It is Finished

The healthcare debate is over. The quasi-socialist Democratic party is rejoicing in the orgasmic throes of victory, having successfully wrested control of the U.S. health insurance industry from the private sector. In a 219-212 vote, the healthcare bill passed. Not a single Republican voted for it.

I am in a blind rage. I can only offer my fragmented thoughts in the following paragraphs. Other more adept pundits have explicated the severity of this situation far more deeply than I ever could. I can only offer you a common man's fury.

The sheer numbers are dizzying. Over ten years, this bill will cost over $900 billion. Subsidized insurance will lead to soaring deficits and higher taxes. President Obama has consistently lied through his teeth about the economic ramifications of his pet project. Do not be taken in. You cannot spend $900 billion and claim that doing so is "deficit neutral".

It is safe to say that the United States will never again in its history be able to pay off the national deficit. We will owe other countries money until the end of our republic's existence (whenever that may be). Our inability to live within our means, and our addiction to the unfabricated concept of an all-powerful, all-helpful federal government, have brought us to this point.

Rest assured, President Obama is surely happy. He's made that quite clear, what with his arrogant, gloating pontificating: "This is what change looks like!" I agree with him. This is what his party's idea of what change looks like: ugly, divisive, inefficient, impractical, morally bankrupt. Everything about the Democrat's healthcare policymaking, from their use of bribes and kickbacks to their unfettered support of abortion, smacks of absolute moral cluelessness. They lied to the American people about the contents of the bill. They made it clear that they would pass it by any means neccesary, ignoring established procedures and the fact that only 30% of the country wanted the bill to pass. And they have disregarded the sacred desire of pro-life Americans to abstain from funding infanticide with their own tax dollars. The rape of my earnings by taxation each week is bad enough; that those dollars are now going from my paycheck to some bullshit "community health center", and ultimately to abortion providers, sickens me. The colonists rebelled against the British Empire for a hell of a lot less.

An aside to Representative Bart Stupak, the "pro-life Democrat" (there is no such thing): you, sir, are a dishonest, useless bastard. Your posturing as a pro-lifer means nothing in light of your ultimate weak capitulation to the White House. I take back every positive thing that I may have said about you. You have proven that, like every other Democrat in America, your natural sense of right and wrong is trumped by dollar signs and matters of political expediency. This is why I hate everyone of your ilk, and why I sincerely hope that the Democratic party is obliterated in November. The only good Democrat is an unseated Democrat.

In the past year Obama has directed the federal takeover of significant chunks of the U.S. banking industry, the U.S. car industry, and now the U.S. health insurance industry. When the market is bad, it's the perfect time to buy. The President has used the current economic downturn as an excuse to carry out the hyper-regulatory fantasies that Democrats have only been able to grasp at for the past fifty years.

This bill will be a massive burden on our country. Instead of real reform, we have a mere power grab. Liberals hated it when George W. Bush listened in on the phone conversations of terrorists, but they don't care about the protection of privacy when industry is concerned.

May God bless us with a repeal, whether now or some other day.

Wishful Thinking

The Boston Globe says that Catholic opposition to President Obama's awful healthcare plan is "crumbling".

Bullshit. There is still an enormous number of Catholics who oppose this bill, on the grounds that it is undoubtedly going to lead to taxpayer-funded abortions.

I have more to say on this later, but know this: if the Catholic Church supports the Obama administration on this healthcare reform bill, it will reap the consequences. There will be stronger government promotion/coverage of abortion (if Obama can muscle, cheat, and lie this bill through Congress, he will surely defeat its abortion-restricting stipulations similarly). There will be a stronger Democratic party, willing to continue its march towards moral obliteration for all. And there will be an association of Catholicism with the American left that will weaken and hurt Catholicism's position opposite liberal licentiousness on many issues.

Embarassing

The United States has apologized to terrorist-harboring dictator Muammar Gaddafi of Libya for criticizing his calls for Jihad against Switzerland.

Go ahead and click on that link. Read the story. This is one of the most humiliating and embarassing diplomatic blunders that Obama's White House has yet committed. Gaddafi's government has openly assisted terrorist groups that have killed American citizens in the past. And we are apologizing to him because we were critical of his calls for more terrorism?

If President Obama does not immediately rectify this situation, than he will cement his place the weakest, most impotent American president since Carter, as far as international relations are concerned.

"First Thoughts": Be Careful About Blasting Obama for Supreme Court Remarks

First Thoughts cautions conservatives not to be too quick to judge Obama for the criticism of the Supreme Court that he doled out in his State of the Union address. Twas' the all-powerful nine justices who rammed abortion down our throats, after all.

Looks like I'm not the only one who felt this way!

President Obama's State of the Union Address

As the President of the United States prepares to deliver the annual State of the Union address, I can only ask one question: what can he say? What has he done during the first year of his presidency to alter the union's prospects for the better? What can he point to as he stands before the entire country and attempts to justify his first year as our leader?

In light of diving poll numbers, State Senator Scott Brown's bill-killing victory in the Massachusetts senate race, and the basic failure of "Obamaism" in terms of claiming legislative victories, there is not much material to draw from.

The massive spending/stimulus packages? Utterly ineffective.

Obama's decision to send reinforcements to Afghanistan? Right, perhaps, but late.

Obama's healthcare bill? Dead in the water.

Obama's attempts to campaign for Democratic candidates around the country? 0 for 3.

Unemployment? Higher than it was a year ago.

Lay-offs? Steadily streaming.

Hence, there is not much good news to share. Most are expecting a fundamentally reactive presentation. Now is not the time for Obama to jog onstage and arrogantly reassert the failed healthcare reform initiative that he pushed in 2009. Now is not the time for him to set his chin angrily and raise his voice into that telltale shout that he uses when he wants to "talk tough" about his agenda. When you're being hammered by your constituents, and when your cheerleaders in the press can barely conceal the public's anger, you must give an inch or two. Is it not a bad sign for Obama that he's already publicly mulling over the ramifications of losing in 2012?

Look for Obama to reach for some middle ground, hawking his policy goals with renewed rhetorical vigor while simultaneously acknowledging the brick walls.

Obama's Last-Minute Trip to Boston

Again, I return to the subject of the pending Massachusetts election. At this point it has become a national story. The intensity was ratcheted up today by President Obama's last-minute, emergency trip to Boston, where he stumped for Coakley after spending a couple of weeks saying that he had no plans to do so.

Obama's visit is indicative of the Democrat's utter terror at the prospect of losing. Earlier this week, one poll showed that Brown was not only alive and well, but leading the race. This made Coakley's shy, non-campaigning, and her increasingly negative tone, seem ever more inappropriate; you can't project complacency and arrogance when you're losing. Hence Obama came to invigorate her lackluster campaign with some liberal, hope-and-change magic.

Needless to say, the president is worried about Brown's ability to kill the healthcare reform bill that is currently being rammed down our throats. It's highly unlikely that he would have flown to Massachusetts if the bill was already a done deal. Obama's visit is yet another example of his White House's constant "campaign mode" method of dealing with public policy challenges.

If Brown wins, Obama will have spent political capital on a high-profile, losing battle. Surely, a Brown victory will be seen as a repudiation of Obama's presidency. This is Massachusetts. It is the most liberal state in the union. A Republican victory here would be a clear sign that liberalism is not as embraced in America as its proponents want everyone to think.

P.S.- Is it not delightful that the vile blob of uselessness known as Representative Barney Frank (D-Newton) is already trying to distance the Democratic establishment from Coakley, should she lose?

P.S.S.- Senator Chuck Schumer is an asshole. His crude, politically-irrelevant cutdown of Scott Brown leaves me unable to call him anything else.

Reid's Obama Gaffe Is Telling Indeed

Yesterday, Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada), the Senate Majority Leader and the White House's healthcare reform lackey, apologized for racially insensitive comments that he made during the 2008 presidential campaign season. The apology was prompted by the fact that Reid's quotes will be appearing in Mark Halperin and John Heileman's new book Game Change, which will detail the 2008 campaign. The crux of the controversy is that Reid apparently referred to then-Senator Obama as a "light-skinned" African-American "with no negro dialect-unless he wants to have one", and remarked that the country would accept such a candidate with ease.

From what I have read, Reid's statements about Obama being "light-skinned" and lacking "a negro dialect" seem to be drawing the most heat from the media. I find the context of the remarks even more disturbing, though.

Remember that Reid was assessing Obama's strength as a candidate when he made these remarks. That he felt the need to appraise Obama's lack of darker skin and his caucasian speaking voice as positive selling points for the Democratic Party is telling. It would seem that at the highest levels, the Democrats were indeed conscious of Obama's viability in regards to the race card. Reid apparently saw potential in Obama's lack of typical African-American features; had Obama been a "blacker" candidate, would Reid have been more ambivalent? What if Obama had featured what Reid called "a negro dialect"? Apparently, the Democrats (or at least their Majority Leader) want their candidates to be diverse, but only to a point. They claim to be the party of tolerance, but African-Americans with "a negro dialect" need not apply.

Being white, I can't speak for African-Americans on how they feel about this. I would guess, however, that many of them are insulted, and I cannot blame them.

P.S. Yes, I know, Reid apologized. Politically-motivated apologies, spurred only by the fact that the initial offense is becoming public, do not impress me.

P.S.S. Reid's chances of re-election are not promising. I look forward to the embarassment that the healthcare reformists will face when half of them are given a beatdown at the polls when the time comes.

P.S.S.S. If Reid runs for re-election, I am willing to bet that ACORN will stage a coup in Nevada.

Liar of the Week: U.S. Senator Paul Kirk

Ah, the pie crust promise: easily made, easily broken. After pledging not to endorse anyone in the race for the open Massachusetts senate seat, interim-Senator Paul Kirk has gone ahead and endorsed Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. Mission accomplished: talk a good game to your constituents, make them think that you are going to stay above the partisan fray, and then go back on your word the second that people aren't paying attention (after all, Kirk is hardly a household name, and has kept a low profile in the Upper House; his endorsement's effectiveness does not trouble me, only the fact that he made it at all).

After all the cornball moralizing that the Democrats have engaged in for themselves and their annointed one Obama, with their gag-worthy "hope and change" and (my personal favorite) their "politics of transformation", it's reassuring to remember that they don't live up to one single blessed word of it. They are liars, and in this particular case, Paul Kirk is a liar. He has explicitly broken a promise made to the people of Massachusetts.

How come all of these educated adults with law degrees have the gall to say one thing, do another, and expect us not to care? Because we let them get away with it by re-electing them, by remaining ignorant of what they are actually doing, and by failing to hold them accountable.

He's far from perfect, but State Senator Scott Brown is looking like a better and better candidate these days (and a more viable one, at that). The complacent, fat-cat Massachusetts Democratic Party treats the people of our state like we're stupid. Let's prove to them that we know when we've been lied to.

Who's Afraid of the "T" Word?

SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word "terrorism." Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?

Janet Napolitano: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

- Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, March 2009 interview with Der Spiegel

In light of the gaping security breaches that became evident during the failed Christmas Day bombing plot, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano's above statement has become a major subject of debate and ire across the U.S. Coupled with her initial pronouncement that "the system worked" on Christmas Day (ignoring the fact that a disaster was averted only by terrorist stupidity), Napolitano's past statement is causing major concerns about her efficacy as one of the nation's top security officials.

Some are calling for her head. Some are coming to her defense. Predictably, Obama has made it clear that (barring mass public opposition) he will not be swayed by Napolitano's detractors.

Napolitano's demure attitude towards the word "terrorism" is far more troublesome than the left is willing to admit. Mind you that for me, the recent controversy is merely so much more icing on the cake. From the beginning, I never liked her. A great piece from American Thinker briefly and rightfully reminds us that Napolitano branded pro-life individuals and returning military veterans as domestic security threats. This nakedly partisan approach to national security suggests a lack of focus on the real danger. For all their whining about Bush and Cheney's "totalitarian" ways, lefties seem awfully willing to use homeland security powers against those whom they find distasteful.

Perhaps we should merely expect Obama's DHS secretary to target those who disagree with him, on political principle. But for a sitting DHS Secretary to openly deride the term "terrorism" as part and parcel of "the politics of fear"? It's ridiculous. By cloaking the reality of today's terrorist threat in politically-correct language so as not to scare people, Napolitano and company seem to be the ones who are most afraid. They are afraid of the truth. Terrorism is a real, potent, and unpredictable threat that we face. There is no point in calling it anything other than what it is. Semantics can't change the facts.

P.S.- Obama's nomination of Erroll Southers for the long-vacant Transit Security Administration leadership position is running into some fresh snags. Looks like he was censured by the FBI in the past, and GOP senators are none too happy. How many more senate confirmation woes can Obama afford before his political capital is effected?

The Fallout from Detroit

Since the attempted Christmas Day terror plot was foiled, there has been a plethora of commentary, and I have been playing catch-up. I was late to the game, having found out about the attempted attack two days after it occured (I took a break from TV and online news sources during my four day Christmas vacation; go figure, I missed out on something huge).

I personally find the plot's timing to be eerie. Just a few weeks ago, I discussed terrorism with my family and opined that an attack carried out over the holidays could be devastating. American morale is not at its highest, and the respite provided by the holidays is key to a stable national mood. It would not surprise me if terrorists symbolically used a western, Christian holiday as an opportunity to remind us that they want to bring our society to its knees.

I must say, I find it unforunate that the AFP and other media outlets are referring to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's "averted" terror plot. The plot was not "averted". To say it was averted is to imply that direct action was taken that derailed the scheme. Nothing could be further than the truth: it was a happy accident that the plane was not destroyed, and nothing more.

It is sad that the terrorist's own incompetence was all that stood in the way of innocent lives being lost. This incident has shaken the country's confidence in its federal government severely; bureucratic snafus and a lack of vigilance on our government's part are completely unacceptable. We know how real the danger is, and we ought to be past the point of making stupid mistakes.

There has been much scrambling on both sides of the aisle to either minimize or maximize the political effects of the plot, and the ensuing public ire. Some are blaming the Obama administration, while the administration's supporters are pointing to (who else?) George W. Bush, saying that he was never given any grief for presiding over faulty airline security regulations. I guess it's true that you can't let a crisis go to waste. For my part, though the partisanship on display in light of a serious terror plot is somewhat nauseating, I believe that the questioning of the Obama administration's handling of the incident is legitimate (just read Tony Harnden's compelling Telegraph piece on the subject).

Obama's initial dismissal of Abdulmutallad as an "isolated extremist" is particularly troubling, as it has become clear in recent days that the terrorist has clear ties to Al-Qaeda. Was Obama downplaying the scale of the plot? Was he misinformed? Was he lying? None of those three possibilities inspires confidence. Nor do the words and deeds of Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, who had to retool her initial assertion that "the system worked" in regards to U.S. security efforts to stop the attack.

Blame games aside, this incident is proof positive that the federal government needs to drastically reduce the bureaucratic lollygagging betwixt its intelligence, law enforcement, and security agencies if it is going to successfully protect U.S. citizens. After the Fort Hood massacre earlier this year, this need became obvious. Now we've been given a harrowing second reminder. There should not be a third.

Nuclear Dreams Can Come True

Check out this lovely image of Iran's recent long-range Sejil-2 missile being tested. The projectile's launch, which "hit the defined target" according to Iranian officials, is a clear and frightening signal from Iran that it remains serious about developing a nuclear arsenal.

This test comes just as a British newspaper leaked word that Iran has been developing a trigger device that has no civilian application whatsoever: it is strictly a component used to build nuclear weapons.

It is easy to compartmentalize our Middle Eastern woes. Lately, as the question of the U.S. commitment to Afghanistan has been hotly debated, the public discourses on Iraq and Iran have died down somewhat. Our attention is fixed firmly on the question of our troop surge in Afghanistan, and President Obama's plans for that particular conflict. This is understandable. However, waking up to the sight of an Iranian-made missile, capable of delivering a nuclear payload up to 1200 miles, being tested is certainly uncomfortable. Accordingly, our policy towards Iran is being given a little more thought.

Inevitably, people will be disappointed with what they find upon closer inspection of our policy. Remember that nuclear missile defense shield program? The one that President Obama discontinued, in order to please our "friends" in Moscow? I wonder if anyone of the Pelosi/Reid mindset will take a second look at it, given the circumstances we now find ourselves with. It would sure as hell be a good time to have nuclear defense capabilities.

As for the renewed political and economic sanctions that President Obama has promised to level at Iran: have sanctions ever really worked? Have they ever proved a genuinely useful alternative to armed conflict or more strenuous diplomatic measures? In Cuba, they failed to bring about the downfall of Castro's communist regime. In Iraq, they failed to even remotely deter Saddam Hussein from his evil deeds. In North Korea, they continue to be employed despite Kim Jong-Il's continued nose-thumbing. As Congressman Ron Paul points out, sanctions may even have the effect of hurting the very people that hate Iran's government the most: its own citizens.*

In the coming months, President Obama and both houses of Congress had best retool the strategy considerably. Tepid sanctions and liberal grandstanding on the issue of nuclear defense systems are not in our best interests right now. Iran has taken the game to a new level, and we ought to carefully consider the threat now posed to U.S. interests, as well as a course that we can chart to safely defuse this situation.


*- Despite my respect for the man, I am not part of the "Ron Paul Revolution". Nor do I completely agree with everything he says in the above article. But on the particular issue of sanctions, I can see his point.