Sotomayor Perhaps Can't Be Stopped But Must Be Opposed

A couple of useful perspectives on Judge Sotomayor:

Newt Gingrich

Gingrich decries 'racism,' Sotomayor - Washington Times: "'Imagine a judicial nominee said, 'My experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman.' New racism is no better than old racism,' Mr. Gingrich wrote on Twitter, which he uses regularly to discuss politics or promote his television appearances."

The Washington Times Editorial Page

EDITORIAL: A judge too far - Washington Times: "If Mr. Obama wanted a judge with the right 'empathy,' he struck out with Judge Sotomayor. One of the white firefighters denied promotion, Frank Ricci, is dyslexic. In order to ace the promotion exam, he quit a second job, spent $1,000 for instruction materials, and spent many hours reading those books into an audio tape to help him study. For his extraordinary efforts, he finished sixth out of 77 applicants for promotion - but then was denied, simply because he is white."

The Washington Times piece is the perfect illustration of the absolutely faulty thinking behind the President's search for a judge with empathy. Almost by definition, an empathetic judge is a bad judge. I don't want judges deciding cases based upon whose situation tugs at their heartstrings. Clearly, in the Ricci Case, Sotomayor had empathy for the black firefighters who didn't pass the exam. Apparently, she has no empathy for Mr Ricci. And the primary basis for where her empathy lies is race. That sounds like the definition of racism to me.

Obama - "They" Are Politicizing the Torture and Guantanamo Issues

Obama’s Speech on Detainees and National Security - Washington Wire - WSJ: "For the first time since 2002, we are providing the necessary resources and strategic direction to take the fight to the extremists who attacked us on 9/11 in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Pres. Obama has the luxury of diverting troops from Iraq to Afghanistan because George Bush's surge in Iraq has succeeded. The surge that candidate Obama declared a failure before it was even attempted. This Afghanistan offensive is based largely on tactics proven effective during the surge he opposed. This American troop surge in Afghanistan is made necessary in large part because the European allies that Obama holds in such high esteem have for seven years refused to do their part (even though they supported the war when Pres Bush launched it). They haven't stepped up any more now that this administration is sweet-talking them, in fact, many are in the process of withdrawing from the conflict.

And we have renewed American diplomacy so that we once again have the strength and standing to truly lead the world.

He's joking, right? We just saw Iran's response to Obama's diplomatic overtures - the launching of a dangerous new long-range missile.

Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. And I believe that those decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that – too often – our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, we too often set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And in this season of fear, too many of us – Democrats and Republicans; politicians, journalists and citizens – fell silent.

Where does one begin to unravel the nest of libels and misinformation that are this paragraph? And speak of hasty decisions? How about announcing on the second day of your presidency that you are closing down Gitmo, only to be rebuked months later by your own party for having no coherent plan for doing so?

The very existence of the so-called "torture memos" is evidence of the fact that no "hasty decisions" were made.

I'll let Cheney answer the charge on prinicples:

no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them.

Back to the President:

the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable – a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions; that failed to use our values as a compass.

Once again, I would site the "torture memos" and the extensive cooperation with Congress as a clear refutation of the charge of ad hoc. What legal traditions is the President speaking of? I know of no relevant traditions, i.e. pertaining to unlawful enemy combatants (not soldiers and certainly not citizens) during a time of war that have been trampled upon.

I took several steps upon taking office to better protect the American people.

First, I banned the use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques by the United States of America.

I know some have argued that brutal methods like water-boarding were necessary to keep us safe. I could not disagree more. As Commander-in-Chief, I see the intelligence, I bear responsibility for keeping this country safe, and I reject the assertion that these are the most effective means of interrogation.

Why don't you let the American people judge whether they were effective. Why do you hide from us the most relevnat informatoin in the "torture memos," what informatoni was obtained as a result of waterboarding?

What’s more, they undermine the rule of law. They alienate us in the world. They serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists, and increase the will of our enemies to fight us, while decreasing the will of others to work with America.

Again, what rule of law? He never says. The recruitment tool argument is a sham. What really brings in recruits to an outfit like Al Qaeda is a successful terrorist attack. By denying them such a success, the Bush administration severly broke the momentum of the islamofasciscts.

They [enhanced interrogration techniques] risk the lives of our troops by making it less likely that others will surrender to them in battle, and more likely that Americans will be mistreated if they are captured.

Everyone in the world know that the US slavishly follows the rules of the Geneva convention with respect to enemy soldiers on the battlefield. The islamofascists are not signatories of the Geneva Convention They have a nasty habit of torturing and beheading prisoners. They were doing so long before these three terrorists were waterboarded and they are still doing so today.

In short, they [enhanced interrogation technicques] did not advance our war and counter-terrorism efforts – they undermined them, and that is why I ended them once and for all.

Again, let everyone see the evidence and decide for themselves. Stop hiding the evidence.

The second decision that I made was to order the closing of the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay.

For over seven years, we have detained hundreds of people at Guantanamo. During that time, the system of Military Commissions at Guantanamo succeeded in convicting a grand total of three suspected terrorists. Let me repeat that: three convictions in over seven years.

That is because the commissions process has been fought and delayed every step of the way by a bunch of left wing lawyers, most of whom are now in the Obama Justice Department!

Meanwhile, over five hundred and twenty-five detainees were released from Guantanamo under the Bush Administration. Let me repeat that: two-thirds of the detainees were released before I took office and ordered the closure of Guantanamo.

What's his point?

There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America’s strongest currency in the world. Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law.

Perhaps no question in the President's mind. To my knowledge, every outside inspection of Guantanamo gave it sterling reviews. None of those countries that are supposedly so offended by Guantanamo have offered a helping hand in taking any of these detainees. Talk is cheap.

So the record is clear: rather than keep us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security.

Clear to whom? We have already observed the high recidivism rate of the former Guantanamo detainees that were set free. How can you say that we would have been better off if these 250, most corrigible detainees had been set free long ago?

It is a rallying cry for our enemies.

Again with the specious recruiting argument.

It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries.

Oh yes, we may have fewer German non-combatant ally troops along side us in Afghanistan! What's more likely to lose us the cooperation of allies is the suspicion that this administration will throw anyone under the bus, and reveal any secrets if it serves its political purposes to do so.

The third decision that I made was to order a review of all the pending cases at Guantanamo.

the problem of what to do with Guantanamo detainees was not caused by my decision to close the facility; the problem exists because of the decision to open Guantanamo in the first place.

Poor President Obama. He inherited hard decisions. Where would these hardened criminal terrorists be if Gitmo had not been opened? How many innocent people would have been killed or maimed by them had they been let free? Don't pretend we could have used the criminal justice system to handle them. It was not designed to do so, and the rights and protections of our legal system are not granted to foreign terrorists as a reward for making war against us.

Some have derided our federal courts as incapable of handling the trials of terrorists. They are wrong. Our courts and juries of our citizens are tough enough to convict terrorists, and the record makes that clear. Ramzi Yousef tried to blow up the World Trade Center – he was convicted in our courts, and is serving a life sentence in U.S. prison. Zaccarias Moussaoui has been identified as the 20th 9/11 hijacker – he was convicted in our courts, and he too is serving a life sentence in prison. If we can try those terrorists in our courts and hold them in our prisons, then we can do the same with detainees from Guantanamo.

He glossed over the fact that these convictions were for acts committed in the US and investigated by US law enforcement. It is a far different situation when the detained was scooped up by US soldiers on a foreign field of battle. Kind of hard to follow criminal procedure on a battlefield.

...over the last several weeks, we have seen a return of the politicization of these issues that have characterized the last several years. I understand that these problems arouse passions and concerns. They should. We are confronting some of the most complicated questions that a democracy can face. But I have no interest in spending our time re-litigating the policies of the last eight years. I want to solve these problems, and I want to solve them together as Americans.

Then perhaps you should have had the moral courage to steadfastly refuse to support "truth commissions" and prosecutions of Bush administration personnel over policy disagreements. Instead, you did what you so often do, tried to play both sides of the controversy.

I grow tired of this speech. It goes on and on and on with the same dishonest self-justifications and distortions of the truth. This President let the MoveOn.org drive HIM to hasty, politicized decisions with respect to our national security. And now he is wasting our time trying to make the case for HIS ill-considered ad hoc approach to dealing with enemy combatants in the ongoing war against islamofascism.

The good news is I think this whole process has taught President Obama a great deal and I genuinely look forward to fewer unwise ideological foreign policy decisions in the future. He just needs to get over his bruised ego.

RAW DATA: Text of Dick Cheney's National Security Speech at AEI - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com

RAW DATA: Text of Dick Cheney's National Security Speech at AEI - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com: "When President Obama makes wise decisions, as I believe he has done in some respects on Afghanistan, and in reversing his plan to release incendiary photos, he deserves our support. And when he faults or mischaracterizes the national security decisions we made in the Bush years, he deserves an answer. The point is not to look backward. Now and for years to come, a lot rides on our President's understanding of the security policies that preceded him. And whatever choices he makes concerning the defense of this country, those choices should not be based on slogans and campaign rhetoric, but on a truthful telling of history."

somehow, when the soul-searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less than half the truth. The released memos were carefully redacted to leave out references to what our government learned through the methods in question. Other memos, laying out specific terrorist plots that were averted, apparently were not even considered for release. For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has a right to know the method of the questions, but not the content of the answers.

Over on the left wing of the president's party, there appears to be little curiosity in finding out what was learned from the terrorists. The kind of answers they're after would be heard before a so-called "Truth Commission." Some are even demanding that those who recommended and approved the interrogations be prosecuted, in effect treating political disagreements as a punishable offense, and political opponents as criminals. It's hard to imagine a worse precedent, filled with more possibilities for trouble and abuse, than to have an incoming administration criminalize the policy decisions of its predecessors.

Apart from doing a serious injustice to intelligence operators and lawyers who deserve far better for their devoted service, the danger here is a loss of focus on national security, and what it requires.

Even before the interrogation program began, and throughout its operation, it was closely reviewed to ensure that every method used was in full compliance with the Constitution, statutes, and treaty obligations. On numerous occasions, leading members of Congress, including the current speaker of the House, were briefed on the program and on the methods.

Yet for all these exacting efforts to do a hard and necessary job and to do it right, we hear from some quarters nothing but feigned outrage based on a false narrative. In my long experience in Washington, few matters have inspired so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing as the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists.

The administration has found that it's easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo. But it's tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interests of justice and America's national security.

Another term out there that slipped into the discussion is the notion that American interrogation practices were a "recruitment tool" for the enemy. On this theory, by the tough questioning of killers, we have supposedly fallen short of our own values. This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately, including from the President himself. And after a familiar fashion, it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do. It's another version of that same old refrain from the Left, "We brought it on ourselves."

Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values. But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them.

As a practical matter, too, terrorists may lack much, but they have never lacked for grievances against the United States. Our belief in freedom of speech and religion … our belief in equal rights for women … our support for Israel … our cultural and political influence in the world - these are the true sources of resentment, all mixed in with the lies and conspiracy theories of the radical clerics. These recruitment tools were in vigorous use throughout the 1990s, and they were sufficient to motivate the 19 recruits who boarded those planes on September 11th, 2001.

The United States of America was a good country before 9/11, just as we are today. List all the things that make us a force for good in the world - for liberty, for human rights, for the rational, peaceful resolution of differences - and what you end up with is a list of the reasons why the terrorists hate America. If fine speech-making, appeals to reason, or pleas for compassion had the power to move them, the terrorists would long ago have abandoned the field. And when they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don't stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for - our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity

What is equally certain is this: The broad-based strategy set in motion by President Bush obviously had nothing to do with causing the events of 9/11. But the serious way we dealt with terrorists from then on, and all the intelligence we gathered in that time, had everything to do with preventing another 9/11 on our watch. The enhanced interrogations of high-value detainees and the terrorist surveillance program have without question made our country safer. Every senior official who has been briefed on these classified matters knows of specific attacks that were in the planning stages and were stopped by the programs we put in place.

For all that we've lost in this conflict, the United States has never lost its moral bearings. And when the moral reckoning turns to the men known as high-value terrorists, I can assure you they were neither innocent nor victims. As for those who asked them questions and got answers: they did the right thing, they made our country safer, and a lot of Americans are alive today because of them.

Like so many others who serve America, they are not the kind to insist on a thank-you. But I will always be grateful to each one of them, and proud to have served with them for a time in the same cause. They, and so many others, have given honorable service to our country through all the difficulties and all the dangers. I will always admire them and wish them well. And I am confident that this nation will never take their work, their dedication, or their achievements, for granted.

Read the entire speech. Then read the Obama speech given at the National Archives. Then tell me which one you'd rather have responsible for keeping our nation safe.

Let the Spin Begin in California

Calif. voters reject budget measures - Washington Times: "LOS ANGELES (AP) California's voters on Tuesday rejected a complex slate of ballot propositions designed to keep the state from sliding further toward fiscal calamity.

The only measure they approved in a statewide special election was Proposition 1F, which will prohibit raises to lawmakers and other state elected officials during deficit years."

The mainstream media and the California politicians are, of course, trashing the referendum process as flawed. "These votes expose the irrational tendency of democracy. Voters want the services, they just don't want to pay for them," goes the reasoning. Well, actually, "no." It's the entrenched liberal Democrat politicians in the California legislature that want the spending. They are supposed to represent the people, but they don't. I am sure that a huge percentage of the spedning in California would not be upheld if it were held up to referendum on a line-item basis.

As California goes, so goes Obamanation.

ObamaCare - A Pain in the A**

How Washington Rations - WSJ.com: "Such thinking may be a non sequitur, but it will have drastic effects on the health care of all Americans -- and as it happens, this future is playing out in miniature in Medicare right now. Desperate to prevent medical costs from engulfing the federal budget, the program's central planners decided last week to deny payment for a new version of one of life's most unpleasant routine procedures, the colonoscopy. This is a preview of how health care will be rationed when Democrats get their way."

Nationalized healthcare will be the death knell of the exceptional land of liberty known as the United States. When the populace becomes dependent upon the state for health it fundamentally changes the relationship between the government and the governed. Mark Steyn, having lived under both British and Canadian nationalized healthcare, makes this point all the time.

Oh, by the way though, this level of government control over healthcare procedures does hold out promise for solving the Social Security insolvency. Just stop spending money on life extending procedures and thereby lower the lifetime payouts to social security recipients. Why keep them alive, draining the Treasury? What kind of life is that anyway?

This Stimulus Plan Could Keep America Dependent on Washington For Years To Come

Tax Increases Could Kill the Recovery - WSJ.com: "The barrage of tax increases proposed in President Barack Obama's budget could, if enacted by Congress, kill any chance of an early and sustained recovery.

Historians and economists who've studied the 1930s conclude that the tax increases passed during that decade derailed the recovery and slowed the decline in unemployment. That was true of the 1935 tax on corporate earnings and of the 1937 introduction of the payroll tax. Japan did the same destructive thing by raising its value-added tax rate in 1997."

Much as the sainted FDR dragged out the Great Depression, President Obama is on course to make this downturn last 3 or more times longer than it should. I hate to be so cynical, but I am not sure the Democrats would mind such a scenario. It worked out pretty well for Roosevelt.

Would You Hire These People To Run YOUR Healthcare?

Apocalypse When?: "Well, thanks to a profligate federal government, which will double the national debt to $11.5 trillion in just four years, and a recession that has weakened federal tax revenues, we can no longer ignore the problem. The day of reckoning is at hand.

The Social Security Board of Trustees reported Tuesday that costs will exceed revenues in 2016 — a full year sooner than expected just last year. And total assets — including more than 70 years of 'surpluses' built up in the 'trust fund' — will be completely gone by 2037 — four years earlier than in last year's report."

It's as if good ole Joe, your trusty financial planner had set you up with an investment plan in your early 20's and now that you are in your 50's you have virtually nothing to fund your retirement and will probably have to work until the day you die.

Does Joe profusely apologize and propose a plan to try and make the best of the situation? Not if Joe is really the federal government. Instead of an apology, Joe insists its time for you to also turn over to him the responsibility for insuring and funding your health care.

I don't believe the American people are dumb enough to keep trusting Joe. But they are guilty of paying too little attention. That is why the Democrats are trying to pass off their nationalized healthcare strategy as "optional."

The other sneaky thing about this whole news item was the way the mainstream media echoed the administration spin. The spin made it sound almost as if Social Security and Medicare would have been on solid footing if it hadn't been for this pesky recession. That's a valuable spin on things for the Dems, because it takes people's eyes off the fact that these programs have been raped and pillaged for decades by big spenders in Congress. It has the added virtue that it enables them to blame the whole Social Security/Medicare debacle on the economic mess they "inherited from George Bush."

Thuggery and Corruption

The Obama administration is bold. It also is careless regarding constitutional values and is acquiring a tincture of lawlessness...

"The administration's central activity -- the political allocation of wealth and opportunity -- is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is corruption."

Devastating column from George Will. He makes a great point. The Obama administration is holding California's federal stimulus funds hostage because Obama's sugar daddies - the public employee unions - are supposedly having their contractual rights stepped upon by the California state legislature (see my earlier post on the matter). Never mind mind that the contracts specifically leave an out for the state in dire circumstances such as these.

On the other hand, his auto czar has engineered a massive transfer of wealth from investors and creditors of Chrysler to the United Auto Workers (see earlier post). This despite the fact that the investors and creditors have a legally binding right to stand in line in front of the UAW when Chrysler's assets are divvied up in bankruptcy. Apparently, it's not contracts or the rule of law that are sacred, it is the unions.

I shudder to think of where we will end up, as the administration is emboldened by getting away with ever more outrageous abuses of presidential power.

Cheney - the Churchill of Our Times

"I think Cheney’s taking the Churchill in the 30s role, and I think he’s being met with exactly the same kind of robust dismissiveness and scorn that Churchill was met with in the 30s."

I agree with Hugh Hewitt's observation. We are so fortunate to have a man of Mr. Cheney's intellect, courage, and patriotism to stand up against all the powers that be, who want to pretend we aren't really fighting a war against islamofascism. I hope this time the appeasers wake up before the world descends into darkness.

Cheney's forthrightness stands in stark and refreshing contrast to Nancy Pelosi's prounouncements:

Pelosi's tortured performance | waterboarding, torture, pelosi, nancy, cheney - Opinion - OCRegister.com: "Question: What does Dick Cheney think of waterboarding?

He's in favor of it. He was in favor of it then, he's in favor of it now. He doesn't think it's torture, and he supports having it on the books as a vital option. On his recent TV appearances, he sometimes gives the impression he would not be entirely averse to performing a demonstration on his interviewers, but generally he believes its use should be a tad more circumscribed. He is entirely consistent."

To which of these leaders would you entrust the safety of your family and your nation?

Better Late Than Never

Obama attempts to block release of 'torture' photos - Telegraph:

President Barack Obama is attempting to block the release of up to 2,000 photographs of alleged abuse at American prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Since I posted this issue two weeks ago, it seems President Obama realized he was the Commander in Chief. Good for him!

Another Rational Person SIghting in the Obama Administration

Memo exposes global warming dispute - Washington Times:

"A memo released Tuesday shows an agency within the Obama administration objected to a landmark Environmental Protection Agency ruling on global warming, arguing that it was not based on sound science and could prove costly to businesses."

Uh-oh, somebody's about to lose his job in the Obama White House!

State Constitution, Legislative Will, Who Cares - California Must Bend to Obama's Will

Demoting California - WSJ.com:

"Guess what the Obama Administration is doing? It is telling Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger that it will revoke nearly $7 billion in federal stimulus money unless the state restores legislated wage cuts for unionized health-care workers.

Obama Administration to federalism: Drop dead."

Another breathtaking example of the Obama administration abusing its power on behalf of its leading special interest - the unions. This comes just on the heels of the Chrysler deal, where through the strong-arming of the Obama crowd, the UAW gained lavishly at the expense of lenders who didn't bankroll the Democrat campaign war chests in 2008.

They are using our tax dollars to pay off their union cronies.

Common Sense Down Under

Carbon Reality, Again - WSJ.com:

"It's turning out that the biggest problem with carbon taxes is political reality. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has just announced he will delay implementing his trademark cap-and-trade emissions trading proposal until at least 2011. Mr. Rudd's March proposal would have imposed total carbon permit costs (taxes) of 11.5 billion Australian dollars (US$8.5 billion) in the first two years, starting in 2010. This would have increased consumer prices by about 1.1% and shaved 0.1% off annual GDP growth until at least 2050, according to Australia's Treasury.

Some nations understand that the world has nothing to gain from them committing economic suicide in the name of "climate change."

Chrysler lenders give in on restructuring - Washington Times

Chrysler lenders give in on restructuring - Washington Times:

"'After a great deal of soul-searching and quite frankly agony, they concluded they just don't have critical mass to withstand the enormous pressure and machinery of the U.S. government,' said Thomas Lauria, the group's lead attorney.

The White House's auto task force asked the lenders to accept about 33 cents on the dollar for $6.9 billion of loans and offered them no equity in the company, while unions were given a 55 percent majority stake in exchange for expunging $4.6 billion of debt to a retirement fund."

If this doesn't scare you, it should. The abusive treatment of law abiding citizens (both those who ran these funds and those who invested in them), the demagoguery, and the disdain for two of the sacred pillars of our civil society- personal property and contracts - certainly cause me to question whether this administration recognizes any constraints on its power.

Chrysler Bankruptcy - This Deal Stinks to High Heaven

Property Rights Trumped By UAW In First Episode Of Gangster Gov't:

"Think carefully about what's happening here. The White House, presumably car czar Steven Rattner and deputy Ron Bloom, is seeking to transfer the property of one group of people to another group that is politically favored."

Politically connected junior creditors (UAW) being given precedence over more senior creditors
Politically disadvantaged creditors being strong-armed into settling for pennies on the dollar while the UAW gets 100%
TARP-funded creditors having no choice but to play ball
The President himself participating in the demonization of creditors who dare to demand their contractually-guaranteed rights
Taxpayer billions tossed around to buy time and sweeten the pot for a deal
A forced marriage with a weakling foreign car company

Is your stomach turning yet?

Obama's FIrst 100 Days - Mark Steyn Style

Mark Steyn: The One-Man Global Content Provider:

"'Obama is basically saying America is going to be the last advanced nation to try all the stuff that's failed everywhere else. That's essentially what Obama has been doing these first one hundred days.' -- Mark Steyn"

Adding Insult to Injury

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Chump Change:

"The new $3.5 trillion budget spends $11,475 for each American; the cuts amount to just $55."...

Not that there haven't been significant cuts. There have been. Problem is, half of them come from Defense, which makes up just 20% of all spending.

We'll see a reduction in the number of air-carrier groups, lower funding for the F-18 Hornet and Super-Hornet fighters (in favor of the yet-to-be built Joint Strike Fighter, which is 40% over budget), and big cuts in missile defense.

Obama blow up the deficit and then wants to claim bona fides as a budget cutter for trimming 5/1000's out of his bloated budget. He also wants you to believe that he GREW the Defense budget, by covering up his cuts with a little accounting slight of hand regarding how Iraq and Afghan war expenditures are toted up.

PinUp Shots Undermine Credibility of Gay Marriage Foe - Must See!!!!

iowahawk: Breaking: Gay Marriage Opponent Topless Photos Leaked:

"Breaking: Gay Marriage Opponent Topless Photos Leaked"

You must click on the link above, you will be shocked!!!

Easier to Bash Gitmo When You're Not in Charge

War bill omits funds for Gitmo closure - Washington Times:

"House Democratic leaders bucked the White House on Monday by unveiling a war spending bill that does not fund President Obama's plan to close Guantanamo Bay prison camp...
Bowing to strong Republican criticism, House leaders rejected Mr. Obama's request for $81 million to close the detention center at the U.S. Navy base on Cuba, saying the White House lacks a plan to safely relocate the roughly 240 terrorist suspects held on the island."

At least House Democrats don't have a death wish for their constituents - they have admitted that Pres. Obama and MoveOn do not have viable alternative to Gitmo. One of the few pleasures of Democrat hegemony is that they can't give lip service to looney policies under the cover of a Republican veto.

What, Even After We Sent Them That Nice Video?

As the U.S. Retreats, Iran Fills the Void - WSJ.com:

"Convinced that the Obama administration is preparing to retreat from the Middle East, Iran's Khomeinist regime is intensifying its goal of regional domination. It has targeted six close allies of the U.S.: Egypt, Lebanon, Bahrain, Morocco, Kuwait and Jordan, all of which are experiencing economic and/or political crises."...

"There is this perception that the new U.S. administration is not interested in the democratization strategy," a senior Lebanese political leader told me. That perception only grows as President Obama calls for an "exit strategy" from Afghanistan and Iraq. Power abhors a vacuum, which the Islamic Republic of Iran is only too happy to fill.

This calls for a firmer apology.

How Can You Tell He's Playing Fast and Loose? II

Pres Obama, our Historian in Chief, at his press conference informed the adoring media that Churchill steadfastly eschewed the use of torture. "Churchill understood, you start taking shortcuts and over time, that corrodes what’s best in a people,” he said. “It corrodes the character of a country.”"

However, according to one of the world's leading experts on Churchill quotes, "Churchill spoke frequently about torture, mostly enemy murders of civilians. His daughter once told me, “He would have done anything to win the war, and I daresay he had to do some pretty rough things—but they didn't unman him.” But if Churchill is on record about “enhanced interrogation,” his words have yet to surface."

His lips are moving.

Preening & Posturing

Preening & Posturing:

"'We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history,' President Obama said when he ordered the release of the Justice Department interrogation memos. Actually, no. Not at all. We were attacked on 9/11. We responded to that attack with remarkable restraint in the use of force, respect for civil liberties, and even solicitude for those who might inadvertently be offended, let alone harmed, by our policies...

The dark and painful chapter we have to fear is rather the one President Obama may be ushering in. This would be a chapter in which politicians preen moralistically as they throw patriotic officials, who helped keep this country safe, to the wolves, and in which national leaders posture politically while endangering the nation's security.

I have been remiss in not highlighting content from The Weekly Standard, of which I am a subscriber and faithful reader.

Obama Overcomes Yet Another False Choice

Obama wants court pick to have 'empathy' - Washington Times:

"'I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives, whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation,' Mr. Obama said.

Still, he also said he will look for someone who 'who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role.'"

We don't have to make the false choice of someone who respects the law and seeks to interpret it faithfully vs someone who legislates from the bench. When you are Obama, you can have both at the same time!

A SelectivelyTransparent Administration

A Tortured Rationale - WSJ.com:

"President Obama was then asked whether he had read the memos recently mentioned by former Vice President Dick Cheney as evidence of the effectiveness of enhanced interrogations. Yes he had, he said, immediately adding that 'they haven't been officially declassified and released, and so I don't want to go into the details of them.' The fact that he didn't rebut Mr. Cheney's point about what the interrogations yielded suggests that the memos would prove the former Veep's point. Mr. Obama should release all the memos and let Americans judge for themselves -- though perhaps that's precisely why he won't release them."

The American public needs to hear THE REST OF THE STORY.

How Can You Tell He's Playing Fast and Loose?

FACT CHECK: Obama's Job Creation, Deficit Claims Questionable - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com: "

-- His assertion that his proposed budget 'will cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term' is an eyeball-roller for many economists, given the uncharted terrain of trillion-dollar deficits the government is negotiating.

-- He promised vast savings from increased spending on preventive health care in the face of doubts that such an effort, however laudable it might be for public welfare, can pay for itself, let alone yield huge savings.

-- He pitched a remedy for Social Security's long-term crisis that analysts say won't fix half the problem."

His lips are moving.

Best News I've Heard This Week!

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Does State think Texas is a foreign country?:

"In a list that intended to brag about how much Hillary Clinton had traveled as the new Secretary of State to foreign countries, Foggy Bottom included a trip to Texas:"

I hope this means that Obama will be coming to apologize to us soon!