personal investment accounts and a new program that would give older Americans a fixed payment (of up to $11,000) to buy certified private health insurance in place of traditional Medicare. It would not make any changes to Social Security and Medicare for people under 55, and Mr. Ryan has argued that the changes would preserve the programs for coming generations. [emphasis mine]

In the meantime, President Obama and the Democrats have failed to produce their own plan for fiscal restraint and responsibility, which is no surprise given the 28% increase in spending (84% if you count the stimulus) and $4.5 trillion of debt they gave us over the past two years.

I'm sure the president's address tonight will sound like the harmless purrs of a centrist kitten, but the actions of the Senate paint a clearer picture of how Democrats will be responding to calls from Republicans (and the public at large) for smarter, smaller government. They will have to be dragged kicking and screaming, or they won't go at all.

Forget the Man Cave, Meet the Mom Cave!

2011-01-24T23:26:00.005-06:00

This is the kind of insight you only gain while waiting to microwave your shrink-wrapped danish at a Howard Johnson as part of their complimentary breakfast. USA Today's Lead Paragraph of the Year perhaps?

When life gets stressful for Mary Kammerer, she retreats into a spare bedroom in her house. She lights candles or burns incense, listens to meditation music — sometimes she talks to her mom, whose ashes she keeps in the room.

She doesn't allow any interruptions. Her husband and pets know to stay away and she leaves her cellphone in the other room. She lies on the air mattress, closes her eyes and lets the music take her to a place where only she lives.

If my wife had a room where she talked to my dead mother-in-law, I'd steer clear, too. Coincidentally, Lily Tomlin plays the mother in the vase and you'll never believe what hilarity ensues when she accidentally gets dumped on Steve Martin. But wait, there's more:

"It puts me in a whole new world, where I can relax," said Kammerer, 51, of Rockledge, Fla., who works for Bridges, a community organization for people with special needs. She goes into the room two or three times a week for an hour, more if she is stressed. "It's better than a bubble bath."

The tricky part is febrezing the stink of reefer from the room.

For years, men have retreated to their "man caves" to watch sports, play video games or shoot pool without their wives or girlfriends around to bother them. Women who needed time alone had the kitchen, a place associated more with work than relaxation. It's now the social center in the home, so there's no privacy there. But these days, women are chiseling out their own sanctuary, taking over a room, nook or even a closet and making it their "mom cave."

HomeGoods has even made it part of their marketing campaign, laying out the essentials of every mom cave (mom jeans optional). Technically, I thought the whole house was supposed to be a mom cave. Isn't the origin of the "man cave" a place to escape the delicate touch of a female that has overtaken the rest of the house? What's next? A dog cave where your pet goes to retreat to the domestic bliss of a fluffy bed, gourmet treats, and squeaky toys?

Governing in Symbols: Obama's New Rhetoric Repackages Same Old Anti-Business Policies

2011-01-19T05:47:00.100-06:00

After his party's crushing defeat in the midterms, Jonathan Alter (or was it Howard Fineman) told President Obama that he needed to stop governing in prose and start governing in poetry. Whatever that means. “In Xanadu, did Barack Khan, a stately memorial campaign decree…”

But in all seriousness, President Obama seems to be taking the advice, if not governing in poetry at least governing in symbols. We experienced some of that in Tucson with the awkwardly themed “Together We Thrive” memorial service, where everyone walked away with free Organizing for America swag; that is, everyone except the victims. Now today we are informed the president will sign an executive order that outlines a review process of unnecessary restrictions and regulations that are stifling businesses and job growth.

The majority of America approves, and Obama’s poll numbers are on the uptick. Three cheers for Mr. President, except well… haven’t we been down this road before? For those willing to buy the razzle-dazzle of Obama’s new symbolism, look no further than the president’s past record of placating voting blocs with meaningless, highly publicized executive orders from closing Guantanamo Bay to lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling. It goes without saying that neither accomplished a damn thing. In fact, there are more restrictions to offshore drilling and fewer permits are being granted than ever before. These are the executive decisions that count, made in the dead of night, and they don't come with photo-ops.

The executive order and editorial in the WSJ written by the president are political theater from the master of political theater, cover for the mainstream media to rehabilitate Obama’s image as a centrist (they’ve been calling him that anyway, but when you host a show on MSN-DNC, who exactly is to the left of you?). Remember, Democrats don’t believe they lose elections because of their policies. Democrats believe they lose because of their messaging. Thus, there’s no need to turn the ship around or steer it in another direction due to public disapproval, just strike up the band and attempt to lift the poor saps spirits before they notice they're headed toward an iceberg.

So we are told what's needed to insert some sanity into unreasonable government meddling is another executive order that specifies how the government should reasonably meddle. It won't be long before we get new committees to recommend new regulations on how to regulate the new committees to make sure no one is overregulating the regulators. This is the essence of governing in symbols, and Obama has it down pat.

As much as Obama loves symbols, you won’t see him embrace triangles or the triangulation of former President Clinton. Obama’s symbol of choice has always been the circle, and it’s his circular logic that always brings him back to the story arc of government protecting the people from the "excesses" of free enterprise.

Nothing's changed, despite the new rhetoric. No president serious about eliminating onerous regulations takes over one-sixth of the American economy and places draconian measures on insurance companies, medical device manufacturers, hospitals, and doctors. You don't grow the size of government by 25% in 18 months and pass the Financial Reform or Food and Safety bills if you are focused on cutting the bureaucratic tape that hampers business opportunities. President Obama has used the regulatory agencies of his administration to come down harder on industry than any president since FDR (and FDR didn't have near as many bureaucrats at his disposal).

In fact, for all his effort to fool voters, Obama’s editorial in the Wall Street Journal is a tell for his ideological position, articulating the need for government to “strike the right balance” between freedom and security. This is the antithesis of Benjamin Franklin’s much-quoted, “Any society that would give up a little freedom for a little security will have neither and lose both.” But Ben Franklin is just some stuffy, old, rich white guy who helped write the Declaration of Independence. What does he know?

If you want to see how most of America views our success as a nation, read the first paragraph of Obama's editorial. It's brilliantly written and comes close to describing American Exceptionalism. But there's a reason it's the starting point for his article, not the finale. Barack doesn't see the world this way. To understand the president's mindset, you have to start in the second paragraph where he writes, "But throughout history, one of the reasons the free market has worked is we that have sought the proper balance... with regulations necessary to protect the public."

And here's another troubling passage hidden in the gobbledygook:

But creating a 21st-century regulatory system is about more than which rules to add and which rules to subtract. As the executive order I am signing makes clear, we are seeking more affordable, less intrusive means to achieve the same ends—giving careful consideration to benefits and costs. This means writing rules with more input from experts, businesses and ordinary citizens. [emphasis mine]

Question: if the government is creating a new regulatory system, adding rules, and writing rules with more input from experts (experts being statists and special interests), how does this promote free market solutions? It sounds like the same old anti-business, command-and-control economy. In fact, judging by the last paragraph, it is:

Despite a lot of heated rhetoric, our efforts over the past two years to modernize our regulations have led to smarter—and in some cases tougher—rules to protect our health, safety and environment. Yet according to current estimates of their economic impact, the benefits of these regulations exceed their costs by billions of dollars.

This is the lesson of our history: Our economy is not a zero-sum game. Regulations do have costs; often, as a country, we have to make tough decisions about whether those costs are necessary. But what is clear is that we can strike the right balance. [emphasis mine]

In other words, the past two years were a testament to how regulation should work in our country, not an aberration, according to President Obama. The passage of all these monstrosities has "led to smarter rules". One can only infer from these statements that the president's 2011 agenda will reiterate the need for government to “strike the right balance” by taking over more aspects of the economy. In other words, more of the same, but masked by friendlier language and symbols.

Video: Radical Christian w/ Fetish for Founding Fathers Uses "Negro" Repeatedly at Tea Party Like Event

2011-01-17T22:23:00.009-06:00

You might have heard of him. Someone alert the race-baiters at MSNBC.

Amazing how we sometimes think we know what we don't know. I hope watching and listening to this will blow some of the assumptions and prejudices of the Left out of the water. I hope, but I'm not holding my breath. Dr. King's fight was a fight with its roots firmly planted in Judeo-Christian principles of freedom and justice. These were the same principles that guided our founders when they wrote the Declaration of Independence. The desire of progressives to walk away from both of these, their continued effort to look past God and the Constitution, to dismiss these values as antiquated and move toward some new sort of agnostic/atheist socialism is a road to perdition.

Martin Luther King had a dream, but it was the dream of America's founders, of Christians, and of a large majority of the individuals who make up today's tea party - not the modern progressive.

President Thrived, Victims Not So Much: Obama's Theatrics in Tucson Create Forgettable Memorial

2011-01-16T19:39:00.031-06:00

In lieu of a leader, Americans went to the polls two years ago and elected an orator. His resume was paper-thin. His policy successes were non-existent. His past was either whitewashed or sealed away from view. But when he spoke, especially at large events with high production values, people listened. In fact, they did more than listen. They were moved. To quote Harry Reid, he was clean and articulate. Oprah was even more ecstatic. He was "the one we had been waiting for."

Barack Obama became president not for anything he had achieved, but because he spoke so well of hoping to achieve something. His speeches offered poetry without details or solutions. They were highly celebrated theater, especially by the elites and celebrities. Fast forward to today.

Political operatives on the Left have been hoping for a tragic event to boost the president's poll numbers ever since the midterms. If only we had an Oklahoma City, they wished aloud. Oklahoma City saved Bill Clinton's presidency! Cue the tragedy in Arizona. Nineteen individuals were shot, six killed, and a sitting Congresswoman critically wounded by a lone gunman. A nation's eyes turned to Tucson.

We all know the rest of the story. The Left immediately began to blame conservatives (especially Sarah Palin and the Tea Party) without any evidence whatsoever. When that evidence never materialized, it didn't stop them from seeing invisible bogeymen where they wished to see them. Dissent used to be patriotic in the bad old days when Republicans were in charge. Now the Left was blaming dissent for causing death, violence, and destruction. Incredibly, they were blaming a mainstream political ideology, conservatism, for the tragedy.

The divide this narrative created was more than enough to require saner voices. Every politician and pundit on the Right pleaded for sanity, to stop the blame game and instead put the focus where it belonged - on bringing the shooter to justice and praying for the victims and their families. Most of this advice was ignored by the mainstream media or considered wise only so long as conservatives were willing to admit their rhetoric played some sort of imaginary role. A moral equivalence was made between those on the Left accusing their political opponents of causing the shooting and those on the Right trying to clear their name from such egregious smears with increased rhetoric.

Insert the president and his soothing voice of pragmatism. Given the chance to play good cop to the kos kids (and Krugman's) bad cop, Obama would take the exact same position conservatives had all week (but without the baggage of having to defend himself against false accusations). He would appear to rise above it all, post-partisan, a healer and not a divider. He would call for unity without having to offer any policy solutions, none were necessary (maybe stricter gun laws or a push for the Fairness Doctrine, but that could always come later from his henchmen in Congress). The solution to the crisis manufactured by intolerant blowhards on the Left was, as it turned out, the president's greatest strength - a speech. A speech could freshen his message of HOPE and allow him to rehash his "this is the moment the planet began to heal" mumbo-jumbo from the campaign trail.

It was the perfect scenario, the one political operatives had been dreaming of to resuscitate the image of their diminished leader. Obama would give a speech to bring the country together! Nevermind the blame his party irresponsibly placed on their political opponents is exactly what divided the country in the first place. The stage was set. The players were ready for the heroic third act. All cameras would be on the president. Turns out dead bodies make great political theater, even better than Democratic donors dressed in white doctors coats. Lucky for President Obama.

There's no doubt the speech President Obama gave in Arizona lived up to his past speeches. Obama was clean and articulate, if not noticeably gray (too gray, I might argue, as if his handlers wanted him to appear weathered and aged by the crisis). Were this a political event, you would praise him for another terrific speech that moved the sheeple (especially the college age sheeple) and caused a few enthusiastic fans to faint. It was a grandiose photo-op worthy of it's own slogan and t-shirts. In fact, the event got both, entitled "Together We Thrive."

There's only one problem. This was not a political event. It was a memorial service to pay tribute to the precious lives lost when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire at a Safeway in Tucson. The families weren't there to pose with the president and help him kick-off his reelection bid. They were there because they had watched loved ones die. These were grieving wives, fiances, mothers, fathers, and daughters, and they deserved better than the tacky atmosphere that made this memorial service one to forget.

Even the name of the memorial service told you everything you needed to know about its purpose. Together We Thrive. Who? The victims??! I don't think they'll be thriving. Can you imagine using such a theme to describe the recently deceased? Together We Remember would have been a far more appropriate theme, but perhaps wouldn't have made as cool of a t-shirt. The only person thriving on Wednesday in Tucson was President Obama, and truth be told, Together We Thrive is a nearly three year old campaign slogan previously rolled out in his run for the presidency.

In essence, the event was a few hundred yards short of presidential. I watched Ronald Reagan's address after the Challenger disaster again (delivered from the Oval Office) just to remind myself what we should have been expecting. A few short pleas from the Commander-in-Chief could have gone a long way to quieting the disruptive cheers and whistles from the rowdy crowd on Wednesday. But when every cheap seat comes with it's own free Organizing for America t-shirt, when attendees are invited to the event with emails from political groups, you are setting the tone for anything but a somber memorial service. It was a speech that should have been delivered in a smaller venue or perhaps even from the Oval Office as Reagan delivered his, but then it couldn't have served as political optics. This event was about one thing: paying tribute to our celebrity president, not the memories of those who perished, and that's disheartening.

Words. Just words. And what president has ever done words better?

Never Let a Crisis Go Without a Logo

2011-01-12T19:29:00.000-06:00

Barack brands a massacre. Because sometimes "Yes, We Did!" just doesn't seem quite appropriate.

No lie. T-shirts with the phrase "Together We Thrive" were made available for mourners at tonight's memorial service in Tucson with Dear Leader in attendance. I'm hoping a similar logo won't appear on the podium when the president gives his political address/eulogy.

You may recall when Lyndon Johnson attempted to brand the shooting of JFK with "Rising Above the Grassy Knoll" tote bags. Epic fail. But don't feel bad for The One. Feel bad for the families of the victims.

You'll Never See a Cartoon of Muhammed but...

2011-01-11T23:53:00.002-06:00

This despicable cartoon ran in the Washington Post two days after the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona. In the meantime, almost every mainstream news source reluctantly reported there was no connection between Jared Lee Loughner and the Tea Party. Oh well. Who needs facts when you can portray a whole group you disagree with politically as dangerous nuts?

Reason Magazine has further details of the double standard and these "wise words" from the cartoonist who drew it (along w/ some other irresponsible depictions of conservatives as killers):

"In a larger sense there is a link between anti-government rhetoric and the actions of this obviously deranged man. He is not "troubled", he is crazed. But he knows that the larger enemy is the "government", even though I suspect he has no idea, other than the police, what the government is. So in my experience, there is plenty of linkage, the linkage of a constant steady pressure, constant yammering on right wing radio, and constant political advertising to strike at the government, linking to a weak and distracted mind, inured to the real cost of violence by video games and super-violent films. And to this the easy availability of Glocks in a state like Arizona, and the result is more than predictable. Only willful political opportunism could blind anyone [sic] to it. This same connection drove Timothy McVeigh and others. This won't, I regret to say, be the last incident, not as long as the self-hatred in this country goes unanswered. [...]

The disgusting part is the lack of inclination to blame the people ultimately [sic] responsible. They are again being given a pass for the viciousness they have engendered, at least in part."

Remember, with Nadal Hasan we were told not to jump to conclusions - not even days or weeks after the Islamo-fascist took out his wrath at Fort Hood. But there appears to be a coordinated effort to connect Loughner (a white male) to any and all conservatives - despite evidence to the contrary. When the narrative being painted by the powers that be differs so starkly from the facts on the ground, you know a nation is at a crossroads. With all due respect to the victims, there is more to fear from the environment the Left has intentionally created since the shooting than there is from the type of random act of violence that took place Saturday.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has put together a page of more of the Left's "civility" (really, it's quite a collection) that obviously no mainstream media is concerned might contribute to a "climate of hate." And you may remember this video from last year: When Democrats Attack Free Speech.

Left's Assassination Attempt on American Liberty

2011-01-10T12:06:00.006-06:00

There aren't enough words to describe the tragedy that occurred in Arizona when 22 year old gunman Jared Lee Loughner walked into a Safeway in Tucson and shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, along with 19 others. Fortunately, thanks to a fast-thinking intern, quick medical attention, the miracle of prayer, and the luck of where the bullet entered and exited her skull, Rep. Giffords is still with us. Doctors remain optimistic about her recovery, and that is great news.

Sadly, six other victims weren't as lucky. Thoughts and prayers go out to their families. No mother, father, son, or daughter can imagine such a horrific event taking their loved ones from this world. I hope they are in a better place now where there's no such thing as a 24 hour news cycle. To use their deaths, as some have done to demonize their political opponents, shows a complete callousness for life and does a great disservice to the families. It disappoints me to think the American political process could stoop this low. And yet here we are.

Just minutes after Rep. Gabrielle Gifford was shot, before the blood was dry, progressives began blaming the tea party, Sarah Palin, and conservative rhetoric for this massacre. Was the shooter a member of the tea party? No. Was there any proof he had ever supported Sarah Palin or paid attention to her tweets and facebook posts? No. But such lack of evidence didn't stop the Left. They had a narrative to push, a narrative laid out nearly a year ago by President Clinton, that somewhere on the right the next Timothy McVeigh was out there and continued opposition to Democrat Party ideas was surely to push them over the edge. This is worse than guilt by association. It's connecting dots where none exist to silence dissent.

It didn't take long for pundits on the Left to take up Bill Clinton's campaign. Before a shooter's name was even disclosed, Markos Moulitsas and Paul Krugman had already begun to paint right-wing political rhetoric as the culprit fostering hate in America. In fact, it got so out of control that Sarah Palin became a trending topic on twitter and google during the aftermath of the deadly shooting. Moulitsas, founder of the Daily Kos, where true hate speech flourishes, tweeted, "Mission accomplished, Sarah Palin." And that was one of the nicer things that was said all day.

As for Krugman at the NYT, one can only hope he's ashamed of printing this nonsense:

"We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was.

She’s been the target of violence before... she’s a Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona, precisely because the Republicans nominated a Tea Party activist. (Her father says that "the whole Tea Party” was her enemy.) And yes, she was on Sarah Palin’s infamous “crosshairs” list.

Just yesterday, Ezra Klein remarked that opposition to health reform was getting scary. Actually, it’s been scary for quite a while, in a way that already reminded many of us of the climate that preceded the Oklahoma City bombing."

In other words, it had to be an anti-Obamacare, tea party member because hey, they ran against her in a tough-contested election. What?! Anyone who refuses to condemn Krugman for printing such false assumptions with no evidence to speak of is clearly as sick as he is, and that brings up a very important point. If the Left really believes that charged political rhetoric causes violent outbursts by deranged individuals, why are they using this same vitriol against Sarah Palin? Either they don't believe the very hypothesis they've been hyperventilating over the past two days or they are hoping something equally despicable happens to the former governor. Which is maybe why this image is making the rounds online:

Now I don't believe this will lead some sicko to kill Sarah Palin, as disgusting an image as it may be. I do find it extremely distasteful, bordering on an actual threat (you can imagine the outrage if this image was found in the shooter's home with Giffords depicted instead). It's surely more egregious than the map liberals are whining about with "targets" over congressional districts. But obviously the Left must not believe such over-the-top political rhetoric causes disturbed individuals to commit bloody slaughters or it wouldn't be making the rounds online. Unless they really want to see Sarah Palin assassinated. Thus, the outrage is manufactured.

At this point, I would normally spend time defending Sarah Palin and the tea party, dissecting the idiocy of Paul Krugman's statements, pointing out that one of the shooter's high school friends said he was an atheist and called him "left wing." I might also point out that Rep. Giffords was the first Jewish member of Congress to be elected in Arizona and that Jared Lee Loughner cited Adolf Hitler's Mein Kamph as one of his favorite books. Or that he seems to have been planning this mad act of violence long before Palin's map or the tea party ever took form. But none of that really matters. Jared Lee Loughner was obviously a twisted individual.

Here's what does matter. We cannot let a personal tragedy for some become the great American tragedy by senselessly banning forms of political speech or attempting to police the thoughts of our citizens. We cannot become a nation that tries to set guidelines to determine which dissent is appropriate and which is incendiary. To do so would shred the Constitution, limit the right of the people to redress grievances against their government, and shrink the voice of the opposition in the face of an all-powerful state.

Now is not the time to throw out liberty for the promise of a little more security for our elected officials. Thousands, no, hundreds of thousands of over-the-top political statements have been uttered by both the Left and the Right over the past few years, yet incidents of violence have been so rare, they are nearly nonexistent. Perhaps one of the best examples of over-the-top rhetoric is that of "truthers" who believe the government of the United States is responsible for the attack on the Twin Towers on 9/11. Yet rather than force this kind of speech underground, giving it a kind of dangerous legitimacy by banning it, the most effective response is to refute it with facts out in the open, to smoke out the moonbats and let Truth prevail.

Millions of examples of vitriol dot the landscape of American history. So far, no event, not even the assassination of John F. Kennedy or the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan, has caused Congress to re-think free speech or pass a law to limit political discourse as protected under the first amendment. Not only does this incident not rise to the standard of those tragedies, there's no evidence that the shooter in this case was ever influenced by the statements of any political speech, Democrat or Republican. It's more likely he was a nut, and like John Hinckley, could have just as easily taken the wrong cue from a movie starring Robet DeNiro and Jodie Foster.

Any effort to limit political speech by this Congress, and you know it's coming from the Democrats, should be firmly rejected. This is as close to a Reichstag fire moment as we've come to in this country recently. Should the first amendment be chipped away to only protect non-offensive, politically correct speech, we really will be entering a new era of tyranny. January 8, 2011 will go down not as the day a sitting congresswoman was almost killed, but as the day American liberty took a great fall.

Yes, the Left's reaction to this random shooting is a threat to our liberties, and no, I won't tone down my rhetoric to please Paul Krugman or Ezra Klein. But, then again, I don't find the Constitution "old and confusing."

Taking Moral Relativism to New Levels: NY Times Calls Sudan's War Criminal President "Pragmatic"

2011-01-06T05:30:00.006-06:00

Sometimes you have to read a paragraph twice to make sure the writer meant to say what they said. Such was the case earlier this week regarding this article written by Jeffrey Gettleman in the New York Times about the civil war in Sudan:

"Both sides, according to many analysts, are more pragmatic than they are often given credit for. Despite being portrayed as careless brutes in many Western countries, the Islamist cabal that controls Sudan, starting with Mr. Bashir, has shown surprising elasticity." [emphasis mine]

Let's see if we can get this straight. The president of Sudan, Mr. Bashir, and his well-funded, government-backed Janjaweed militias are responsible for 200,000 to 300,000 deaths and the displacement of 3 million refugees. He has been cited for human rights abuses by hundreds of watchdog groups and charged with war crimes and genocide by the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Even Time magazine has said of the Sudanese president's Islamist regime:

"Amid the chaos, the regime of President Omar Hassan al-Bashir continues its brutal crackdown, aggressively attacking rebel redoubts, indiscriminately killing civilians and razing entire villages."

Yeah, sounds like pragmatism to me. And that doesn't even include the well-documented rapes and child beheadings. So how could this regime be unfairly portrayed as careless brutes by anybody, let alone the West? Even activists on the Left have been willing to call out the Islamist northern Sudanese government as "evil." Such tepid writing by Mr. Gettleman is either the worst case of moral relativism ever or the result of new NYT sensitivity training to placate the international Muslim perspective (which can easily be summed up as "Israel is behind this to divert attention from their own crimes.").

Do we have to start placating the Al-Qaeda perspective now everytime we mention 9/11? This isn't objectivity in reporting. This is whitewashing the truth, blurring right and wrong in the name of political correctness.

A Kinder, Gentler Facetwitch

2011-01-03T15:53:00.001-06:00

You will notice some changes as we enter the new year. They are mostly cosmetic. I wanted to give the blog a more reader-friendly appearance, but I also wanted to open the door for adding more variety in content. I also wanted something I could direct potential employers to as writing becomes more of a full-time job for me. Don't worry. My opinions haven't gotten any gentler. You will get the same brazen, well-thought out commentary with a side of snark (when deemed appropriate). And when it's not well-thought out, as always I'm sure you will let me know with your comments.

You will notice some new pages on the menu bar at the top of the screen. They are all currently under construction, but in the coming days I hope to have them up and working. I will share links to the most pertinent news stories of the day and some of my favorite videos. This is all in an attempt to turn this more into a blog you can visit daily and find new things, as opposed to just waiting around for my next column. My columns tend to take longer to write, because so much gets covered everyday in talk radio and the big blogs that I don't want to spend time rehashing. You deserve more than talking points. So I sift through hundreds of websites and wait for inspiration to strike.

I am also finally mastering the use of twitter. I've added several twitter tools to my computer and phone so I can share more thoughts (in 140 characters or less) with my readers - even when I'm away from my desk. Hopefully, these pass the censors at the FCC who have appointed themselves the new nannies of the internet. If you are interested in following my tweets (where I will also link to the best news stories of the day), simply add me. My handle is real easy to remember. It's @facetwitch.

May you and your family experience a renewal of liberty and a wealth of blessings in 2011! Here's hoping the 112th Congress undoes the damage caused by Nancy Pelosi's bunch.

10 Biggest Disappointments of 2010

2011-01-01T13:41:00.010-06:00

Happy 2011! As trite as I find end of year lists (check out this top ten from last year if you don’t believe me), I am going to introduce one more to the already overcrowded field. Please accept my apologies up front, but I felt the need to reflect once more on the pain and agony 2010 brought so many of us (unless you’re Mark Zuckerbucks). Seriously, if facebook is the story of 2010, we’ve sunk to a new low in banality. So here’s to Twenty O’leven (much easier to say than two thousand and eleven) and the TEN BIGGEST DISAPPOINTMENTS OF 2010:

10) US Soccer in the World Cup – The experts told us we should have high hopes for this team, yet we barely advanced to the second round (it took a breakaway goal in overtime) and then lost to Ghana in our first playoff game. Ghana! Most Americans can’t even find Ghana on a map (which could qualify as the 11^th biggest disappointment of the year). Oh well, there’s always next year… er... in four years.

9) Hollywood’s Lousy Movie Releases – In a few weeks, ten films will be nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture. Unfortunately, there probably weren’t ten films worth seeing in 2010. Martin Scorsese released his worst effort in years (Shutter Island) and it turns out the critical early favorite is a film about facebook. At least it’s not in 3D. Who knows? Maybe next year we’ll get a sequel about ebay or the kindle.

8) Tea Party Candidates for U.S. Senate – They had solid ideas, but poorly run campaigns by inexperienced candidates combined with the smear tactics of the mainstream press doomed Joe Miller in Alaska and Christine O’Donnell in Delaware. Perhaps the biggest disappointment of all was watching Sharon Angle fall to Harry Reid in Nevada. On the bright side, we got Rand Paul and Marco Rubio. Still, if the conservative resurgence is going to save America from becoming the next Greece or Spain, we are going to have to do better in 2012.

7) Tiger Woods – We loved to root against him in the past, but when he’s struggling to find moral clarity and swinging his club more like the man in front of the golden EIB microphone than the Golden Bear, it just isn’t any fun to watch the world's former greatest golfer lose anymore. Here’s hoping Tiger gets his personal and professional life back on track in 2011 so we can root for the other guy again without feeling guilty.

6) Scott Brown – From the great new hope of the Republican Party and firewall against Obamacare to the disappointing RINO who might end up with a voting record to the left of Arlen Specter, no politician in Washington could disappoint us more in less time without the initials B.H.O. But maybe, just maybe, it will remind conservatives why Massachusetts Republicans can’t be relied on in presidential races either.

5) The Cupcake Fad – Gourmet cupcakes. Designer cupcakes. Five dollar cupcakes. Cupcakes not shaped like cupcakes. Everywhere you turned in 2010 there were cupcakes. Doctors offices, dry cleaners, and barber shops closed at an alarming rate but we got 20 new places to buy cupcakes. Surprisingly, they taste like... cupcakes. Perhaps no one looked sillier all year than a fifty year old man in a business suit licking the icing off a cupcake. We’re still a nation of adults, aren’t we?

4) Football in Texas – The Lone Star State prides itself on football. There is no greater church for the Texas sporting fan. And yet for the first time in recent memory, the Dallas Cowboys failed to make the playoffs AND the Texas Longhorns didn’t qualify for a bowl game. There was even talk of a Cowboys Super Bowl at the beginning of the year. HA! Meanwhile, Florida stole the Longhorns' coach-in-waiting, and the Houston Texans are, well, the Houston Texans. The only bright spot of the year is TCU. Not to take anything away from what they’ve accomplished, but when TCU is the pinnacle of Texas sports, you know it’s been an unusually bad year.

3) Homeland Security – The myopic agency ended 2009 by failing to heed the warnings of a father in the U.K. who tipped off the CIA that his son was planning some kind of attack. You would think such a tip from a credible witness would at least initiate a red enough flag to get the underwear bomber’s name on a No Fly list. Nope. Follow that with the failed Times Square plot and efforts to placate every radical Muslim by calling their religious beliefs “peaceful” and refusing to use the word “terrorist” except when referring to Christian militias. Then initiate a heavy-handed security protocol at the airport that wastes valuable resources on law-abiding, non-threatening citizens and gropes and undresses ten year old children. We’re not any safer, but we’re conditioning our kids to give up their liberties and be less vigilant when faced with the all-powerful state. It’s time for this bloated, intrusive, and ineffective government agency to go.

2) The Economy – Too many longtime local businesses have closed their doors. Unemployment has hovered around 10% all year. If you didn’t lose your job this year, you know someone who did. One in six Americans is on food stamps. Obamanomics hasn’t been good for anyone really except Goldman Sachs. Contain. Control. Regulate. Restrict. These are all words the Left uses to describe their favored government policy toward business and they are all antonyms of GROWTH.

1) Eric Holder’s Justice Department – They couldn't get a conviction against an Al-Qaeda terrorist accused of blowing up two African embassies in 1998, failing on 179 out of 180 counts, but they have the people of Arizona back on their heels for daring to check the legal status of arrested residents. They dropped all charges against two black panthers for intimidating voters outside the polls dressed in military-style uniforms and waving weapons. Most recently, they sued a school district for refusing to give a Muslim teacher a month off so she could take a vacation to Mecca. This is the most political Justice Department in history. What local or state entity will the federal government sue next for failing to give greater influence to special interest groups dear to Mr. Holder and President Obama?

Barack Obama's Department of Social Justice

2010-12-20T23:04:00.002-06:00

Over at Powerline, they're referring to it as the Department of Selective Justice, but I think we all know what the true criteria is for selection. First the Arizona lawsuit, now this. As reported by IBD:

On Monday, Justice sued an Illinois school district for rejecting a Muslim teacher's request to take a three-week leave of absence to travel to Mecca. The suit claims that the Berkeley School District discriminated against middle-school instructor Safoorah Khan, whose religion "required" her to perform the hajj, and is seeking damages for this so-called victim.

But it's not stopping there. It seeks an order mandating school officials adopt policies accommodating all Muslim customs, no matter how unreasonable.

I have written before about the dangers of social justice and how it perverts every citizen's rights. Once again, Eric Holder is ignoring the American system of equality under the law to play favorites with select groups or classes of citizens. The repercussions of the Justice Department winning this lawsuit are truly frightening. It opens the door for all sorts of abuse, giving Muslims the status of protected citizens and possibly forcing our courts to recognize Sharia law down the road. And to think, they laughed at Oklahoma voters for overreacting when they passed a resolution to prevent courts from taking Sharia law into account. Suddenly, Justice is leading the charge to bring such radical change?

When it comes to our public schools, Jesus is apparently out but Mecca is in. I can't imagine the Justice Department getting involved in this matter if the teacher was asking for a three week break to visit Israel or take a Christian mission trip to Africa. Nor should they. It's a personal decision by the employee who clearly has a choice in their time and place of employment. It's not the responsibility of employers to accommodate such a leave of absence for any reason short of health and/or maternity leave.

No business could remain productive while trying to placate every worker's whim and religious "need." We'd sink into a depression, or worse, become Spain. The school industry is no different. I believe the needs of a child's education rank higher than the vacation plans of the hired help - no matter how holy. The question is why doesn't President Obama or Eric Holder?