Jewish Atheist Knows a Tyrant When He Sees One

From John W. Whitehead's December 11, 2009 interview with Nat Hentoff "America Under Barack Obama":

Nat Hentoff has had a life well spent, one chock full of controversy fueled by his passion for the protection of civil liberties and human rights. Hentoff is known as a civil libertarian, free speech activist, anti-death penalty advocate, pro-lifer and not uncommon critic of the ideological left.

At 84, Nat Hentoff is an American classic who has never shied away from an issue. For example, he defended a woman rejected from law school because she was Caucasian; called into a talk show hosted by Oliver North to agree with him on liberal intolerance for free speech; was a friend to the late Malcolm X; and wrote the liner notes for Bob Dylan's second album.

A self-described uncategorizable libertarian, Hentoff adds he is also a “Jewish atheist, civil libertarian, pro-lifer.” Accordingly, he has angered nearly every political faction and remains one of a few who has stuck to his principles through his many years of work, regardless of the trouble it stirred up. For instance, when he announced his opposition to abortion he alienated numerous colleagues, and his outspoken denunciation of President Bill Clinton only increased his isolation in liberal circles (He said that Clinton had "done more harm to the Constitution than any president in American history," and called him "a serial violator of our liberties.").

Born in Boston on June 10, 1925, Hentoff received a B.A. with honors from Northeastern University and did graduate work at Harvard. From 1953 to 1957, he was associate editor of Down Beat magazine. He has written many books on jazz, biographies and novels, including children's books. His articles have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Commonwealth, the New Republic, the Atlantic and the New Yorker, where he was a staff writer for more than 25 years. In 1980, he was awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship in Education and an American Bar Association Silver Gavel Award for his coverage of the law and criminal justice in his columns. In 1985, he was awarded an Honorary Doctorate of Laws by Northeastern University. For 50 years, Hentoff wrote a weekly column for the Village Voice. But that publication announced that he had been terminated on December 31, 2008. In February 2009, Hentoff joined the Cato Institute as a Senior Fellow.

Hentoff's views on the rights of Americans to write, think and speak freely are expressed in his columns. He is also an authority on First Amendment defense, the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court, students' rights and education. Friends and critics alike describe him as the kind of writer, and citizen, that all should aspire to be—"less interested in 'exclusives' than in 'making a difference.'" Critiquing Hentoff's autobiography, Speaking Freely, Nicholas von Hoffman refers to him as "a trusting man, a gentle man, just and undeviatingly consistent."

Hentoff took to heart the words from his mentor, I. F. "Izzy" Stone, the renowned investigative journalist who died in 1989: "If you're in this business because you want to change the world, get another day job. If you are able to make a difference, it will come incrementally, and you might not even know about it. You have to get the story and keep on it because it has to be told."

Nat Hentoff has earned the well-deserved reputation of being one of our nation's most respected, controversial and uncompromising writers. He began his career at the Village Voice because he wanted a place to write freely on anything he cared about. And his departure from the publication has neither dampened his zeal nor tempered his voice.

Hentoff, whose new book, At the Jazz Band Ball—Sixty Years on the Jazz Scene (University of California Press), is due out in 2010, took some time to speak with me about Barack Obama, the danger of his health care plan, the peril of civil liberties, and a host of other issues.

Nat Hentoff: I try to avoid hyperbole, but I think Obama is possibly the most dangerous and destructive president we have ever had. An example is ObamaCare, which is now embattled in the Senate. If that goes through the way Obama wants, we will have something very much like the British system. If the American people have their health care paid for by the government, depending on their age and their condition, they will be subject to a health commission just like in England which will decide if their lives are worth living much longer.

In terms of the Patriot Act, and all the other things he has pledged he would do, such as transparency in government, Obama has reneged on his promises. He pledged to end torture, but he has continued the CIA renditions where you kidnap people and send them to another country to be interrogated. Why is Obama doing that if he doesn't want torture anymore? Throughout Obama's career, he promised to limit the state secrets doctrine which the Bush-Cheney administration had abused enormously. The Bush administration would go into court on any kind of a case that they thought might embarrass them and would argue that it was a state secret and the case should not be continued. Obama is doing the same thing, even though he promised not to.

So in answer to your question, I am beginning to think that this guy is a phony. Obama seems to have no firm principles that I can discern that he will adhere to. His only principle is his own aggrandizement. This is a very dangerous mindset for a president to have.

JW: Do you consider Obama to be worse than George W. Bush?

NH: Oh, much worse. Bush essentially came in with very little qualifications for presidency, not only in terms of his background but he lacked a certain amount of curiosity, and he depended entirely too much on people like Rumsfeld, Cheney and others. Bush was led astray and we were led astray. However, I never thought that Bush himself was, in any sense, "evil." I am hesitant to say this about Obama. Obama is a bad man in terms of the Constitution. The irony is that Obama was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He would, most of all, know that what he is doing weakens the Constitution.

In fact, we have never had more invasions of privacy than we have now. The Fourth Amendment is on life support and the chief agent of that is the National Security Agency. The NSA has the capacity to keep track of everything we do on the phone and on the internet. Obama has done nothing about that. In fact, he has perpetuated it. He has absolutely no judicial supervision of all of this. So all in all, Obama is a disaster. ...

JW: One of the highest unemployment rates in the country is among African-Americans.

NH: Not only that, the general unemployment rate is going to continue for a long time and for all of us. I have never heard so many heart-wrenching stories of all kinds of people all across the economic spectrum. As usual, the people who are poorest—the blacks, Hispanics and disabled people—are going to suffer more than anyone else under the Obama administration. This is a dishonest administration, because it is becoming clear that the unemployment statistics of the Obama administration are not believable. I can't think of a single area where Obama is not destructive.

JW: A lot of people we represent and I talk to feel that their government does not hear them, that their representatives do not listen to them anymore. As a result, you have these Tea Party protests which the Left has criticized. What do you think of the Tea Party protests?

NH: I spent a lot of time studying our Founders and people like Samuel Adams and the original Tea Party. What Adams and the Sons of Liberty did in Boston was spread the word about the abuses of the British. They had Committees of Correspondence that got the word out to the colonies. We need Committees of Correspondence now, and we are getting them. That is what is happening with the Tea Parties. I wrote a column called "The Second American Revolution" about the fact that people are acting for themselves as it happened with the Sons of Liberty which spread throughout the colonies. That was a very important awakening in this country. A lot of people in the adult population have a very limited idea as to why they are Americans, why we have a First Amendment or a Bill of Rights. ...

JW: You lived through the McCarthy era in the 1950s. Is it worse now than it was then?

NH: McCarthy's regime was ended by Senators who realized that he had gone too far. What we have now may be more insidious. What we have now in America is a surveillance society. We have no idea how much the government knows and how much the CIA even knows about average citizens. The government is not supposed to be doing this in this country. They listen in on our phone calls. I am not exaggerating because I have studied this a long time. You have to be careful about what you do, about what you say, and that is more dangerous than what was happening with McCarthy, but the technology the government now possesses is so much more insidious.

There is much more here. MUST reading.

"Can You Turn My Daddy Into an Elf?"

Kids are asking Santa for some unusual things this year, what with "the recovery" and all:

As a longtime Santa Claus at a suburban Chicago mall, Rod Riemersma used to jokingly tell children they would get socks for Christmas if they were naughty.

This year, he stopped telling the joke. Too many children were asking for socks. "They've probably heard their parents say, 'Geez, I wish I had some money to get them clothes,' " says Mr. Riemersma, 56 years old.

A wintry measure of hard times can be found this holiday season on the knee of white-bearded, red-suited men around the country. A couple of years ago, children were shooting for the moon, asking St. Nick for Xboxes, iPods and laptops. But with the economy still fragile, many children are requesting basics such as shoes, library cards and even eyeglasses, say dozens of Santas who work at malls or on the party circuit.

For the rest of the story by Stu Woo at The Wall Street Journal, go here.

Take Over the Health Care of All To Provide it to 5% Who Don't Have it Now?

This article appeared here.

December 17, 2009

Government Shouldn't Control Health Decisions

By Larry Elder

Americans overwhelmingly like their health care and their health insurance. While Americans reject ObamaCare, the President and Congress insist on driving it through.

Most Americans, up to 85 percent, already have health insurance and are satisfied with it. Lacking health insurance is different from lacking health care -- which, by law, emergency rooms must supply. Millions go without health insurance by choice and not due to lack of resources. Deduct from the number without insurance those who have access to it via entitlement programs, those temporarily without it while between jobs, those here illegally and those who could go on their parents' insurance plans by paying affordable amounts -- and you're down to 10 million to 15 million people without health insurance for longer than a year. This represents 5 percent of Americans.

To address this, the President and the Democrats are this close to a complete government takeover of health care. And a takeover it is. Assuming some kind of plan reaches the President's desk, it will -- at minimum -- force all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay fines or worse. It will force nearly all employers to provide health insurance or pay fines. It will tell health insurers that they must accept applicants with pre-existing illnesses and restrict their ability to "discriminate" based on factors like sex and age.

Incredibly, the President and Congress tell us that our economic recovery hinges on "health care reform" and that they can achieve it -- providing millions of people with health insurance estimated to cost a trillion dollars in the first decade -- while simultaneously reducing the deficit. The plan anticipates cutting hundreds of billions from the popular Medicare programs, whose beneficiaries vote in numbers greater than any other age group. Doctors and hospitals already complain that Medicare reimbursements fall short of costs, let alone profits. Good luck with that.

"Health care reform" achieves its deficit-reducing magic by collecting taxes in the early years -- building up money -- while paying out very little. Only after the first four years does money go out. It also forces states to pick up part of the tab. So, voila, it actually reduces the deficit -- at least in the first decade.

Then what? The Congressional Budget Office -- in cost estimates full of caveats, conditions and on-the-one-hands -- says that it could/might/may reduce the deficit in the second and third decades, too. Again, this assumes continued cuts in doctor and hospital reimbursements.

Despite the White House photo op of docs in their white frocks, most physicians oppose ObamaCare. They resent further government supervision and control over their practice. A poll commissioned by Investor's Business Daily found that 65 percent "oppose" ObamaCare and that 45 percent would consider taking early retirement or leaving their practice if the bill went through.

Given the broad opposition -- most Americans, most doctors and seniors in fear of cuts in Medicare -- why do it?

First, the Democrats -- now in control of all three branches of government -- have convinced themselves that they face a political price if they fail. ObamaCare supporters, based on bogus assumptions and inflated numbers, argue that many, if not most, bankruptcy filings are due to health care bills. If, as President Obama asserts, "reforming" health care and economic prosperity go hand in hand, how can they abandon it?

Second, while a large majority of Republicans and most independents oppose these "reforms," Democrats overwhelmingly support them. They consider health care and health insurance a right -- never mind the Constitution or the price tag -- and think "the rich" should bear the costs. Congresspersons fear an electorate upset at a failure "to deliver" a victory over the evil, money-grubbing insurance companies.

Third, many believe in good faith that this is the "right thing to do." This breathtakingly ignores the mountain of evidence that government command-and-control health care reduces quality, reduces innovation and inevitably leads to rationing. The president of the Canadian Medical Association says Canada's system -- a single-payer kind, favored by President Obama -- is "imploding." She calls for more competition.

Critics of America's health care system say that citizens in other countries enjoy longer life expectancies. But after adjusting for homicides, increased infant mortality due to teen pregnancies and low birth weights, obesity and other behavioral factors, the discrepancy disappears. Compare American medical outcomes against those of other countries. Our system produces the world's best results for cancer patients who go into medical care at the same time similarly situated patients enter their countries' care. Our pharmaceutical companies lead the world in coming up with new life-extending and -enhancing drugs, a record at risk given new controls and taxes under the guise of "reform."

When the ObamaCare bill comes due -- when the deficit explodes and the costs are "controlled" through government-directed rationing -- supporters, including President Obama, will long have departed Washington, leaving others to deal with the mess. In the meantime, bend over and cough. Or else.

Copyright 2009 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Back When I Was a Drunken Sailor . . .

“I take exception to saying that Bernanke, Obama, and Pelosi are spending like drunken sailors.

“When I was a drunken sailor, I quit spending when I ran out of money.”

-- author unknown --

It's a Depression

From Richard Posner of The Becker-Posner Blog, on Gross Domestic Product:

But it is necessary to emphasize that it is just a starting point. I disagree with economists who say the “recession” ended in the third quarter. The depression (as I think we should call it if only because of its enormous potential political consequences) has caused massive unemployment with all the associated anxieties and hardships, has greatly reduced household wealth, has caused private investment to turn negative, has cost the government trillions of dollars in lost tax revenues and recovery expenditures (TARP, the fiscal stimulus, the mortgage-relief programs, the auto bailouts, etc.), has undermined belief in free markets and altered the line between government and business in favor government, and is threatening a future inflation while deepening our dependence on foreign lenders. To view a change in GDP from negative to positive as signifying the end of a depression (by which criterion the Great Depression ended in 1933 and again in 1938) is to misunderstand the utility of GDP as a measure of economic activity.

Go here for the complete article.

Liberal Projectionist in Chief

The Hill reported last week on Wednesday that President Obama told the GOP to "stop trying to frighten the American people" about the jobs situation:

Obama to GOP: 'Stop trying to frighten the American people'

By Sam Youngman - 12/09/09 01:14 PM ET

President Barack Obama told House Republican leaders to "stop trying to frighten the American people" even as he and Democrats said they see a possibility for bipartisan cooperation on job creation legislation.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters that Obama made the admonition during a bipartisan meeting at the White House on Wednesday . . .

Then we fast forward one week to today with the president trying to frighten the American people with the crazy claim that "health care costs are going to consume the entire federal budget" unless we "do this" health care bill, in this report from ABC News:

ABC's Karen Travers reports from Washington:

President Obama told ABC News’ Charles Gibson in an interview that if Congress does not pass health care legislation that will bring down costs, the federal government “will go bankrupt.”

The president laid out a dire scenario of what will happen if his health care reform effort fails.

“If we don't pass it, here's the guarantee….your premiums will go up, your employers are going to load up more costs on you,” he said. “Potentially they're going to drop your coverage, because they just can't afford an increase of 25 percent, 30 percent in terms of the costs of providing health care to employees each and every year."

The president said that the costs of Medicare and Medicaid are on an “unsustainable” trajectory and if there is no action taken to bring them down, “the federal government will go bankrupt.” . . .

“Because if we don't do this, nobody argues with the fact that health care costs are going to consume the entire federal budget,” the president said.

Oh how the pot(head) doth call the kettle black.

"The Essence of Contemporary Liberalism is the Ability to Believe in Nonsense"

When Democrats call the Republican Party the Stupid party, it's just Liberal Projection Syndrome at work (project onto others that which is instead more true of oneself). 


Michael Graham of The Boston Herald proves it in this meditation, "Yes, There is Santa: He's No Liberal Myth," for Christmas:

I’ve never understood the discomfort Massachusetts liberals have with public celebrations of Christmas. After all, it’s the season of believing, and let’s face it: Liberals will believe anything.

If you thought the “fire never melted steel” crowd was nuts, check out the new study from the bipartisan Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. They find that liberals and Democrats are far more likely to believe in ghosts, psychic powers and astrology than their conservative/Republican counterparts. About 50 percent more Democrats than Republicans say they have spoken to the dead.

Or as it’s known at Democratic Party headquarters, “voter outreach.”

Byron York, writing about this Pew study in the Washington Examiner, calls the results “startling.” The word I would use is “obvious.” The essence of contemporary liberalism is the ability to believe in nonsense.


There's much more at the first link above. Don't miss it.

"Obama's Policies Risk Another Depression"

Scott S. Powell and Ron Laurent, in "Obama's Policies Risk Another Depression" for The Detroit News, ask:

Light at the end of the tunnel or an oncoming train wreck?

In the panic following the insolvency of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Lehman Brothers in September 2008, the American taxpayer was stampeded into bailing out AIG and Wall Street. We were told that $700 billion was needed to establish the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) because the country faced nothing less than a collapse of its financial system.

Inexplicably after Congress passed it -- almost like a bait and switch -- TARP was directed at banks rather than troubled assets. A little more than a year later, TARP Inspector Neil Barofsky reports that AIG's $1.5 trillion in credit fault swaps did not, after all, pose systemic risk. So if we were misled about the TARP bailout, it seems appropriate to question other aspects of government intervention since unemployment, foreclosures and bank failures have risen. ...

Scott S. Powell is managing director of AlphaQuest LLC and a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution. Ron Laurent is the managing partner and chief investment strategist of Veritas Partners LLC.


There's much more at the link.

Federal Parasites Average $71K Per Year, You, $40K

Whenever politicians attempt to focus your attention on the greedy rich and how much they make and you don't, what they are really doing is trying to divert your attention away from the fact that politicians (the patrons) and government employees (their clients) constitute a giant extortion operation preying on the American people for their own personal enrichment.

This used to be called tyranny, before we got all feminine.

This gang of thugs should be put out of business as a matter of first importance. A shovel ready program mixing up some concrete for special overshoes comes to mind.

Just one more example in USA Today of USA Away:

For feds, more get 6-figure salaries

Average pay $30,000 over private sector

By Dennis Cauchon

USA TODAY

The number of federal workers earning six-figure salaries has exploded during the recession, according to a USA TODAY analysis of federal salary data.

Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months and that's before overtime pay and bonuses are counted.

Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time in pay and hiring during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector.

The highest-paid federal employees are doing best of all on salary increases. Defense Department civilian employees earning $150,000 or more increased from 1,868 in December 2007 to 10,100 in June 2009, the most recent figure available.

When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000. ...

The growth in six-figure salaries has pushed the average federal worker's pay to $71,206, compared with $40,331 in the private sector.


Read the whole thing, at the link.

George Will Answers That Chirping Sectarian, Ron Paul

At Bernanke's recent confirmation hearing on his nomination for a second four-year term, Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican who is co-sponsoring a Senate version of Paul's bill, asked Bernanke: "Do you believe that employment should be a mission, a goal of the Federal Reserve?" Bernanke, who had already noted Congress' "mandate" that the Fed "achieve maximum employment and price stability," answered that the Fed "can assist keeping employment close to its maximum level through adroit policies."

That mandate was, however, improvidently given. Congress created the Fed and can control it, and eventually will do so if the Fed eagerly embraces the role of the economy's comprehensive manager. America's complex, dynamic economy cannot be both "managed" and efficient. Attempting to manage it is an inherently political undertaking and if the Fed undertakes it, the Fed will eventually bring upon itself minute supervision by Congress.

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., has, as usual, a better idea: Repeal the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act of 1978 that, he says, "dangerously diverted the Fed from its most important job: price stability." For 65 years after its creation in 1913, the Fed's principal duty was to preserve the currency as a store of value by preventing inflation from undermining price stability. Humphrey-Hawkins gave it the second duty of superintending economic growth.

There's just one little problem with this line of reasoning from George Will. It is that the Federal Reserve didn't do its principal duty from 1913 to 1978, either, during which time the purchasing power of the dollar fell to fifteen cents.

For the complete article, go here.

Dumb Asses on Parade

I didn't want to believe it at first when I saw this post over at Mish's blog, but after you watch the video from MarkDice.Com you begin to understand why the politicians now routinely ignore the voices opposed to the economic insanity being shoved down our throats in this country.

They realize better than we do that there are now more morons than the likes of us, and morons are easily manipulated, whether it's by a community organizer going door to door searching for a signature on his petition "to increase inflation," or an info babe on TV telling you the economy is improving, or Senator Harry Reid of Nevada assuring you that federalized healthcare will be revenue neutral.

This is the direct consequence of compulsory public education and a unionized teaching profession.

Note that Mark Dice can't even spell "ridiculous." The Pocksaclypse can't be far behind.

The Long Distance Charges From Hell

Presume that George Bush, Queen Elizabeth, and Vladimir Putin all die and go to hell. While there, they spy a red phone and ask what the phone is for. The devil tells them it is for calling back to Earth.

So Putin asks to call home to Russia and talks for 5 minutes. When he finishes the devil informs him that the cost is a million dollars, so Putin writes him a check.

Next Queen Elizabeth calls home to England and talks for 30 minutes. When she finishes the devil informs her that the cost is six million dollars, so Queen Elizabeth writes him a check.

Finally George Bush gets his turn and talks for 4 hours. When he finishes the devil informs him that there would be no charge at all for the call and that the former president should feel free to call the USA any time!

When Putin hears this he goes ballistic and asks the devil why Bush got to call the USA for free. The devil replied, "Since Obama became president of the USA, the country has gone to hell, so naturally it's a local call."

(How's all that hope and change working out for you?)

-- author unknown

Apathy Precedes Bull Markets, Not Fear

The secular bull market in gold since 2001 is coincident with a secular bear market in stocks since 2000, if this November 30, 2009 analysis by Brett Arends for The Wall Street Journal is correct. The current stock market rally is therefore a cyclical bull market within the long term bear market, which at present elevated levels is ground where angels fear to tread, or ought to, as the title "Gold Run a Reason to be Wary of the Stock Market" suggests:

The booming gold price is making me very nervous. About Wall Street.

Why? Because gold's rocketing boom -- it's risen from around $260 an ounce about a decade ago to just under $1,200 now -- is a vivid daily example of what a real bull market looks like. ...


Looking back to early March, there certainly was a lot of panic and capitulation, which you usually see at a market bottom. People talked of a new "Great Depression." One thing I noted at the time was that investors were shying away even from rock-solid defensive stocks with big, well-protected dividend yields. People weren't just scared; they were petrified.

Is that really how a massive bear market usually ends?

The last example before our eyes was gold, whose big bear market ended a decade ago. It looked very different.

Like shares in the 1930s and the early 1980s, gold ended its secular bear market in 1999-2001 with a whimper, not a bang. People didn't panic; they simply lost interest.


Read the rest at the link.

Drunk on Debt and Stuck on Stupid

According to Steve Keen, private debt growth in the United States has been outpacing GDP at a rate of 2.7% per year since 1955. The baby boom has been on a generational bender, encouraged by the so-called Greatest Generation which was demoralized by the Second World War and has utterly failed to transmit the American values of industry and frugality to its children. And despite all that has happened so far in what Keen calls the Great Financial Collapse, total private debt has barely declined at all. The drunkard just keeps going back to his bottle.

Government everywhere specializes as co-dependents in this addiction problem, spending money it does not have on anything but the truly urgently needed things like clean water, sewers, oil refineries, natural gas storage capacity, nuclear power plants, a secure electrical grid, and bridges. Instead it hands out borrowed funds so that Americans can go more deeply into debt by buying depreciating assets like houses and automobiles. Only a few lonely souls like Dave Ramsey have gotten religion and are telling people what they need to hear: pay off debt or sell it if you have to, and eat more red beans and rice.

The debt level is truly ominous, in excess of the level of the early 1930's, and approaching 300% of GDP, as Keen's research shows.

The increase becomes unsustainable at some point, followed by a great deflationary collapse. This storm is not over by a long shot.

Whatever Happened to "Three Strikes and You're Out?"

Palin Was Wrong on the Most Important Issue of 2008, and She Still Is

Now that Sarah Palin is out with her book, I think it's crystal clear she hasn't learned anything in the last year about the terrible precedent set by the TARP bailout, nor about why she and John McCain lost. She should have taken another year to think about it, but even that probably would not have helped. The only thing that could help Sarah is to have been reading about conservative political philosophy and policy for the last twenty years. You don't suddenly become a marksman by joining the National Rifle Association.

Americans were looking for a clear choice in the presidential race in the face of an unprecedented crisis, and John McCain utterly failed to give them one. No surprise there: he never has. The instincts of the Republican rank and file in the Congress were correct about TARP. President Bush failed them and the American people. It's too bad we still don't have national Republican leadership which recognizes this. And until we do, the voters will keep electing anyone else.

Recall this from Palin as reported on September 30th of 2008:

Gov. Palin: Th..the alt.. as I say inaction is not an option we have got to shore up our economy. This is crisis moment for America. Really the rest of the world also. Looking to see what the impacts will be if America were to choose not to shore up what has happened on Wall Street because of the…the ultimate adverse effects on Main Street and then how that effects this globalisation that we’re a part of on… in our world. So the rest of the world really is looking at John McCain - the leadership that he’s gonna provide through this and if those provisions in the proposal can be implemented and make this proposal better make it make more sense to taxpayers than again, John McCain is gonna prove his leadership.

…

But ultimately what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the healthcare reform that is needed to help shore up our economy um helping the… oh - its gotta be all about job creation too - shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So healthcare reform and reducing taxes and reigning in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans and trade we’ve got to see trade as opportunity not as competitive um scary thing but one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today we we’ve got to look at that as more opportunity - all those things under the umbrella of job creation - this bailout is a part of that.

And now fast forward to today from page 270 of "Going Rogue," as reported here:

[T]he House of Representatives rejected a Bush-backed economic bailout plan in a vote in which two-thirds of Republicans voted no. The impression this made on the electorate was not helpful to our cause. Millions of Americans were poised to go bankrupt or lose their savings, and the perception was that Republicans had failed to respond.

No, what was not helpful was the way Republican leadership never made the case nationally that the taxpayer is not responsible to pay for someone else's failing mortgage, failing insurance company, failing bank, failing car company, failing public school, failing pension plan, failing Social Security, failing Medicare . . . you get the idea.

The whole damn country is stuck on stupid, which is why Sarah Palin is the news of the moment.

At least Hitler got the Olympics to come to his country.

Posted by Gags over at Evaluation:

Tuesday, November 03, 2009

Obama Jokes

Q: What’s the main problem with Barack Obama jokes?

A: His followers don’t think they’re funny and everyone else doesn’t think they’re jokes.

Q: Why does Barack Obama oppose the Second Amendment?

A: It stands between him and the First.

Q: What’s the difference between Rahm Emanuel and a carp?

A: One is a scum sucking bottom feeder and the other is a fish.

Q: What’s the difference between Greta Van Susteren and Barack Obama?

A: Greta only talks out of one side of her mouth.

Q: What does Barack Obama call lunch with a convicted felon?

A: A fund raiser.

Q: What’s the difference between Obama’s cabinet and a penitentiary?

A: One’s full of tax evaders, blackmailers and threats to society. The other is for prisoners.

Q: What’s the difference between a large pizza and the typical Obama backer?

A: The pizza can feed a family of four.

Q: What’s the difference between a zoo and the White House?

A: A zoo has an African lion and the White House has a lyin’ African.

Q: If Pelosi and Obama were in a boat and it started to sink, who would be saved?

A: America!

Q: What do you call the US after four years of Obama and the Liberal congress?

A: An Obama-nation.

Q: What’s the difference between Obama and Hitler?

A: Hitler wrote his own book.

Q: What’s another difference between Obama and Hitler?

A: Hitler got the Olympics to come to his country.

Q: Why doesn’t Obama pray?

A: It’s impossible to read the teleprompter with your eyes closed.

Ram It

"B.O." Apparently Stands For "Bows Often"

This slide show displays photographs of nearly fifty world leaders shaking hands with the Japanese Emperor, going back to early 2003. Not a single one of them bows, save for you know who. And it's no little bow, either, but a real back breaker.

Is this another example of Obama's dope-addled brain, detached from reality, behaving oddly?

Because the First Lady sometimes mentions how her husband stinks in the mornings when he wakes up, wags have a little fun with this, noting that his initials "B.O." stand for "body odor." Chalk it up to all that tar and nicotine from the cigarette smoking, which comes out the pores by morning, just like garlic does. But if the president keeps up with this bowing thing, we'll have to change that to "bows often."

Oba Mao, One More Time

The Oba Mao image is causing a stir in China, where the Chi-Coms don't want the president embarrassed during his visit, according to "CNN Reporter Detained in Shanghai Over Obama-Mao T-Shirt," for Monday, November 16.


She wasn't even wearing it!


Or maybe it's the only time we'll ever see the Chinese upset about copyright infringement.

President Pothead Forgets Again

Mike Bates over at News Busters hits a home run with this one.

The president's much vaunted cerebellum apparently continues to suffer from the ill effects of prolonged marijuana use. He just gave the guy the Medal of Freedom in August for crying out loud, barely three months ago. It's actually starting to look surprising that he can remember George Bush was his predecessor.

Obama Gives Shout Out to 'Congressional Medal of Honor Winner' Who Isn't

By Mike Bates

November 6, 2009 - 01:18 ET

The Washington Post this afternoon reported "President Obama delivers remarks on Ft. Hood shooting at end of tribal leaders conference." The transcript begins:

SPEAKER: PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

OBAMA: Please, everybody, have a seat. Let me first of all just thank Ken and the entire Department of the Interior staff for organizing just an extraordinary conference. I want to thank my Cabinet members and senior administration officials who participated today. I hear that Dr. Joe Medicine Crow (ph) was around, and so I want to give a shout out to that Congressional Medal of Honor winner. It's good to see you.

Ah, the dangers of giving shout outs without a teleprompter. Crow is not a Medal of Honor recipient. As noted by the Congressional Medal of Honor Society: The Medal of Honor is the highest award for valor in action against an enemy force which can be bestowed upon an individual serving in the Armed Services of the United States. Generally presented to its recipient by the President of the United States of America in the name of Congress, it is often called the Congressional Medal of Honor. Crow's name is not included on the Society's Medal of Honor recipient list. He was, however, awarded the Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor, in August.

Obama, often described as "cerebral" by the mainstream media, should know the difference between the Medal of Honor and the Medal of Freedom, especially since he personally awarded the latter to Crow. Don't expect his blunder to receive wide coverage. It's not something he can blame George Bush for.

The Pothead President

Just how big does the president think this country is, anyway?

Consider this from yesterday:

"I urge Congress to listen to AARP, listen to the AMA, and pass this reform for hundreds of millions of Americans who will benefit from it," Obama told reporters during an unannounced visit to the White House briefing room after the endorsements were announced.

Apparently to him, the country is really big.

But according to the U.S. Population Clock, the country currently has just over 300 million people in it. I guess President Obama could be referring to these "hundreds of millions," which is technically correct, but it sure sounds like he means a whole lot more people than that. You know, five, six, seven hundred million.

Would it be unfair to speculate that he's referring to all those extra Americans who live in the surplus states of the union he said in May of 2008 he had already visited up to that point in the primary campaign? What, fifty-seven, fifty-eight states?

It's big, man, really big.

Or is the president contemplating a future where the rest of the world continues to beat down our door to get our superior healthcare? Has it occurred to him that maybe after they've seen us all standing in line waiting forever for services they won't be so eager to come? Has it occurred to him that with the single payer system his plan intends for us that the number of abortions will skyrocket on the public tab and there won't be as many of us in the future as he thinks? Who's going to pay for all this spending, the Israelis? I don't think any of that has occurred to him at all.

Obama's troubles with geography and numbers go back a long way, and the instances have been the subject of some interest and amusement from the beginning. But the on-going failure to grasp the shape and size of things simply suggests that the president has an impaired sense of reality and its proper proportions.

Anyone who has known a dope smoker can pick out the telltale signs of the disconnect from reality, especially the frequently remarked detached quality of his personality. He seems passionless at the most inopportune times, strangely unmoved by events which deeply affect the normal among us. Off teleprompter, the president is haltingly vacant. He is apathetic to his core.

I say it's because he's a toker.

Liberal Projection Syndrome

ABC News is reporting that President Obama is warning people not to jump to conclusions about the Ft. Hood shooter:

President Obama warned today against "jumping to conclusions" regarding the motive for the shooting and ordered flags to be flown at half staff until Veteran's Day, saying that the "entire nation is grieving."

You mean like you calling a police officer "stupid"?

Just another case of Liberal Projection Syndrome: accusing others of that which thou doest thyself.