Rush Limbaugh explains conservatism at CPAC

Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh addressed the attendees at CPAC today (without a teleprompter) and gave an excellent speech defining conservatism. He defended the fundamental principles upon which this nation was founded and how all of it is under assault from the Democrats' big-government, tax-and-spend totalitarianism.

When faced with Barack Obama's nanny state, this is the kind of alternative that should be voiced by our elected officials who claim to be Republicans. And the kind of standard to which we should hold those who claim to be conservative.

Today we're gonna party like it's 1773! UPDATE: Photos & video added

I won't be blogging much today, as I will be attending two Tea Party demonstrations here in Dallas and Fort Worth today to protest the runaway spending being carried out by President Obama and Democrats in Congress. If they don't hear from us en masse, they'll just keep printing money, raising our taxes, spending us into a deeper hole and putting our children and grandchildren further in debt.

Texas Tea Party
The Cowtown Bar & Grill
Friday, February 27, 2009
3pm to 7pm
7108 Camp Bowie Blvd, Fort Worth, TX 76116
(817) 570-7910

There will also be a demonstration at Victory Plaza in downtown Dallas today from 11:00am - ??

Michelle Malkin has a list of other Tea Party demonstrations going on around the country today and posted some good advice for those looking to join in person or just in spirit.

Many of us were inspired after Rick Santelli gave his speech on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange calling for a Chicago Tea Party.

There will be many events taking place across the country where people are gathering in protest of all of the spending and taxing that has been occurring lately in government. I wanted to offer an opportunity for those of us who have to work to be able to participate.

I want to encourage all of you to stage your own form of a protest at your work. Don’t do anything against your company policy that would get you disciplined or fired. Here are a few ways that you can participate:

1. Participate in the live tweeting using the #teaparty hashtag.


2. Take part in the Tea Party rally in Second Life.


3. Writing letters to the media, elected officials, etc.


4. Blogging about the Tea Party and the message behind it.


5. Bring bags of tea to work and lay them on your desk. When your co-workers ask you why, explain the reasoning behind the protest and say you are showing your support.


6. Make iced tea for the office and share the message with those you work with.

The last two on that list are things you can do at work to show support, but if you don’t feel comfortable you can still do them, but just not explain your reasoning to your co-workers if you aren’t comfortable or if you don’t work in a really accepting place.

I hope that this offers you a way to participate and I hope to “see” you there!

In case you didn't get to see Rick Santelli's speech that inspired this grassroots movement, here it is:


---
UPDATE: I attended both protests today. Unfortunately, I didn't make it to the Dallas Tea Party until it was nearly over. By the time I arrived, there were only a couple dozen people left. But those who were there from the beginning informed me that there were between 300-400 people gathered on the steps of Victory Plaza, where they took turns dunking portions of the "stimulus" bill into a large tank filled with tea.



Here's some footage from the Dallas Tea Party. (h/t: AngryWhiteDude)



The Tea Party in Fort Worth was much larger, likely because it received a lot more public notice in advance. Those who were taking signatures on a petition against the stimulus told me they estimated the crowd to be between 800-900 people. And that was only an hour into the event. From what I could see, there were at least 250 people holding signs in front of the Cowtown Bar & Grill at any given time. And there were many more in the bar and in the area behind the building where chairs were set up and a live band was playing. In addition, there was widespread support from passing motorists who honked and voiced their approval.




Here are a few other photos to show the hundreds of taxpayers who were gathered to vent their frustration with a President and a Congress seemingly bent on punishing achievement and accumulating more debt in 10 years than America has had in its entire history!



Several Gadsden flags were visible in the crowd. Regular readers here may already know my affinity for that symbol particularly since it is still so appropriate in reference to America's enemies. It's truly a shame that it now applies to our elected officials as well. They are heedless to the outcry of their constituents!




This was my first protest but it won't be my last if our government continues this increased taxation without representation and their blatant nationalizing our banks and healthcare system. I've already heard plans for a tax protest on April 15th to take place at every state capitol in the nation. And perhaps even a large-scale demonstration in Washington, DC on July 4th.

President Obama, are you listening?

Responding to Obama's nuanced SOTU speech

“I promise you — I get it!”

For me, that was President Obama's most disingenuous phrase of the evening. And the perfect summary for all he's done wrong up to now.

He most certainly does not "get it." Tonight's half-hearted pep talk doesn't undo the past month of fearmongering he's engaged in every time he's spoken about the economy. The American people continually hear about how this is the worst economy since the Great Depression; carefully chosen language which brings to mind bread lines and crushing poverty. Obama's even gone so far as to say we might "never recover" without the profligate spending he and Congressional Democrats are peddling.

Fifty-two minutes of insincere puffery won't undo all that now.

I was going to fisk the rest of PBHO's speech (full transcript here), but it's already been thoroughly fact-checked and found seriously wanting. Shockeroo!

President Barack Obama knows Americans are unhappy that their taxes will be used to rescue people who bought mansions beyond their means. But his assurance Tuesday night that only the deserving will get help rang hollow.

Even officials in his administration, many supporters of the plan in Congress and the Federal Reserve chairman expect some of that money will go to people who used lousy judgment.
...
OBAMA: "We have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and refinance their mortgages. It's a plan that won't help speculators or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he could never hope to afford, but it will help millions of Americans who are struggling with declining home values."

THE FACTS: If the administration has come up with a way to ensure money only goes to those who got in honest trouble, it hasn't said so.
...
Similarly, the head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. suggested this month it's not likely aid will be denied to all homeowners who overstated their income or assets to get a mortgage they couldn't afford.

"I think it's just simply impractical to try to do a forensic analysis of each and every one of these delinquent loans," Sheila Bair told National Public Radio.
...
OBAMA: "In this budget, we will end education programs that don't work and end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don't need them. We'll eliminate the no-bid contracts that have wasted billions in Iraq, and reform our defense budget so that we're not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don't use. We will root out the waste, fraud and abuse in our Medicare program that doesn't make our seniors any healthier, and we will restore a sense of fairness and balance to our tax code by finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas."

THE FACTS: First, his budget does not accomplish any of that. It only proposes those steps. That's all a president can do, because control over spending rests with Congress. Obama's proposals here are a wish list and some items, including corporate tax increases and cuts in agricultural aid, will be a tough sale in Congress.

Then, of course, President Obama used last night's opportunity to begin the sales pitch for government takeover of the healthcare industry. The Newspeak for socialized medicine is now "health care reform." Expect to hear that phrase parroted almost as often as we're hearing "bold" and "swift" (euphemistically referring to the heedless manner in which this gargantuan spending legislation was approved without bipartisan oversight nor the review of the American people).

As to the Republican response afterwards, am I the only one that thought Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal did ok? Sure, he wasn't polished in his presentation. But I really didn't expect him to rise to the level of Obama's teleprompter oratory. I wasn't able to see Jindal's performance on TV, I only heard him on the radio. And although I thought he was a bit too conciliatory, I understand the reasoning behind it and thought the substance of his words were adequate to begin the repositioning of the GOP. I did, however, think he spent too much time playing nice with our new president. By the time he got down to the real meat of his message, I'm betting most Americans had tuned out.

That said, half our neighbors apparently value style over substance as evidenced by the numbers of people who were snookered by Barack Obama's vacuous campaign last year. Conservatives need to voice their alternative proposals in the manner in which last year's debates on offshore drilling captured America's attention and forced Democrats to retreat.

It's not just ideas that will carry the day. Conservatives need to spend more thought on the way they market their ideas. The tastiest product in the world will sit unopened on the shelf without an attention-grabbing package. And right now, over half our fellow citizens are eagerly chugging overpriced (and ass-flavored) Obama Kool-Aid, just because it has fancy rainbows & unicorns on the wrapper.

President Obama's "stimulus" plan patterned after Monty Python sketch

It's been bothering me how familiar President Obama's "stimulus" plan looked. And then it occurred to me...I've seen it before!



"Wait a tic ... blimey, this redistribution of wealth is trickier than I thought."

The Air Force One mote in President Obama's eye

Does President Obama's messiah complex mean that he doesn't have to practice what he preaches?

Does anybody remember when President Obama chastised Detroit auto executives for flying to Washington to beg for their bailouts, saying they were "tone deaf" to the concerns of the American people?

Or when he scolded Citibank for their plans to purchase a corporate jet?

Or when he criticized banking officials for flying to corporate events "on the taxpayer’s dime"?

Then somebody explain to me why President Obama, who regularly talks about "green energy" and a "new era responsibility," made the doubly feckless choice to fly Air Force One 1,700 miles to Denver to sign the $3.27 trillion government expansion bill rather than simply doing so at the White House. Was it really worth the hundreds of thousands of dollars in jet fuel and carbon emissions just to have a photo op in the location where he accepted his nomination for president?

More "do as I say, not as I do" sand in the vaseline from The One.

More diplomatic blunders from President Obama

Two news headlines demonstrate the Obama administration's priorities in diplomacy.

Barack Obama sends bust of Winston Churchill on its way back to Britain
A bust of the former prime minister once voted the greatest Briton in history, which was loaned to George W Bush from the Government's art collection after the September 11 attacks, has now been formally handed back.

The bronze by Sir Jacob Epstein, worth hundreds of thousands of pounds if it were ever sold on the open market, enjoyed pride of place in the Oval Office during President Bush's tenure.

But when British officials offered to let Mr Obama to hang onto the bust for a further four years, the White House said: "Thanks, but no thanks."

Diplomats were at first reluctant to discuss the whereabouts of the Churchill bronze, after its ejection from the seat of American power. But the British Embassy in Washington has now confirmed that it sits in the palatial residence of ambassador Sir Nigel Sheinwald, just down the road from Vice President Joe Biden's official residence. It is not clear whether the ambassador plans to keep it in Washington or send it back to London.

American politicians have made quoting Churchill, whose mother was American, something of an art form, but not Mr Obama, who prefers to cite the words and works of his hero Abraham Lincoln. Indeed a bust of Mr Lincoln now sits in the Oval Office where Epstein's Churchill once ruled the roost.

Churchill has less happy connotations for Mr Obama than those American politicians who celebrate his wartime leadership. It was during Churchill's second premiership that Britain suppressed Kenya's Mau Mau rebellion. Among Kenyans allegedly tortured by the colonial regime included one Hussein Onyango Obama, the President's grandfather.

The rejection of the bust has left some British officials nervously reading the runes to see how much influence the UK can wield with the new regime in Washington.

Clinton seeks to improve US image with Muslims
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton pledged a new American openness to ideas from abroad, especially the Muslim world, during a visit Wednesday to Indonesia.

Anti-U.S. protests were held in several cities, with some Islamic hard-liners setting tires on fire and others throwing shoes at caricatures of Clinton, but the rallies were small and scattered.

Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, is the second stop in Clinton's inaugural overseas trip as the top U.S. diplomat. She said that was "no accident," with the trip designed to show support for the country's hard-won democracy as well as its efforts to fight terrorism while respecting human rights.

Further obeisance before a culture who respects only strength, while essentially spitting in the face of our greatest ally. Perhaps President Obama is looking to "restore our standing in the world" back to where it was in 1812.

Judgment to lead.

President Obama signs spending bill, hails "the beginning of the end"

Well, the fight is over. The Democrats' pork-laden $3.27 Trillion spending monstrosity is now law. BOHICA.

DENVER – President Barack Obama put his own indelible imprint on the nation's distressed economy Tuesday, signing the huge recovery package into law, readying a $50 billion proposal to help homeowners fend off foreclosure and awaiting emergency restructuring plans from flailing automakers. Obama said the sprawling legislation, which congressional Democrats pushed to passage last week over near-unanimous opposition from Republicans, would "set our economy on a firmer foundation."

Obama's first major piece of legislation, it's a $787 billion mix of tax cuts and one of the biggest public spending programs since World War II.

"I don't want to pretend that today marks the end of our economic problems. Nor does it constitute all of what we have to do to turn our economy around. But today does mark the beginning of the end, the beginning of what we need to do to create jobs for Americans scrambling in the wake of layoffs," Obama said.

The setting for the signing was the Denver Museum of Nature & Science, with solar panels on its roof, underscoring the investments the new law will make in "green" energy-related jobs. Workers in solar, wind, and other renewable-energy industries joined Obama and Vice President Joe Biden at the bill-signing ceremony.

Well, President Obama was partially right: it's the beginning of the end.

Time for Atlas to shrug.
---
UPDATE: Based on an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, The Washinton Post has created a very good diagram showing a graphic representation of where all our money will be wasted over the next ten years.

Oh, and by the way, the final bill contained 78% spending and only 22% tax cuts, significantly less than the one-third falsely claimed by President Obama.

Silencing dissent with the "(Un)fairness Doctrine"

Are the Democrats trying to censor free speech with the "(Un)fairness Doctrine"?

Ed Morrissey reminds us what then-candidate Obama had to say about it back in June of 2008:

"Senator Obama does not support re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," said press secretary Michael Ortiz in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday.

"He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible," said Ortiz.

But now that President Obama and the Democrats are in charge, it appears that fascism is back on the menu:

WALLACE: Will you rule out reimposing the Fairness Doctrine?

AXELROD: I’m going to leave that issue to Julius Genachowski, our new head of the FCC, to, and the president, to discuss. So I don’t have an answer for you now.

And it looks like there are many Democrats ready to fall in line behind Dear Leader in forcing the free market to parrot their party line.

"...a little state control wouldn't hurt anybody." – Attorney General Jerry Brown (D-CA)

"It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine," – Democrat Party Whip, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL)

"...we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again." – Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA)

"I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else - I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves." – Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)

Of course, Sen. Stabenow failed to mention that she is married to Tom Athans, who just so happens to be the the executive vice president of liberal radio network Air America. Conflict of interest much?

In case you're not familiar with the real meaning of the Newspeak term "fairness," the aforementioned doctrine gave the federal government control over the content of private broadcasters, determining what was a proper balance of viewpoints. With the scarcity of channels in 1949, making certain there was an equality of contrasting points of view made this legislation almost understandable. However, with a current preponderance of left-leaning channels on television, this kind of heavy-handedness is not only unnecessary, it's downright unconstitutional.

The rest of mainstream media also has a documented tilt toward the left. And we already have a state-run talk radio network (NPR) which is heavily biased in favor of Democrats. If anything, conservative talk radio provides balance. The fact that "progressives" can't succeed in the free market of talk radio is no reason to impose an outdated set of totalitarian laws on private business.

It's pretty bad when leftist Camile Paglia takes Democrats to task for this latest attempt to suppress free speech:

"Speaking of talk radio (which I listen to constantly), I remain incredulous that any Democrat who professes liberal values would give a moment's thought to supporting a return of the Fairness Doctrine to muzzle conservative shows. (My latest manifesto on this subject appeared in my last column.) The failure of liberals to master the vibrant medium of talk radio remains puzzling. To reach the radio audience (whether the topic is sports, politics or car repair), a host must have populist instincts and use the robust common voice. Too many Democrats have become arrogant elitists, speaking down in snide, condescending tones toward tradition-minded middle Americans whom they stereotype as rubes and buffoons. But the bottom line is that government surveillance of the ideological content of talk radio is a shocking first step toward totalitarianism."

Bringing back the (Un)fairness Doctrine would give the federal government control over every aspect of public communication; print, broadcast, and internet. Government bureaucrats would determine which opinions are liberal or conservative, and then determine what you're allowed to hear from either side. No matter which side of the fence you sit, that's censorship. And fascism.

fas·cism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Don't bring Gitmo prisoners to Texas

The terrorists are gonna have to go somewhere when Gitmo is closed. I'm glad it's not gonna be here.

WASHINGTON – Texas Republicans turned up the pressure Wednesday over the president's plan to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, demanding assurance that terrorists won't end up in facilities in Texas.

"Any such detention facility in the continental United States would instantly become a target for terrorists," the GOP lawmakers warned in a letter to President Barack Obama, who has set a one-year deadline to close the prison.

Rep. Lamar Smith of San Antonio, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, has been pushing legislation to ensure that none of the detainees end up on U.S. soil, where, he argues, they could acquire constitutional rights that could lead to their release.

"We will do everything in our power to prevent the transfer or release of known terrorists into the neighborhoods and communities of Texas," Smith said.

He wrote the letter to Obama, and Sen. John Cornyn and 19 of the 20 GOP House members from Texas signed it.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison released a separate letter Wednesday, also urging the president to reconsider the closure of the Guantánamo prison.

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Lake Jackson, didn't join the effort.

The White House had no response.

Here's the best idea I've seen regarding what to do with the Gitmo detainees. (h/t: Moonbattery)

Are Democrats dragging America over the cliff?

In my December 31 post, I did my best not to be pessimistic as we headed into 2009. President Obama had not yet been inaugurated and I sincerely wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, despite my strong reservations about how I figured he would translate his radical beliefs into public policy. So I gathered a few quotes as watchwords and tried to be cautiously optimistic.

The last month, however, has proven accurate my forboding.

In just 23 days, President Obama and Congressional Democrats have taken every opportunity to quickly weaken, undermine, and "remake" America into a faltering doppelganger of European timidity.

• Issued order to close Guantanamo


• Abased himself on Al-Arabiya


• Dropped the charges against the USS Cole bomber


• Moved the Census into the White House


• Cabinet appointments who were ethical trainwrecks & tax cheats: Bill Richardson, Timothy Geithner, Tom Daschle, Nancy Killefer, Hilda Solis, Rahm Emanuel


• Put forth a staggering $3.27 trillion expansion of federal government under a "stimulus" euphemism

Read through these again and see if you don't agree that we are facing the very circumstances our forefathers warned us against.

"Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." ~ Frederick Douglass

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." ~ Edmund Burke

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." ~ Samuel Adams

"The attempt to make heaven on earth invariably produces hell." ~ Karl Popper

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." ~ Patrick Henry, Virginia's Ratification convention, 1788

The stimulus bill has not yet been passed. There's still time to stop it.

The real price tag of the Generational Theft Act: $3.27 TRILLION

Lando Calrissian said it best: "This deal's getting worse all the time!" Via The Heritage Foundation:

All of the major news outlets are reporting that the stimulus bill voted out of conference committee last night has a meager $789 billion price tag. This number is pure fantasy. No one believes that the increased funding for programs the left loves like Head Start, Medicaid, COBRA, and the Earned Income Tax Credit is in anyway temporary. No Congress under control of the left will ever cut funding for these programs. So what is the true cost of the stimulus if these spending increases are made permanent?

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) asked the Congressional Budget Office to estimate the impact of permanently extending the 20 most popular provisions of the stimulus bill. What did the CBO find? As you can see from the table below, the true 10 year cost of the stimulus bill $2.527 trillion in in spending with another $744 billion cost in debt servicing. Total bill for the Generational Theft Act: $3.27 Trillion.

Check out all the details President Obama and Congressional Democrats don't want you to see.

John Kerry rails against tax cuts, says government better suited to spend your money

Via Sen. Jim Demint (R-SC): Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) explains who he trusts to spend America's hard-earned dollars.

Hint: it's not you. (h/t: Gateway Pundit)

"A tax cut is non-targeted. If you put a tax cut into the hands of either a business of an individual today, there is no guarantee they're gonna invest their money. There's no guarantee they're gonna invest their money in the United States. They're free to go to invest anywhere that they want, if they choose to invest... The fact is, none of those people are guaranteed to invest that money in any of the new projects that we are... So government, yes government, has the ability to make a decision that the private sector won't necessarily make today."

These Democrat asshats just don't get it. They truly believe they have a right to every penny you earn so they can spend it all on "those little, tiny–yes, porky–amendments" you supposedly don't care about.

Compare Kerry's remarks with those of Thomas Jefferson: (h/t: Blogmeister USA)

“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned — this is the sum of good government.”

Democrats shut out GOP, fix final price tag for Generational Theft Act

Amazing. A $789 BILLION dollar price tag, and the AP calls it "pared down"?

Stimulus pared to $789 billion in race for deal
House and Senate negotiators agreed to pare economic stimulus legislation below $800 billion and reached for a final deal with the White House on Wednesday on a bill designed to create millions of jobs in a nation reeling from recession.

"Time's getting short," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, one of a handful of Senate moderates whose votes are crucial to the bill's passage.

As if to underscore the urgency, President Barack Obama said executives at Caterpillar Corp. told him they would rescind some of the 22,000 layoffs they recently announced once the stimulus is signed into law.

Several Democratic officials said there was an informal deadline of Wednesday afternoon for at least tentative agreement on an overall bill, a time that coincided with a scheduled formal meeting of House and Senate negotiators.
The real decisions were made in Capitol office suites where House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other key lawmakers, often joined by White House officials and their own aides, worked late Tuesday night and picked up again in the morning.

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., one of the negotiators, said there was agreement to hold the bill to $789 billion, tens of billions below the cost of both the House and Senate bills that had cleared in recent days, and that 35 percent of the total would be in the form of tax cuts.

Red State has more about the "deal", which was due to a freeze-out of the GOP. (h/t: Michelle Malkin)

I would like "to come as close as you can in the political reality to a bipartisan management of the House," said Nancy Pelosi in 2006. "I'm a big believer in bipartisanship on so many issues. You can't address [most issues] and do it in a partisan way. They are too big, they involve too many people, and they involve too much money, private and public money. You've got to do it in a way that has legitimacy."

This morning, a very senior contact within the House GOP informed me that Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Harry Reid (D-NV) met at length last night to put together the House/Senate conference report on the “stimulus” package. Only Democratic conference committee members were informed of the meeting and permitted to attend.

Is this the transparency and accountability you've been telling us about, President Obama?

Newsweek hails President Obama with socialist declaration

I was shocked to see the cover of this week's Newsweek magazine. Although I've realized their extreme leftist predilection for some time, it was still surprising to see such blatantly propaganda on a major U.S. magazine.

It's bad enough that President George W. Bush ignored the protests of those who put him in office, subsequently endorsing the nationalization of America's banks with the TARP bailouts. But now, the editors of Newsweek believe that because Democrats have control of Congress and Barack Obama is in the White House, 233 years of freedom and liberty are now passé and Marxism is the order of the day.

We remain a center-right nation in many ways—particularly culturally, and our instinct, once the crisis passes, will be to try to revert to a more free-market style of capitalism—but it was, again, under a conservative GOP administration that we enacted the largest expansion of the welfare state in 30 years: prescription drugs for the elderly. People on the right and the left want government to invest in alternative energies in order to break our addiction to foreign oil. And it is unlikely that even the reddest of states will decline federal money for infrastructural improvements.

If we fail to acknowledge the reality of the growing role of government in the economy, insisting instead on fighting 21st-century wars with 20th-century terms and tactics, then we are doomed to a fractious and unedifying debate. The sooner we understand where we truly stand, the sooner we can think more clearly about how to use government in today's world.

As the Obama administration presses the largest fiscal bill in American history, caps the salaries of executives at institutions receiving federal aid at $500,000 and introduces a new plan to rescue the banking industry, the unemployment rate is at its highest in 16 years. The Dow has slumped to 1998 levels, and last year mortgage foreclosures rose 81 percent.

All of this is unfolding in an economy that can no longer be understood, even in passing, as the Great Society vs. the Gipper. Whether we like it or not—or even whether many people have thought much about it or not—the numbers clearly suggest that we are headed in a more European direction. A decade ago U.S. government spending was 34.3 percent of GDP, compared with 48.2 percent in the euro zone—a roughly 14-point gap, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In 2010 U.S. spending is expected to be 39.9 percent of GDP, compared with 47.1 percent in the euro zone—a gap of less than 8 points. As entitlement spending rises over the next decade, we will become even more French.

This is not to say that berets will be all the rage this spring, or that Obama has promised a croissant in every toaster oven. But the simple fact of the matter is that the political conversation, which shifts from time to time, has shifted anew, and for the foreseeable future Americans will be more engaged with questions about how to manage a mixed economy than about whether we should have one.

The cover's symbolism, that Democrats and Republicans now come together under the banner of socialism, makes me want to vomit. Contrary to what the author and editors of Newsweek would like to think, not everyone in our country is willing to go along with this nonsense. Many of us are intelligent enough to see that opiate of federal government for what it is. Just because many mistakes have been made doesn't mean we have to just lay back and accept more. Too many of our forefather fought and died to prevent the well-intentioned evil of dependence on the state.

"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."
–Alexis de Tocqueville

With Congress now forcing a bill with $1.5 TRILLION dollars in new government spending, now is the time to rise up and prevent this restraint and servitude being thrust upon us under the guise of "economic stimulus." Our elected officials derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, but they are increasingly becoming destructive of these ends when they ignore the outcry from their constituents, choosing instead to fund "moral imperatives" like nationalized health care (and a host of other pork projects) by mortgaging our great-grandchildren's future.

“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.

The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
-C.S. Lewis from “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment.”

It's not too late. The so-called stimulus bill has not passed yet. We should not and cannot allow the leftists in our government to "remake" America into a socialist nation.

Transparency and accountability?

Did anyone else notice at President Obama's press conference that he didn't actually take questions from the press? He was calling people by name and asking where they were in the room: it looked like those he singled out for questions had already been screened in advance so that PBHO could have his answers prepared. President Bush, for all his many faults, was at least willing to take direct questions from the media.

A Rosetta Stone for Obama's first press conference

As disgusting as last night's "panicpalooza" press conference" was, it was no surprise. It's exactly what we get when we elect a man with no executive experience.

Those of us who've distrusted President Obama from the time of his disingenuous campaign have seen this kind of thing coming for two years. But even so, it was staggering to see an American president engage in such blatant fearmongering and brazenly obvious lies. Rather than addressing the public with the confidence and optimism that got him elected, President Obama instead chose the low road, invoking dire consequences if his spending plan isn't approved.

And President Obama speech was so laden with buzzwords, talking points and scare tactics, the American people either need a translator or a bullshit detector. Or both. So I've looked through the transcript of last night's "press conference" and picked out a few choice tidbits (minus all the stuttering, of course).

"I took a trip to Elkhart, Indiana, today. Elkhart is a place that has lost jobs faster than anywhere else in America. In one year, the unemployment rate went from 4.7 percent to 15.3 percent. "

Translation: Right off the bat, this was a calculated, dishonest attempt to use an anecdote to imply our national unemployment rate as being 15.3%. The national rate is still 7.6% according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

" In fact, local TV stations have started running public service announcements to tell people where to find food banks, even as the food banks don't have enough to meet the demand."

Translation: Food lines are back! Here comes the Great Depression, people!

"And if there's anyone out there who still doesn't believe this constitutes a full-blown crisis, I suggest speaking to one of the millions of Americans whose lives have been turned upside-down because they don't know where their next paycheck is coming from."

Ok, fine, speak to me! I lost my job last month and I have no savings. But I damn sure don't want my government to spend upwards of 1.5 TRILLION dollars to expand the federal government just so you can say you "did something."

"And that is why the single most important part of this economic recovery and reinvestment plan is the fact that it will save or create up to 4 million jobs, because that's what America needs most right now."

Translation: Did I say "save or create up to 3 million jobs" before? I meant 4 million! The new sound bite is "save or create up to 4 million jobs." Oh, and did I mention "save or create up to 4 million jobs"?

"It is absolutely true that we can't depend on government alone to create jobs or economic growth. That is and must be the role of the private sector. But at this particular moment, with the private sector so weakened by this recession, the federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back into life. It is only government that can break the vicious cycle, where lost jobs lead to people spending less money, which leads to even more layoffs."

Translation: A weak, insincere admission that government can't create jobs, coupled with a more emphatic assertion that ONLY GOVERNMENT can save the day.

"But as we've learned very clearly and conclusively over the last eight years, tax cuts alone can't solve all of our economic problems, especially tax cuts that are targeted to the wealthiest few Americans. We have tried that strategy time and time again, and it's only helped lead us to the crisis we face right now."

Translation: I just can't let an opportunity go by where I can stir up class warfare or demonize tax cuts and George W. Bush.

"Now, my administration inherited a deficit of over $1 trillion, but because we also inherited the most profound economic emergency since the Great Depression, doing little or nothing at all will result in even greater deficits, even greater job loss, even greater loss of income, and even greater loss of confidence."

Bullshit alert: Doesn't anyone remember the Carter years? During his mishandling of the economy, inflation soared to 11.3% and unemployment shot up to 8.5%. Contrast that with current inflation of 3.01% and unemployment at 7.6%. By the end of Carter's administration, mortgage rates were 15.4%. Today, they're in the 5.5% range. Yes, we're in hard times. But to characterize this as the worst economy since the Great Depression is seriously dishonest, and to hint that it will get even worse than the Great Depression is flagrant scaremongering.

In response to Jennifer Loven's question which called him on his doomsaying:

Loven: "Earlier today in Indiana, you said something striking. You said that this nation could end up in a crisis without action that we would be unable to reverse. Can you talk about what you know or what you're hearing that would lead you to say that our recession might be permanent when others in our history have not? And do you think that you risk losing some credibility or even talking down the economy by using dire language like that?"

PBHO: "No, no, no, no. I think that what I've said is what other economists have said across the political spectrum, which is that, if you delay acting on an economy of this severity, then you potentially create a negative spiral that becomes much more difficult for us to get out of.

Translation: Tap. Dance. Quick! Change the subject, cue the next scare story...

"We saw this happen in Japan in the 1990s, where they did not act boldly and swiftly enough and, as a consequence, they suffered what was called the lost decade, where essentially, for the entire '90s, they did not see any significant economic growth."

Translation: Gotta work in the "bold" and "swift" buzzwords while bolstering the doom-'n-gloom.

"Some of the criticisms really are with the basic idea that government should intervene at all in this moment of crisis. Now, you have some people, very sincere, who philosophically just think the government has no business interfering in the marketplace. And, in fact, there are several who've suggested that FDR [President Roosevelt] was wrong to interfere back in the New Deal. They're fighting battles that I thought were resolved a pretty long time ago."

Translation: Never mind the fact that FDR's meddling prolonged the Great Depression, if I say it was settled then that settles it.

"Most economists almost unanimously recognize that, even if philosophically you're -- you're wary of government intervening in the economy, when you have the kind of problem we have right now -- what started on Wall Street, goes to Main Street, suddenly businesses can't get credit, they start paring back their investment, they start laying off workers, workers start pulling back in terms of spending -- that, when you have that situation, that government is an important element of introducing some additional demand into the economy."

Translation: Whoa there, Captain Run-On Sentence. Most economists is a specious claim, as is the word unanimous. The Cato Institute skewered this canard with their ad featuring over 200 economists who take issue with the "stimulus".

"I'm happy to get good ideas from across the political spectrum, from Democrats and Republicans. What I won't do is return to the failed theories of the last eight years that got us into this fix in the first place, because those theories have been tested, and they have failed. And that's what part of the election in November was all about."

Translation: I'm happy to get ideas from across the political spectrum as long as they agree with what I want. I won, you lost, so suck it. You do what I say. No debate.

In answer to Chip Reid's question, "Did you underestimate how hard it would be to change the way Washington works?" President Obama stammered,

"Well, I don't think -- I don't think I underestimated it. I don't think the -- the American people underestimated it. They understand that there have been a lot of bad habits built up here in Washington, and it's going to take time to break down some of those bad habits."

Translation: Bad habits = disagreeing with Democrats and expecting debate on the merits of policy proposals.

"But what I've -- what I've been concerned about is some of the language that's been used suggesting that this is full of pork and this is wasteful government spending, so on and so forth."

Translation: The word "pork" doesn't sit well with the American people, so I'll say it's not pork and 52% will believe me.

"As I said, the one concern I've got on the stimulus package, in terms of the debate and listening to some of what's been said in Congress, is that there seems to be a set of folks who -- I don't doubt their sincerity -- who just believe that we should do nothing."

Translation: Must...marginalize...Republicans. Cannot allow them to have alternative proposals.

"Now, if that's their opening position or their closing position in negotiations, then we're probably not going to make much progress, because I don't think that's economically sound and I don't think what -- that's what the American people expect, is for us to stand by and do nothing."

Translation: More "suck it" from PBHO. No debate allowed. Also, a dishonest dismissal of the alternate proposals put forth by Republicans. They did not advocate "nothing" (although the Congressional Budget Office indicates that would be better than this THEFT bill.

"First of all, when I hear that from folks who presided over a doubling of the national debt, then, you know, I just want them to not engage in some revisionist history. I inherited the deficit that we have right now and the economic crisis that we have right now."

Translation: Hey, don't think about the fact that Democrats created the Freddy/Fannie crisis which caused this whole collapse. And don't think about the fact that Democrats have been in control of Congress since 2006. My HopeyMcChange plan will triple the deficit! That'll change things!

"I would love not to have to spend money right now. I'd love -- you know, this notion that somehow I came in here just ginned up to spend $800 billion, you know, I mean, that wasn't -- that wasn't -- that wasn't how I envisioned my presidency beginning."

Bullshit alert: Obama has been planning on spending a boatload of our money since his campaign began, disguised as "strengthen" or "jumpstart" the economy.

"But I am the eternal optimist. I think that, over time, people respond to civility and -- and rational argument."

Translation: I've gotta say something "hope-ish" to counter all the doom and gloom I'm throwing at you. Now where's my unicorn?

There's WAY more there, but I don't have time enough to address all of it. And that should speak volumes, given how long this post has already become. I really couldn't believe that PBHO could stand there with a straight face and say this GENERATIONAL THEFT bill doesn't have any earmarks in it. The House and Sentate versions of the "stimulus" bill is 1,400 pages, roughly the equivalent of the complete works of Shakespeare. And last night, he rambled on about as long as if he was reading all of them.
---
Contrast all this with President Reagan's Address to the Nation on the Economy in 1981 where he proposed a plan "forcing this Government to live within its means." He, too, spoke to the nation in dire economic straits, yet did so with poise and aplomb.

Senate passes spending bill 61/37, Schumer insults dissenters

Whatever happend to debate? Whatever happened to "dissent is patriotic"?

Whatever happened to civility, for that matter?

No more in Obamaland.

Not only is reckless spending the order of the day, they're no longer even afraid to call it what it is. Congress know they've railroaded America into approving this spending spree and they're not about to stop gorging themselves at the trough of public funds.

In fact, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) made a contemptuous display of arrogance that demonstrates just what he and the other 60 Senators with whom he voted truly think of the American people they've been elected to serve. (h/t: Michelle Malkin)

"And let me say this to all of the 'chattering class' that so much focuses on those little, tiny–yes, porky–amendments...the American people really don’t care."

Only in the Senate could someone say $838 BILLION dollars in admittedly wasteful spending is "tiny."

200+ economists DISAGREE with President Obama's spending bill

Even before he took office, Barack Obama "ginned up" the rhetoric to get the public to support what he knew would be a massive spending plan to expand the federal government.

"There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy." — President-elect Barack Obama, Jan 9, 2009

Now that he's the president, he's using his office as a bully pulpit to advocate TRILLIONS in foolhardy new pork-laced federal spending. And his speech tonight featured so many bald-faced lies, I can't even recount them all here until I have a transcript in front of me. But for now, let's grab this little nugget...

"Most economists...uhh...almost unanimously agree..."

Aside from his bumbling performance without a teleprompter, President Obama is just plain wrong.

Cato Institutue has run an ad which features over 200 economists (including Nobel laureates and other prominent scholars) who vehemently DISAGREE with this headlong charge to mortgage our grandchildren's future for the express purpose of expanding the federal government.

Happy Birthday, President Reagan!

As we celebrate today what would have been the 98th birthday of President Ronald Reagan, I'd like to share a few of the quotes that demonstrate why he was called "The Great Communicator." Reagan's inextinguishable optimism, patriotism, and dedication to freedom continue to give me more hope than any hollow slogans about change ever will. There's not enough room in a single post to include all the wit and wisdom from this magnificent statesman, but here are a few of my favorites...and just as appropriate today as when he spoke them.

• “One legislator accused me of having a nineteenth-century attitude on law and order. That is a totally false charge. I have an eighteenth-century attitude. That is when the Founding Fathers made it clear that the safety of law-abiding citizens should be one of the government’s primary concerns.”


• “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.”


• “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.”


• “Millions of individuals making their own decisions in the marketplace will always allocate resources better than any centralized government planning process”


• “But great as our tax burden is, it has not kept pace with public spending. For decades we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children’s future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals.”


• “Welfare’s purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.”


• “The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.”


• “Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.”


• “If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth. And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except to sovereign people, is still the newest and most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man. This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.”

Happy Birthday, Dutch!
---
UPDATE: A good summary by Clue Meter:

I think that what pisses off so many people about Ronald Reagan is what pisses so many people off about America: His good natured confidence, his willingness to do what is right in the face of opposition, and simply being right.

Yet another Obama Cabinet nominee with unpaid taxes

More "Judgment to Lead."

President Obama is developing quite a record for picking ethically-challenged Democrats for his Cabinet. There have been five so far: Bill Richardson, Timothy Geithner, Tom Daschle, Nancy Killefer, and now Hilda Solis:

WASHINGTON – Labor Secretary nominee Hilda Solis became the latest Cabinet nominee to face questions about unpaid taxes Thursday as a Senate panel abruptly postponed a scheduled vote on her confirmation. The postponement came after revelations that Solis’ husband settled tax liens on his California auto repair business this week that had been outstanding for as long as 16 years.

The discovery posed another political headache for a White House already chafing after tax problems and other controversies derailed some administration appointments, including former Sen. Tom Daschle’s nomination as health secretary. President Barack Obama pledged in TV interviews this week that he would “make sure that we’re not screwing up again” in the vetting process.

Too late. Looks like "screwing up again" will be replacing "change we can believe in."

Q: How do you get a Democrat to pay their taxes?
A: Nominate them for a position in Obama's cabinet.

President Obama orders charges dropped against USS Cole bombing suspect.

It's that "new era of (ir)responsibility" President Obama promised. Like Mr. Burns' "release the hounds", but with terrorists.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The senior military judge overseeing terror trials at Guantanamo Bay is expected to drop charges Friday against a suspect in the 2000 USS Cole bombing.

The legal move by the Hon. Susan J. Crawford would bring all Guantanamo cases into compliance with President Barack Obama's executive order to halt court proceedings at the Navy detention center in Cuba.

A senior Obama administration official told The Associated Press that the charges against Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri will be dismissed without prejudice. That means new charges can be brought again later.

It also gives the White House time to review the legal cases of all 245 terror suspects held there and decide whether they should be prosecuted in the U.S. or released to other nations.

If we drop the charges against the suspected bomber, but still continue to hold him without charges, doesn't this fly in the face of what the Left has been screaming about for years, namely Habeas Corpus rights for terrorist detainees? Let's put these asshats on trial and get it over with!

Capping President Obama's proposed pay caps

As you've probably already heard, President Obama is proposing a $500,000 annual cap on pay for top executives at companies receiving taxpayer funds. And he's tempering his class warfare message with a token nod at achievement.

"This is America, we don't disparage wealth. ... What gets people upset, and rightfully so, is executives being rewarded for failure. Especially when those rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers," he said.

The president won support in Washington, with some Republicans who were critical of the financial sector bailout praising the move. But Wall Street critics said the compensation cap was a political gambit that could prompt a talent flight from affected firms.

Obama, a Democrat who succeeded Republican George W. Bush two weeks ago, said his administration would not allow public money to be wasted on payouts to CEOs whose businesses helped spur the financial and economic crisis.

"For top executives to award themselves these kinds of compensation packages in the midst of this economic crisis is not only bad taste -- it's bad strategy -- and I will not tolerate it as president," he said.

I got into a spirited exchange on Twitter yesterday with a gentleman who welcomed Obama's attack on capitalism, saying "FINALLY!!! Someone with balls enough to stand up to corporate America!!! gO-bama, gO-bama." My sarcastic retort earned a response stating basically that unless I am getting a taxpayer-funded bailout, I should have nothing to worry about.

While his argument makes sense on its face and appeals to my inclination toward Libertarian-style thought, I think the issue goes way deeper than that. Just because it makes sense that government money comes with strings attached doesn't mean it's Constitutional to do so.

Fact is, the president has NO authority to limit the salaries of private individuals because it's not within government's enumerated powers to do so. Specifically, President Obama's proposed salary caps are a violation of the Contract Clause in the United States Constitution, Article I, section 10, clause 1.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

To wit, neither the President nor Congress can go back and alter an executive's contractually-agreed compensation. That is ex post facto and clearly forbidden. Companies have provisions to recover performance-based compensation (some "clawback provisions" require a CEO to return compensation to shareholders if promised results aren't delivered), but the government has no right to do so by executive fiat.

In addition, I think it sets a dangerous precedent. Or rather, given the torrent of bailouts our government has indulged in, it takes a dangerous precedent even further. If President Obama can appeal to the masses' envy to curtail achievement in the name of "fairness", where will it end? Will he next go after professional athletes and team owners, who rake in multi-million dollar salaries for playing a game "in the midst of this economic crisis"? Will he tell the Hollywood elite that they are no longer allowed to earn millions of dollars for every movie they make "in the midst of this economic crisis"? Will he take on Union bosses' salaries and limit the amount trial lawyers can charge "in the midst of this economic crisis"?

Socialism and nationalization are terms that have been thrown around a lot recently with the discussions about "universal healthcare." Nationalization is the process by which the government assumes control of a private industry and its assets. And isn't that exactly what's happening with these bailouts? Having the government demand results for its investment seems to make sense. But the point is, our government shouldn't be having a say in these private companies' payroll because they shouldn't be wasting our money by propping up their failure in the first place!

Under Democrat leadership, the federal government continues to rapidly insert its tendrils into more areas of our lives. And in so doing, extends its control beyond its legal limits. It will continue to do so until we demand an end to this creeping socialism.

The notion that I shouldn't care if President Obama limits executive pay reminds me of the well-known poem by Pastor Martin Niemöller:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Just because I'm not a top executive pulling down a multi-million dollar salary doesn't mean I think it's ok for the government to start telling people what they are allowed to earn. Before you know it, they'll be coming for your salary, under the guise of "fairness" and "in the midst of this economic crisis."

Mr. President, if you don't want to tolerate the idea of failed executives receiving the compensation for which they've previously negotiated, then don't get involved with it. Let those businesses fail. These ships of industry will right themselves without your help. Infusing them with taxpayer cash not only rewards and perpetuates failure, it expands the scope of government. And that is something I will not tolerate as a taxpayer.

If the government truly doesn't want to reward failure and believes in capping salaries, how about we start by tying their compensation to their approval rating?
---
UPDATE: Judge Andrew Napolitano likened President Obama's executive pay limits to the government putting speech restrictions on welfare recipients...“You can have your welfare check but are forbidden from criticizing the government.” (h/t: The Minority Report)

Pelosi: 500 million Americans lose their jobs EVERY MONTH?

House Speaker (and Crypt Keeper) Nancy Pelosi demonstrates the breathtaking stupidity that makes her unfit for office. Via CNN:

"Every month that we do not have an economic recovery package, 500 million Americans lose their jobs. I don't think we can go fast enough to stop that. The president asked for action, swift and bold. And that is what we are doing."

Umm, excuse me...500 million Americans become unemployed every month? Well, geez, that explains why we need to throw $1 TRILLION dollars at the problem, huh?

Rus Thompson runs the numbers:

Given that the current US population accourding to the US Census Bureau is 305,742,092. That makes for an unemployment rate of 164%. If you add up the population of the US, Canada, Mexico, and the part of Iceland that is on North America, you get less than 500 Million. At this rate in less than 2 weeks we will all be out of a job.

I know Democrats are prone to exaggerate while fear-mongering, but the entire world population would be unemployed within 13 months if things were moving at that rate. So hurry! Get that porkulus bill passed now!! Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain (he's out of work, anyway)!

To Speaker Pelosi, I can only say that she should heed the words of the Great Emancipator:

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." ~Abraham Lincoln

---
UPDATE: DrewM. at Ace of Spades HQ observes the media hypocrisy:

Imagine for a moment if Sarah Palin had said this. It would have been the lead story on every netework and Keith Olbermann would have gone into a snark induced coma (which may be a fair trade when you think about it). But now? Not even crickets.

Allahpundit asks:

“Which of the 57 states will be hit hardest by the downturn?”

Midweek Peek 02.04.09

Hottie Annie Wersching plays the role of Agent Renee Walker on Fox's 24.

President Obama to increase the defense budget?

The more things change...

According to Congressional Quarterly, President Obama will be approving a $14 billion increase in the U.S. defense budget, keeping things in line with what President Bush had approved. That's something sure to anger the anti-war Left!

The Obama administration has given the Pentagon a $527 billion limit, excluding war costs, for its fiscal 2010 defense budget, an Office of Management and Budget official said Monday.

If enacted, that would be an 8 percent increase from the $487.7 billion allocated for fiscal 2009 (PL 110-329), and it would match what the Bush administration estimated last year for the Pentagon in fiscal 2010. But it sets up a potential conflict between the new administration and the Defense Department’s entrenched bureaucracy, which has remained largely intact through the presidential transition.

Some Pentagon officials and congressional conservatives are already trying to portray the OMB number as a cut by comparing it to a $584 billion draft fiscal 2010 budget request compiled last fall by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The $527 billion figure is “what the Bush people thought was the right number last February and that’s the number we’re going with,” said the OMB official, who declined to be identified. “The Joint Chiefs did that to lay down a marker for the incoming administration that was unrealistic. It’s more of a wish list than anything else.”

Fox News seems to have done what the liberal media did for 8 years with President Bush: report a spending increase as a spending cut when it doesn't meet their wish list. As Ed Morrissey notes, "an increase above the rate of inflation is never a cut, in either the Bush or the Obama administration."

Time will tell, of course, whether these announced increases actually make it into the final budget. And I know I'm probably setting myself up for disappointment by giving President Obama the benefit of the doubt, but I'm sincerely hoping this will be one place where he won't make good on his campaign pledge to gut the military.

Another Obama nominee withdraws over tax problems

Schadenfreude-licious!

Nancy Killefer, who failed for a year and a half to pay employment taxes on household help, has withdrawn her candidacy to be the first chief performance officer for the federal government, the White House said Tuesday.

Killefer was the second major Obama administration nominee to withdraw and the third to have tax problems complicate their nomination after President Barack Obama announced their selection.

The White House said Obama had accepted Killefer’s decision and that the 55-year-old executive with consulting giant McKinsey & Co., would explain her reasons for pulling out later Tuesday.

When her selection was announced by Obama on Jan. 7, The Associated Press disclosed that in 2005 the District of Columbia government had filed a $946.69 tax lien on her home for failure to pay unemployment compensation tax on household help.

Tom Daschle also withdrew his candidacy today after it became clear that his failure to pay $146,000 in back taxes had become yet another millstone around The One's neck.

Mr. Daschle withdrew a day after Mr. Obama unequivocally declared that he would stand behind him as his problems over income tax arrears were scrutinized on Capitol Hill. The nominee’s tax issues had developed into a troublesome distraction for the president, who entered the White House pledging to hold his people to the highest ethical standards.

The president said he accepted Mr. Daschle’s sudden withdrawal “with sadness and regret.”

Later, the chief White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said Mr. Daschle had made his own decision to withdraw. “He did not get a signal” from the White House, Mr. Gibbs said.

But there was no suggestion either that President Obama had tried to persuade Mr. Daschle not to pull out, just as there was no hint that the president had tried to dissuade Nancy Killefer, his choice for chief White House performance officer, from withdrawing earlier in the day. She, too, cited tax arrears, in her case District of Columbia unemployment taxes.

What was that President Obama kept touting during his campaign? Why, I believe it was regarding his judgment.



Yep, President Obama sure can pick 'em. Actually, I'm glad that both of these crooks aren't going to be part of Obama's cabinet after all. But I'm still plenty pissed off that Timothy Geithner was confirmed as Treasury Secretary despite the fact that he failed to pay $34,000 in taxes.

Sean Hannity reminds us this isn't just an isolated incident:

Here’s the question. Why don’t liberals pay taxes? We kept hearing the Caroline Kennedy had a tax problem. Timothy Geithner has a tax problem. The committee that writes tax law, the House Ways and Means Committee, well their chairman Charlie Rangel, whoops sorry, he failed to report seventy-five thousand dollars in income. Oh it’s a hiccup, it’s not a problem, and of course we have I guess, the hero of every liberal is Al Franken and Al Franken didn’t pay his taxes in what, eighteen states or whatever it was at the time. I mean just absurd.

So are we to assume, as Biden implies, that these Democrats are (wait for it) unpatriotic?

President Obama backs his choice of tax cheats

Chalk up another Democrat for Obama's Department of "Do As I Say, Not As I Do:" (h/t: National Review)

“Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter.” Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, May 7, 1998

Yep, those were the words of President Obama's choice to head up Health and Human Services in taking over America's healthcare industry. Only now that he's been caught for cheating the IRS for $146,000 in back taxes, Daschle is trying to apologize:

"I am deeply embarrassed and disappointed by the errors that required me to amend my tax returns. I apologize for the errors and profoundly regret that you have had to devote time to them."

Yeah, I bet if I evade paying my taxes, the IRS would be satisfied with an apology and a belated check, then everything would be just hunky-dory with no punishments or jail time.

President Obama and his team have to have known about this as well as Timothy Geithner's failure to pay back taxes and interest totaling $43,200 for income he earned at the International Monetary Fund. Yet they sat on this information until it exploded in their faces.

Their excuse? "...nobody is perfect," says White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

Here's another money quote for the day, courtesy of Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat who, coincidentally, happens to be on the Finance Committee: “We wish this didn’t happen, but [President Obama has] chosen such quality people that nobody minds taking a bit of an extra step to help get them in.”

Gotcha politics aside, why would President Obama want such unlawful politicians to represent his administration? Why not start off with people of high moral character rather than known shysters?

So much for Obama's promise that “Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.” It's kinda like President Clinton's promise that his would be "the most ethical administration in the history of the Republic." Perhaps BHO is gonna give Clinton a run for his money. Because he's standing behind Daschle "absolutely."

But of course he does. After all, "Only the little people pay taxes."

My picks for best Super Bowl ads

Doritos, "Crystal Ball"

Who doesn't like seeing the boss take one to the crotch?

Audi, "The Chase"

A fun tongue-in-cheek look at getaway cars throughout the years, making good use of Jason Statham's on-screen cred as an expert driver.

CareerBuilder.com, "Tips"

The use of repetition is Advertising 101. But I despise repetition. This one uses a "House that Jack Built"-style prose to drive home their message. I don't know if it differentiates CareerBuilder.com from Monster.com. But I give them extra points for punching a koala bear in the face.

Budweiser, "Clydesdale Generation"

Usually, Budweiser's Clydesdale ads are touching or funny. This one, sadly, is neither. But I thought it made good use of the mascot and played off the heritage of the brand.

Pepsi Max, "I'm Good"

I'm torn whether this spot passes my bullsh*t meter (re: selling diet cola to men). But the slapstick was engaging and the "I'm Good" phrase has a 50/50 shot of catching on.

Cash4Gold.com, "Goodbye old friend"

Most of Cash4Gold.com's ads are terribly cheap and eminently forgettable. This one makes good use of bygone celebrities in a self-deprecating manner that gets the message across with a smile.

Coca-Cola, "Heist"

While I might question the use of insects to sell a sugared soft drink, the animation is cute and whimsical enough to defuse the obvious clash in appetite appeal. Definitely gets the point across about refreshment and manages to show an innovative drink shot at the end.

Coke Zero, "Mean Troy"

I've enjoyed the Coke Zero campaign with the brand managers who seek to sue Coke for "taste infringement," it's a clever way to get sell Coke Zero as tasting better than most diet sodas. This commercial was a great tribute to Coke's now-famous "Mean Joe Green" commercial from 1979, using Pittsburgh's Troy Polamalu in the starring role. Works on the nostalgia level as well as for those who weren't born at the time of the original spot. (h/t: Kanaka Girl for reminding me about this one)

Hulu.com, "Evil Plot"

Despite my dislike for Alec Baldwin's politics (hey, isn't he supposed to have moved to France by now?) this was of the funniest ads of the evening.

Bridgestone, "Taters"

I liked the humorous use of retro-icon Mr. & Mrs. Potato Head. Although I did wonder if feminists would complain about the nagging wife aspect of the spot. But I thought this one had a disarming way of working in the product attribute.

Pepsi MacGruber, "Pepsuber"

Although this is a terrible shoehorn of the Pepsi brand, I must admit that the MacGruber skits on SNL are a guilty pleasure of mine. So I laughed at this, despite how obviously forced it was. Given the fact that the heavy-handedness with the brand is done with a knowing wink to the audience, I think it still works. Nice cameo by Richard Dean Anderson (MacGyver), too.

---

One of my favorite things about the Super Bowl commercials is the fact that studios take advantage of the opportunity to wow audiences with trailers for the newest upcoming blockbusters. These didn't disappoint.

Star Trek trailer

I still don't know if this retread will chart a new course or not, but it looks damn good. If nothing else, I want to see how well Zachary Quinto (Sylar from TV's "Heroes") portrays Mr. Spock.

Land Of The Lost trailer

As someone who grew up watching the Saturday morning episodes of everything Sid & Marty Croft ever made, I've got a built-in interest in seeing this one. The Jurassic Park dinosaurs and Will Ferrell add extra incentive. But I'm most looking forward to seeing the Sleestaks!

Besides, this trailer gave me my favorite line of the night: "Matt Lauer can eat it!"

Because he can.

And should.