So, When Obama says the future is not for those who "slander"

Mohommed (by telling the truth about him, for example), is that because he knows we'll get blown up or otherwise murdered? Because in this, Obama does speak the truth -- unless we make a stand, the future is not for those who do not submit to the islamic state. Some religions will win you over by flattery, others by deception. Then there are those who will threaten violence if you do not submit, and will kill you if you try to leave. Better to stick with the truth. The religions of men may be fun, may be enticing, or may be threatening -- but none will lead you to the promised land, or truly satisfy. Obama, sorry if I've slandered you, or some so-called "prophet" (why is it that Jesus is just Jesus, but Mohommed is now "The Prophet Mohommed"? is the entire media afraid of being suicide-bombed?). Except the truth is not "slander". You should try it sometime.

A Difference between Conservatives and Liberals

The comments Romney made back in May in a private meeting with donors illustrates one difference between liberals and conservatives. No, not the statement itself. But look at the "discussion" on liberal websites, and conservative websites. For example, on National Review, you have an adult, heavy conversation about the issues of givers and takers, about what makes people vote for or against a candidate. About demographics, and motivations. In short, a real learning experience. Romney did that. He provoked a rational healthy discussion. Look for that on a liberal website. Sorry, but the conservative movement is much more likely to debate, to explore, and to even reason and shift opinions based on facts.

Guardsman jailed for running with training rifle

In a story that has to be read to be believed, , a Virginia Guardsman has been arrested for running with his training rifle, and charged with terrorism.

Yep, terrorism.

Seems he scared some people. "Terrorized" them, in fact.

A West Virginia man arrested while running in desert camouflage with an AR-15 training rifle is a member of the Virginia National Guard who served a tour of duty in Iraq, and his father says he’s not a terrorist.

Seems he was running with his gear. That doesn't appear to be illegal, although maybe there are people who wish it was. But unfortunately, he managed to run too "near" to a school, hence violating a national law that prohibits guns near public schools.

Now he is stuck in jail, instead of training for his next mission protecting us from terrorists.

Meanwhile, the Obama administraion keeps looking for ways to release real terrorists.

Harry Reid admits Obama Administration a Failure

For two years, Obama and the Democrats have been trying to sell the notion that the economy is improving because of their policies. However, once in a while a Democrat will slip up and admit that they have royally screwed up our economy, to the point for example where 8 percent unemployment is considered a GOOD thing. Today, Senator Harry Reid, once again trying to explain how his complete inability to pass a budget in the past year and a half since the start of the previous year's budget is actually the Republicans fault, let again slip that the Pelosi/Reid/Obama economy is a sham, a shambles, a pathetic shell of what was a once great American Economic Engine (from the National Review):

This budget that we have spent so much time talking about is really about making tough choices, hard choices, difficult choices. The American people understand this. They understand tough choices. They have to make them every day, especially now with the economy being in the shape it’s in; so should their representatives in Congress make tough choices.

Yes, especially now that Obama and his incompetent allies Reid and Pelosi have weighed down business with inexplicable regulations and onerous burdens, thrown the housing and other markets into disarray, and worked overtime to suppress the growth of the economy, all the while pretending they have our best interests at heart. Of course, Reid wouldn't think to actually have his party MAKE any touch choices. The fiscal year started October 1st; yet he never passed a budget during last year, or even after this year started. And he still hasn't passed a bill to fund the rest of the year, which would then be reconciled with the hosue version.

County Redistricting is a joke

My column in the News/Messenger this morning is about the extreme district maps put out by the Senate Democrats in an attempt not only to elect more democrats, but also to protect their specific incumbents; the house did much the same, with slightly better maps. But here at home, our own county maps are much the same, only in this case they seem to be drawn to punish lesser-liked incumbents, while protecting favored incumbents from challenges within their own party. I don't like gerrymandering to eek out better outcomes for a party. I'm less concerned about competitive races than I used to be, because I'm tired of having to care so much about who wins an election. I used to feel that while there would be differences, both candidates would act mostly for the good of their constituents. I certainly don't feel that way about a lot of democrats anymore, and as I said in my column, I imagine democrats feel the same about republicans. But there is a difference between splitting voters so that more conservatives are grouped together in one place, and more liberals in another, and splitting so one party wins more than their votes suggest. In some ways, the first is good grouping, putting like-minded people with similar concerns together. But when a state like New Jersey has 52% republican vote, but only 41% republican representation in the legislator, that's a problem. Bringing it back to the county, if the county had a majority democratic vote, it would be silly to still have a board split 6-2 for republicans, and it wouldn't reflect reality. Worse, while I would personally love the representation, it would frustrate those who felt cut out by the system itself. Our society can exist peacefully only to the extent that the people believe they have a say. When the Supreme Court says "abortion is legal, no matter what the people want", it causes strife, tension, and a feeling of disempowerment. Likewise, when one political party's voters feel that, no matter what they do, they can't get a majority because they all have to vote in one or two districts, it will make them rightfully angry, and they will feel powerless and hopeless to change things in the civil manner of elections. I love conservatives winning elections, because they have better solutions. I love when they can convince the mass of independents that conservative principles are better, and can get re-elected because, regardless of party, the people they represent feel appropriately represented, and just WANT to re-elect them. I wouldn't want to appoint conservatives to rule against the will of the people. In some ways, extreme gerrymandering does just that -- artificially puts one party in power at the expense of the will of the people expressed through the vote. You can't expect there NOT to be some games played with the redistricting maps, and I wouldn't want to put the process in the hands of unelected people with unknown biases and no accountability. Technically, we can vote people out if we don't like how they draw the maps, although I realise the maps are drawn to help them NOT be voted out. So, if I had to change ONE thing about redistricting, I would do this: No map takes effect until after an election held for the people who drew the map. This would mirror the federal constitutional rule that no raise takes effect until an ensuing election. That way, if the elected officials take too much of a liberty with the lines, the aggrieved voters can respond by voting them out. To make that useful, we'd also have to have a rule that every map needs two votes, with the second after the election. Unfortunately, this could drag the process on forever, so maybe instead there could be a referenda on the maps with a simple up/down vote of the electorate. For the county maps, there is an emergency meeting on April 17th. Show up and show your disapproval of maps drawn to protect incumbents at the expense of the voters. Explain why you don't want to vote in different precincts that aren't even in your district, and why your neighborhood wants to vote together, and not be split between districts.

How the Voting Rights Act contributes to gerrymandering

The Voting Rights Act requires some states to maintain "majority-minority" districts. These districts exist in the belief that only minorities can represent minorities. A black person can only be represented by a person with the same skin color. An African-American, by virtue of the color of their skin, has more in common with other people who have the same skin color, than they do with people in the community they choose to live in. That's the principle. For decades, it has been used to dilute the power of minorities, by herding them together into their own districts, so they can't interfere with the elections in other districts. Perversely, by granting people representatives matching their skin color, the Act has forced in many cases incompetent representation on a large segment of our population, eliminated their ability to choose candidates by essentially building "can't-lose" districts where they chosen democrat wins the primary or caucus and cruises to victory. The report of the Independent Bipartisan Commission on Redistricting hits on this problem without emphasizing it (H/T to Virginia Virtucon):

Voting Rights Act Requirements. Because an increasingly mobile African-American population means that they do not always reside in distinct communities, drawing compact majority-minority districts while maintaining communities of interest became the greatest challenge facing the student teams. So, given the requirements of the Voting Rights Act, student teams sometimes sacrificed compactness in order to achieve the appropriate number of majority-minority districts.

Let's parse that. "Increasingly mobile African-American population" means that the blacks are no longer sequestered in their own compact segregated communities, but instead are integrating into communities throughout the state. This apparently is a problem that we have to solve. "They do not always reside in distinct communities" -- they are blended in with other non-minorities, sharing communities, facilities, and having common interest with people of different races, colors, and creeds. Rather than allowing themselves to be identified by the color of their skin, these minorities have chosen to live with people they have something REAL in common with. Kind of like you don't have a community made up of sexy blonde women -- people don't restrict themselves to living with people who "look like me" anymore. "drawing compact majority-minority districts while maintaining communities of interest" -- it would be nice if this meant what it said -- that they were balancing the needs of the VRA in creating majority-minority districts with the real-world idea of instead grouping people with REAL common interest, not just common melatonin levels. Unfortunately, it's clear that's not what is meant -- because of the "drawing compact districts" caveat. It would be easy to draw a compact district that put communities of interest together, if they meant communities of real interest. So clearly, they mean "communities of interest" to mean "common skin color". The implication is that even though blacks have moved away from each other, they still share this common bond that is more important than the bonds they have chosen to be important. So we drag them back together, by the color of their skin, because the VRA knows better than them what their "community" really is. "sacrificed compactness in order to achieve the appropriate number of majority-minority districts" -- see, the blacks chose to live amongst the non-minorities, so we sacrificed drawing districts based on where people live, so as to cut out the blacks from where they live and virtually put them back in their sequestered, segregated "communities" they chose to abandon as meaningless. The VRA was passed in a time when the Rev. Martin Luther King could only dream of an age when people would be judged, and seen, by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. He could hardly imagine that, decades later, the very laws which were supposed to start that process instead perpetuates it. It is time to abandon the voting rights act, and let the minority community do what the rest of us minorities do -- choose who we associate with, and fight amongst other minorities over who will represent us. Sure, they might not elect a minority, but they will have a stronger voice as more elected officials are beholden to their support. Rather than one crank special-interest representative everybody can ignore, there will be a half-dozen serious representatives who need to serve their constituents of all colors. And if that means the minority community doesn't get what they want, they can join the club, with all the religious minorities who are underrepresented, all the social conservatives who fight to be heard, all the environmentalists who don't get to be grouped together in a voting block, and all the other frankly more reasonable groupings that could exist. Like I said, nobody takes all the blue-eyed, brown-haired people and thinks they need a blue-eyed, brown-haired representative -- because we know how silly it would be to think that every blue-eyed person thinks alike, or has the same interests. It's time to stop pretending every minority cares about the same things, thinks primarily of themselves as that minority, and has a unique set of concerns that couldn't possibly be understood by people with the wrong skin tone.

Halloween Haunt at Kings Dominion

For the past two years, I've done a halloween haunted maze at my house, with the help of my children and their friends.

This year, that mantle will pass to my son, who will be running a smaller version of the maze with his friends. My daughter and I meanwhile have joined the "professional ranks", working as halloween haunt monsters at Kings Dominion's Halloween Haunt.

This is a very tiring job, but also a lot of fun. We've always enjoyed going to these halloween mazes at the various theme parks in the area; but getting to scare other people has a special pleasure.

So if you do manage to make it down to Kings Dominion this fall, stop by the Toxic Plague, and we'll be sure to try to scare the living daylight out of you.

Sikh, Muslim -- what's the difference for Obama?

An interesting and quirky story today, in which we find that President Obama has decided NOT to visit a Sikh temple while in India, supposedly because stupid Americans might think Obama is a Muslim:

Revered by Indians of all faiths, it is a cherished emblem of India’s religious diversity. So it was no surprise when the gold-plated marvel was touted as the likely third stop on President Obama’s visit to India, scheduled for early November.

Religious diversity -- that was probably the first strike against them in Obama's mind.

the plan appears to have foundered on the thorny question of how Mr. Obama would cover his head, as Sikh tradition requires, while visiting the temple.

“To come to golden temple he needs to cover his head,” said Dalmegh Singh, secretary of the committee that runs the temple. “That is our tradition. It is their problem to cover the head with a Christian hat or a Muslim cap.”

And while it doesn't say so in the article, it appears you could also where a jewish headcovering, and the article says most people just tie a kerchief around their heads.

Now, Sikhism is NOT Islam. But occasionally, Sikh's in this country are confused for Muslims:

Sikhs in the United States have often been mistaken for Muslims. Sikhism, which arose in the Punjab region in the 15th century, includes elements of Hinduism and Islam but forms a wholly distinct faith. Since Sept. 11, 2001, Sikhs in the United States have been occasional targets of anti-Muslim discrimination and violence — a Sikh was killed in Arizona a few days after the attack on the World Trade Center by a man who mistook him for a Muslim.

Given this history, it is sad that our President is so concerned about his PERSONAL APPEARANCE that he is willing to contribute to the ignorance of others, and play into their prejudices, by refusing to enter the Sikh temple because he is afraid someone might think he is a Muslim:

“We have worked so hard to establish in America that Sikhs have a very different identity than Muslims,” Mr. Phoolka said. “It is very unfortunate that even the White House is conveying the message that there is no difference between Muslims and Sikhs.”

But Obama, more than any President I can ever remember, is a self-centered, self-absorbed narcisist who would put his own reputation above all else, even one of those "teachable moments". Seriously, what great harm is it if some people refuse to believe Obama when he says he is a Christian? So what if some people think he is Muslim? How does that really harm him?

But rather than do the right thing, and show respect to India and demonstrate our own country's tolerance of free expression and differing religions, Obama has chosen to slight the Sikh faith, perpetuate the myth that Sikh's and Muslims are alike, and once again make our country look foolish -- all to protect his own reputation:

Mr. Obama, a Christian, has struggled to fend off persistent rumors that he is a Muslim,

Oddly, by refusing to enter a Sikh temple, Obama is actually contributing to the rumors that he is a Muslim. Because the two faiths have had a sometimes unfriendly relationship, while Christians have no problem entering a Sikh temple.

Many Presidents have taken into account how their actions would reflect on America and it's principles. Obama on the other hand regularly takes actions that reflect poorly on our country -- it's his personal appearance that he cares about, not the country he represents. And once again, he has embarrased our nation for no good reason.

Remember the Death Panels?

Obama, realising that he has destroyed the economy, and his health care program is despised by most people planning to vote this November, has belatedly come to the conclusion that he better attack something.

So, as the supreme divider he is, Obama set out to attack the heart of America, those people who are tired of the government invading our lives, spending our money, and corrupting our society.

But in his rant at the Tea Party, he seems to have revealed his "plan" for seniors.

From Obama's CNBC Town Hall:

The problem long term are the problems that I talked about earlier. We’ve got -- we had two tax cuts that weren’t paid for, two wars that weren’t paid for. We’ve got a population that's getting older.

Well, we know that Obama opposed the two tax cuts, and is certainly railing against unpaid-for-tax cuts (while he has no problem with unpaid-for spending). And we know he opposed the wars, and he certainly seems opposed to fighting a war without paying for them.

So it seems this list is a list of things he wants to end. No more unpaid-for tax cuts, no unpaid-for wars.

And what is the 3rd thing he is opposed to? A population that is getting older.

:-)

Seriously though, Obama's town hall meeting was full of the same platitudes Obama always provides, along with his fantasy-land vision of america where his stimulus actually stimulated, were Obamacare is already providing free health care for everybody, where all the middle class is working, and we can fix our debt problem if we just take $34 billion in new taxes from the rich.

His problem of course, beyond being delusional, is that nobody is buying the hope anymore, and come november, we will be changing.

How the Grinch Stole Healthcare

This is not mine, I found it at NetRightNation:




Just something to remember as you keep reading story after story of doctors, medical supply and technology companies, hospitals, and insurance companies abandoning the health care field or greatly raising their costs.

We had a pretty good system that needed to be tweaked. Obama took that system, and destroyed it, and gave us a system that won't work, and will cost people lives.

The only upside is the rest of the world will learn that they've been leaching off of us for their health care, and maybe figure out that they too have the wrong prescription for the world's survival.

Obama says things are as bad as ever.

Almost two years after Obama said he was saving us from the Great Depression, he now admits that our economy is in as much risk as it has ever been, meaning it is as bad or worse than it was when he started "fixing" it.

In a speech attacking Linda McMahon for actually having held a job, and being a successful career woman, Obama spoke of how important it was to elect someone who could save us from the Obama Economy:

At this moment, we are facing challenges we haven’t seen since the Great Depression. And facing serious challenges requires serious leaders -– leaders who are willing to take on the status quo; leaders who are willing to take on special interests; leaders who are willing to fight for our people and our future

Well, last year Obama kept claiming we were heading for a great depression, but few people agreed with him. But he said that if we just spent all our money on democratic special interest groups, our unemployment rate would tumble and everything would be A-OK.

Well, the democrats did everything he asked, with a filibuster-proof majority in the senate and a large majority in the house. And instead of making things better, unemployment soared, the economy sputtered, and now even Obama has to admit that we have only made things worse.

So, why would we want to elect MORE democrats? Why would we vote a guy who has lived on the public payroll like Blumenthal, who only pretended to be a Vietnam Veteran, when we can elect a person who has actually EARNED a living and knows how to run a business and create jobs, and understands what Obama never will -- the troubles that real americans face.

Why some people think Obama is a Muslim

Compare his messages for Ramadan and Rosh Hashanah, to see where his heart lies.

Statement by the President on the Occasion of Ramadan

On behalf of the American people, Michelle and I want to extend our best wishes to Muslims in America and around the world. Ramadan Kareem.

Ramadan is a time when Muslims around the world reflect upon the wisdom and guidance that comes with faith, and the responsibility that human beings have to one another, and to God. This is a time when families gather, friends host iftars, and meals are shared. But Ramadan is also a time of intense devotion and reflection – a time when Muslims fast during the day and pray during the night; when Muslims provide support to others to advance opportunity and prosperity for people everywhere. For all of us must remember that the world we want to build – and the changes that we want to make – must begin in our own hearts, and our own communities.

These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings. Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality. And here in the United States, Ramadan is a reminder that Islam has always been part of America and that American Muslims have made extraordinary contributions to our country. And today, I want to extend my best wishes to the 1.5 billion Muslims around the world – and your families and friends – as you welcome the beginning of Ramadan.

I look forward to hosting an Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan here at the White House later this week, and wish you a blessed month.

May God’s peace be upon you.

Nothing but praise for the Muslim people. He mentions Muslim and Islam 8 times.

Now, read the message to the Jewish people:
Remarks by the President on the Occasion of Rosh Hashanah

As Jews in America and around the world celebrate the first of the High Holy Days I want to extend my warmest wishes for the New Year. L’shana Tova Tikatevu – may you be inscribed and sealed in the Book of Life.

Rosh Hashanah marks the beginning of the spiritual calendar and the birth of the world. It serves as a reminder of the special relationship between God and his children, now and always. And it calls us to look within ourselves – to repent for our sins; recommit ourselves to prayer; and remember the blessings that come from helping those in need.

Today, those lessons ring as true as they did thousands of years ago. And as we begin this New Year, it is more important than ever to believe in the power of humility and compassion to deepen our faith and repair our world.

At a time when too many of our friends and neighbors are struggling to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads, it is up to us to do what we can to help those less fortunate.

At a time when prejudice and oppression still exist in the shadows of our society, it is up to us to stand as a beacon of freedom and tolerance and embrace the diversity that has always made us stronger as a people.

And at a time when Israelis and Palestinians have returned to direct dialogue, it is up to us to encourage and support those who are willing to move beyond their differences and work towards security and peace in the Holy Land. Progress will not come easy, it will not come quick. But today we had an opportunity to move forward, toward the goal we share—two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.

The scripture teaches us that there is “a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.” In this season of repentance and renewal, let us commit ourselves to a more hopeful future.

Michelle and I wish all who celebrate Rosh Hashanah a sweet year full of health and prosperity.

No praise for the Jewish people here -- in fact, he only mentions the religion one time, in the 1st sentence of greeting. Instead, most of the message is a political one, not about the Jewish religion and celebration, but Obama's wish that Israel (a country) should accept the two-state solution he wants, and how they should be more tolerant (while the muslims were praised for THEIR "tolerance" even though no muslim state allows Christians to share their faith, and we had to burn bibles in Afghanistan because of their intolerance).

He doesn't even ask that God's peace be upon the Jewish people -- only the Muslims. No mention of how Jews have contributed to our country (like he bizarrely thinks Muslims have), just about how Jews must become more compassionate, give to the poor, and put away their prejudice and oppression.


NOTE: The idea that we would gauge people's achievements based on their religious beliefs is a typical liberal one -- the left loves to segregate us, treat us all based on groups they assign to us. Unless the achievement is of a religious nature, or a socio-political one, who cares what faith was held by Einstein, or Martin Luther King, Harriet Tubbs, Eli Whitney, or Jonas Salk (Although none of those people are Muslim).

Thus, we have the administration spending OUR tax dollars for NASA to make Muslim countries feel better about their acheivements. But in any case, here is the President, praising Muslims for their contributions to America, while castigating Jews for not doing enough for the poor and downtrodden;

Here we have the President praising Islam for its tolerance (on a week when they threatened to riot, murder, rape, pillage, and attack our troops because some nut in Florida was simply going to burn a book), while telling Jews they need to be MORE tolerant.

Here we have the President not making a single mention of ANY muslim country while he praises Muslims for being a positive force in the world, while he attacks the Jewish Faith for the existance of Israel while chiding them for not working harder to co-exist with Palestine, a political construct with the express aim of DESTROYING ISRAEL and WIPING OUT THE JEWISH FAITH ON THIS PLANET (and guess what, Palistine is run by MUSLIMS, the TOLERANT RELIGION).

Obama says he's not a Muslim, and he certainly doesn't practive the faith. But he sure goes out of his way to make up lies about how great Muslims are, while taking even ceremonial opportunities to castigate a TRUE RELIGION OF PEACE, Judaism, without even having the decency to MENTION the religion in his proclamation on one of their religious holidays.

Think about that -- an entire message to Jews on their religious holidays, and not ONE use of the word "Judaism".

What Went Wrong : Fineman discovers Obama's Incompetence

Howard Fineman does a little reflecting in his Newsweek column, asking What Went Wrong. It's nothing we didn't already know.

First, Obama was full of himself:

One day in the winter of 2005, I was in a Senate hallway when the new guy from Illinois arrived for a vote. Sen. Barack Obama—pop-star charisma, limitless possibility—knew his own allure.

Second, Obama had never lead anything, and had no idea how to run anything:

“Shovel ready” projects identified in the spring of 2009 are often still “unshoveled” because officials aren’t in place to approve them, says Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. “The fact is,” he says, “Obama never really ran anything, even legislatively.” Neither has his closest adviser, message guru David Axelrod.

But being full of himself, Obama couldn't see his own flaws, and unlike past Presidents didn't surround himself with people who could be the leaders he wasn't. Instead, he thought he could do it all, because he thought he always had (and apparently, Fineman still thinks Obama actually was an over-acheiver):

Obama—an overachiever, the guy who fills up a second blue book on the extra-credit question—tried to do it all. His chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, eager to please the new boss, declared before Inauguration Day: “Never allow a crisis to go to waste. There are opportunities to do big things.” But in doing big things, they failed to fully attend to (and be seen attending to) the immediate economic needs of the middle class. “There hasn’t been the laserlike focus on the economy there could have, and should have, been,” says a top Democratic strategist who declined to be named criticizing the White House.

Now, that's something I would like to see from a reporter like Howard -- the actual blue book that Fineman thinks he filled with an extra-credit question. Howard is a true believer, who without a single shred of evidence (college transcripts, scholarly papers, professors who remember how smart Obama was or even that Obama was in their classrooms) believes the hype that Obama sold, and even makes up his own aprocryphal statements like his "blue-book" assertion.

Fineman has also belatedly come to understand that Obama has no focus, and shows little interest in actually doing the job, leading him into petulant and ignorant decisions:

The president is an agreeable guy, but aloof, and not one who likes to come face to
face with the enemy.
...
In the spring of 2009, the White House strong-armed House Democrats into voting for a cap-and-trade environmental bill, even though it was clear the Senate wouldn’t go along.
...
It’s the task of the presidency to cajole people, including your enemies, into doing what they don’t want to do if it is good for the country. Did Obama think he could eschew the rituals of politics—that all he had to do was invoke His Hopeness to bring
people aboard?

Fact is, Obama has never really had to work hard at anything, because the people who raised him felt sorry for him and gave him too much. He assumed that someone would do the job for him, like someone has been doing for him most of his life. His mother, his grandparents, his mentors — everybody seems to have wanted to help out the poor orphan boy who lost his dad, and they taught him nothing about hard work and sacrifice.

It still cracks me up to hear how Obama turned down high-paying jobs in law to do community service — because first, he seems to have been fine, with a multi-million-dollar house and hundreds of thousands of dollars a year coming through his wife and all; but second, because if he HAD gotten a high-paying legal position, he would have had to actually have WANTED TO WORK. He took the easy way out, “community organizer”, and accomplished nothing.

Fineman also puts to bed many of the lies Obama has been telling. For example, the "change the tone in Washington" by "reaching out to the opposition":

The president hasn’t invited the House minority leader over to talk, and Obama had his first private Oval Office chat with Mc Connell only last month. Better late than never, but too late to do any good this cycle.

Imagine that -- almost two years into his term, and he had NEVER had a one-on-one with the head Republicans in either legislative body, and has only just recently sat down with McConnell, who was one of his Senate colleagues.

Remember in contrast that Bush, who was roundly panned by the "media" as partisan, had the entire Kennedy clan over to the White House early in his administration, and regularly reached out to the Democrats both individually and in groups.

But Obama, having a large Democrat majority in the house, and at one point a filibuster-proof 60-vote Democrat majority in the Senate, saw no reason to actually work with Republicans, deciding the "new tone" should be to attack republicans and pass laws paying back his constituents for their support and campaign contributions.

Most importantly, Fineman admits to what we already knew, and what the Media worked many long weeks to acheive: Obama is a personal (fictional) creation of the media, and his election was manufactured without regard for the disastrous policies Obama was KNOWN to want to pursue, but which the media worked with Obama to hide from the voters:

“Obama’s 2008 victory was a personal one,” says Bill Galston, an adviser to President Clinton. “It wasn’t a vote for a more expansive view of the role and reach of government.”
...
Take health-care reform. Ten years hence, perhaps, it will be seen as the signal achievement of the Obama years. But for now, it’s an unpopular law that took a divisive year to enact, that liberals and conservatives loathe, that is full of bureaucratic and fiscal IEDs, and that drained attention from dealing with the economy. If you disagree, look at Obama’s speech last week in Cleveland. In 47 minutes, he mentioned health care for about 25 seconds.

Ten years hence, if our country is lucky, Obamacare will be a long-gone bad dream. But it is telling that, with Obama claiming he saved the economy from a depression, even one of his biggest chearleaders in the meedia acknowledges that nothing Obama did on the economy will be seen as useful a decade from now. And Fineman realises that Obama doesn't even believe in his own health care program anymore, even if Fineman still has a psychotic hope for it.

I guess we should thank Howard for finally recognising the truth, even if he'll never acknowledge his own part in electing a clueless, aloof, incompetent non-leader with a overblown sense of his own importance to the most powerful job in the world at a time we needed a real leader.

Surrender -- 9/11/2010

9/11/2010. This is the day that we surrendered to the radical Muslim hoardes.

Those radical muslims threatened our armed forces, if we are to believe the generals.

In response, the President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, the FBI (3 times), and General Petraeus all responded to the threat against our troops -- by actively and publicly intervening to stop the exercise of free speech (as defined by the Supreme Court) that was objected to by those who threatened us with war.

In response to the overwhelming force of government threats and intimidation, the citizen of our country backed down, and agreed to relinquish his freedom to make his statement.

This is the very definition of surrender -- the Commander in Chief (as Obama referred to himself when harassing a citizen for threatening to commit free speech), rather than standing up for the rights of our citizens guaranteed in the constitution, surrendered to those threatening war. Without a shot being fired, the muslim extremists who threatened our troops won the war.

The only question that remains is, are there any rights that our President, and his leadership team, are willing to defend against threats of violence? Well, we know that Obama refuses to stand up to the threat of violence from Mexico that would result from enforcing our immigration laws and stopping the illegal invasion of our country from the south.

So, what is next? Suppose the muslim extremists threaten violence if we don't make some muslim holy day a national holiday? What if they insist we allow muslim communities to practice sharia law? If they object to women wearing provocative garments when walking near mosques or during holy days?

What if they insist we don't prosecute the increasing acts of violence muslims are inflicting on their own families in the name of "honor killings"? Is there some point at which the Obama administration will draw the line and say "enough is enough -- we don't mind surrendering SOME of our rights to extremists, but not the rights that WE care about!!!!".

There are many forms of free speech that are highly controversial. Thus, the provocative statement "I may object to what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" -- a cornerstone of our freedom in this country. Obama's administration has replaced this with "If I object to what you have to say, I won't lift a finger to defend your right to say it".

Here, on the 9th aniversaray of 9/11, we have time to reflect on the war that the extremists launched on our way of life long ago, and the most bruttle battle in that war, the downing of the two towers and the smashing of the Pentagon. We rebuilt the Pentagon, but in our first show of weakness have failed to rebuild the towers, which is a constant source of delight to the extremists -- no matter how much we weaken them on the battlefield, they can look to Ground Zero and know they have mortally wounded us; this is why so many Americans dislike the idea of building a victory mosque so close to that site.

So it is sad that, on this aniversary, we are dealt such a blow, the surrender of our freedoms to these extremists. You don't negotiate with terrorists. You don't surrender your freedoms for the vain hope of security. If General Petraeus can't defend our troops against the mongrel extremist hordes, if the placement of our troops in Afghanistan results in the surrender of our free-speech rights at home, it is time for new leadership, a leadership that understands that the military exists to defend our freedoms, not so we have to surrender our freedoms to protect the military.

My Warning to All: Don't copy news articles.

I'm not a lawyer. But my warning to all those who use the internet is simple -- RESPECT COPYRIGHT LAWS.

Don't copy entire articles from newspapers, without permission. There are papers going under who will sue you. One paper in particular, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, has come up with a business model which involvese suing their readers for small amounts.

They created a firm called RightHaven, whose sole purpose appears to be to file small suits against bloggers and others without enough money to defend themselves. This firm scours the internet for any references to articles from the LVRJ. If they find one, they will BUY the copyright from the LRVJ, and then sue the person who posted the article, or the host which allowed it to be posted.

Note that the newspaper is "no longer involved". So don't count on public opnion or a reasonable appeal to save you. This company is a lawyer-driven company with ONE PURPOSE IN MIND -- to get you to pay them money for violating copyright.

And to be clear -- it is unlikely that you would be able to justify a cut-and-paste of an entire article, even if you provide a link and a citation. (I wonder if the standard snark attack of quoting an article in little pieces with long responses to each part would be considered fair use?). Worse, even if you COULD win, are you ready to spend $50,000 defending yourself against a suit that apparently you can settle for $5000 or so?

The lawsuits all appear to be about the same: $75,000, plus surrender of your domain name. That appears to be a ploy, as the settlements seem much less, and the largest that has been reported publicly is $5000.

If you are a political candidate, don't think you are immune. RightHaven has gone after campaign web sites, which sometimes think they can simply cut-and-paste articles if those articles are about the candidate. They have gone after both democrats and republicans.

And for you blogger-user sites, they have gone after both left and right-wing aggregation sites like DU and FR. They've gone after indifivual bloggers. They sued a doctor for copying an article of interest to his patients. They sued a PR FIRM that does PR for the paper, for publishing an article about an event that they provided publicity for.

So, DON'T cut-and-paste articles. Purge your sites of any you have. THink hard about fair use, excerpt judiciously, include links and citations. I AM NOT A LAWYER, so don't think that I'm saying that if you do this, you will be OK. I can't say, but it is clear that you will be targeted if you just copy an article to your web site.

The days where a blogger can steal news stories, and get money from blog pimping advertisements, is over.

PWC Board votes to halt wasteful stimulus spending -- for now

Tonight, in an emergency session, the Prince William County Board of Supervisors voted 4-0 with 1 abstention to halt any action by any county employee to commit the spending of the latest Obama pork bill.

The action was made necessary when the school administration, with no input from either the PWC BOCS or the School Board, announced they would start hiring 180 teachers on provisional contracts and integrate them into the school system.

Defenders of this dubious move claimed that it would be too disruptive to add teachers later in the year, which presumes that we were going to do so, and ignores the much larger disruption if the money was not obtained, or the elected officials decided not to take the money -- requiring the firing of the provisional teachers, AND the re-arrangement of classes in the middle of the year.

Unfortunately, while the school administration was happy to give this story to the papers, and to start implementing the hiring, they had no financial people in town to discuss the matter with the board. Nobody at the meeting mentioned the implication of this -- which is that with the financial people on vacation, someone in the administration made a decision to spend money WITHOUT CONSULTING THEM. If on the other hand they DID get opinions, those opinions should have been brought to the meeting.

Several school board members showed up at the emergency session, called when several board members recognized the horrible mistake about to be made, and reasoned that they had to put a stop to it.

Only 5 board members were in town, just enough to make a quorum. This led to the most pathetic action of the evening, when Supervisor Principi, realising he was the only member of the five who wanted to vote to hire teachers without any guarantee of having the money, thought he could stop the vote by leaving the meeting room, thus denying the rest of the board a quorum.

Fortunately, Supervisor May, in a quick thinking action, called for the vote and took the count while Principi stood at the door, not even able to successfully pull off his own bizarre plot. It took the county attorney only a short time to decide that since Principi was standing in the room at the time of the vote, they had a quorum, and the vote counted.

No doubt Principi will be livid about this, and complain about some breach of proper procedure. Of course, he knows that if the school administration hadn't tried to pull this coup while Corey Stewart was out of the country, they'd have had the votes without him -- and likely at least one other missing board member would have joined the vote to stop the hiring.

The issue is still alive. The school board will meet to discuss the matter, and eventually the state will decide whether to take the money or not.

We learned from the meeting that the state is free to spend the money on next year's budget, which means in fact that there was no rush whatsoever to put the teachers in place now. If we wait, the money, while it is still rediculous pork spending, can be used to hire teachers we actually will need.

Congratulations to Supervisors May, Stirrup, Covington, and Nohe for recognizing a serious problem and acting swiftly to mitigate and prevent the damage. Shame on Principi for attempting to circumvent the democratic process by walking out on his responsibilities. This isn't Texas, Mr. Principi -- don't act like Texas Democrats, hiding in some other state to avoid granting quorums.

Now it's time for the School Board to do the right thing, and take this process deliberatively, and forget about trying to load up on teachers this year.

Our President is a Blooming Idiot, or a Liar

Obama wandered on a Fox set, and probably wishes he hadn't. They actually asked him a real question, and he turned into a complete idiot.

Asked about special deals still in the bill, he tried to justify the "Louisiana Purchase", where Landreau got $300 million dollars for her vote, and was proud of it.

As you may know, they can't really just say "Louisiana's Senator gets $300 million for her vote". Instead, they have to write something that applies to everybody who meets the "qualifications". Then they put enough qualifiers in so that, when it's done, only the targeted item is covered.

As the Lousiana Purchase was described:

According to ABC News's Jonathan Karl, Majority Leader Reid's (D-NV) bill has a provision increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for "certain states recovering from a major disaster." The section goes on for two pages defining which "states" would qualify, including states that "during the preceding 7 fiscal years" have been declared a "major disaster area."
How many states does that apply to? Exactly one state: Lousiana,

Got that? It applies to a state that, in the PREVIOUS 7 years, had a disaster, and only Loiusiana qualifies.

But Obama, the clueless one, said this on a NATIONAL TV Interview:

OBAMA: That also — I'm giving you an example of one that I consider important. It also affects Hawaii, which went through an earthquake. So that's not just a Louisiana provision. That is a provision that affects every state that is going through a natural catastrophe.

Got that? The bill explicitly says it's for states that PREVIOUSLY had a disaster, but Obama lied and said it covers states that are GOING through a natural catastrophe. He also lied about Hawaii having an Earthquake. Unless he meant Haiti, and thinks that Haiti is one of our 57 states.

This is how Obama wants to pass Health Care, by lying about it. I am sick and tired of liberals claiming that we are wrong about Obama lying. We have two lies in this one paragraph.

Unless you want to argue that Obama is just stupid. Which is probably true.

Your Government at Work, Census Bus Edition

Since in the next two weeks government will take over our health care, we ought to look around and see how government really operates. So today, let's look at the Census.

Or more specifically, the advertisement I heard today on the radio about the Census and public bus transportation. See, there's these 3 buses, and they take people around in the government-world of Census.

But if you don't fill out your Census, Government won't know how many people live in the big City. And if they don't know how many people there are, they won't know how many buses they need to serve the people, and you might not get a 4th bus that you need to get around.

Because, you see, in the Government world, services are not based on actually serving people. I mean, if it was, they'd just look at the bus and see how many people were sitting on it, and if they saw lots of empty seats, they'd know they had enough buses, and if the seats are all full, they'd add new buses.

But that's a market-based solution, and Government doesn't serve markets, it taxes people. So in Government-land, it makes no difference how many people actually RIDE the buses, it only matters how many people live in the city that they can tax to PAY for buses, and that they can claim they "provide service to" on the basis that the bus drives by their houses, or runs over their children, or whatever.

So we need the census to count the people so we can justify buying more buses we don't need to take people who don't want to ride to places they don't want to go.

Your Government At Work, Metro Edition

As you may know, last weekend was "spring forward" time, when we "lose" an hour of sleep. At 2am, we advanced our clocks to 3am.

Of course, if you were awake during that time, nothing really happens. Your late-night TV movie doesn't skip an hour, you aren't suddenly one hour hungrier, your homework isn't one more hour done. It's a totally non-physical phenomena.

That is, unless you are the Government. To the Government, that missing hour makes all the difference in the world. Imagine you are going down to party with some friends in Georgetown. You take metro, like a good citizen, because your partying until 2am, and metro is open until 3am, so there's plenty of time to get home.

There you are, and the time is getting late. 1am, 130am, 150am. Around 2am, they are ready to close the bar, and you are off to the Metro to get back to your car. Except that Metro is closed.

Because you see, Metro closes at 3am. Normally, that's 3 hours after midnight. But it's "spring forward time", and 2am is 3am. So they obviously have to do SOMETHING, right? Now for normal folks, the obvious thing is to change your closing time to 4am. After all, people will still be partying until 2am, and will still need to drive home. Nobody says "hey, we lose an hour, so we'll quit the party an hour earlier". They say "hey, we'll sleep in an hour".

But that's not how Government works. To government, 3am is 3am, and if for some reason 1:59:59 is followed by 3am, then the right thing to do is to close an hour early.

The only question is, when they punched out, did their timecards say 3am, and did they get paid for the hour.

, noting that they close at 3am (and not 3 hours after midnight), decided that since 2am was really 3a

Kiss your doctor goodbye.

There's at least a 1 out of 3 chance that, if Obamacare is "deemed to be passed", you won't be seeing your doctor anymore.

A Medical provider survey provides the grim reality of Obama's pipe dream of government takeover of our health system:

What if nearly HALF of all physicians in America suddenly stopped practicing medicine? Such a drastic decrease in the physician workforce could become a reality, depending upon how the healthcare reform legislation is implemented, and which version of health reform passes into law.

Imagine a world where half the doctors no longer practice. Now imagine that 30 million new people are seeking out non-emergency care, since they have been given free health care paid for with your tax dollars.

Imagine Disneyworld on a 75 degree sunny summer saturday. Sure, the rides look fun, but you can't get onto any of them.

But that's if they had a public option in the bill. What about the current bill? Not much better:

Interestingly, the numbers were not as dramatic, but still troubling, if the public option is not part of the equation. If health reform passes without the public option, 7.4% of physicians stated that they would quit practicing medicine, unless they were nearing retirement, in which case 21.8% said they would retire early, bringing the total loss of physician workforce to nearly one-third of physicians leaving medicine.

That means if there are 6 doctors in your office, and you've had to wait a week to get a routine office appointment, there will now be 4 doctors serving you and the newly blessed freeloaders.

OK, enough of the fearmongering. At least we'll have better health care, even if it's not actually available, right? Well, if there's one things doctors would know about, it's about the quality of care. And what doctors tell us?:

Over 50% of physicians who responded predict that a health reform would cause the quality of medical care to deteriorate in America. When asked how health reform could affect the quality of medical care, 40.7% stated it would "decline or worsen somewhat," while another 14.4% stated that the quality of medical care would "decline or worsen dramatically". If a public option is implemented as part of health reform, 64.1% of physicians predict that the quality of medical care in general will decline.

Fewer doctors, lower quality of care. Is that Change we can Believe In?