Obama's Idea of Bipartisanship

President Obama's dog and pony show, a.k.a. "health care summit," is the latest example of Democrat "bipartisanship."

Obama listened politely for six hours, with occasional flashes of temper, but in the end, the message was clear: It’s over. We’re moving forward without Republicans.

Whether Obama and Dems will succeed in passing reform on their own is anything but assured, to put it mildly. But there’s virtually no doubt anymore that they are going to try — starting as early as tomorrow.

That was the subtle but unmistakable message of Obama’s closing argument. After hours of hearing Republicans repeat again and again that only an incremental approach to reform is acceptable to them, Obama rejected that out of hand.

Emphasis mine.

For the record, bipartisanship would be for Democrats to scale back their ideas to a place where Republicans (and the American people) would agree. But Democrats think bipartisanship is holding a talk fest where they don't listen, then doing what they want to do anyway. And voters will reward them for it in November with a nice, long vacation.

UPDATE: Dems are already giving up on 2010, and arguing that the "real referendum" on Obama and the Democrats won't come till 2012. Of course, by that point, Republicans will have forced Obama to the center, making him look far less radical--and assholish--than he does today.

The PC Police Strike the Canadian Women's Hockey Team

This story is ridiculous.

The International Olympic Committee will investigate the actions of Canadian women's hockey players who celebrated their gold medal victory Thursday night by swigging beer and smoking cigars on the ice in Vancouver.

A number of players, including 18-year-old superstar Marie-Philip Poulin, were drinking alcohol on the ice following the team's 2-0 defeat of the United States. (The legal drinking age in British Columbia is 19.) Players lingered for more than 70 minutes after the awards ceremony reveling in the arena, which was empty except for media and arena staff.

Gilbert Felli, the IOC's executive director of the Olympic Games, said that drinking in public was "not what we want to see" from athletes at an Olympic venue. The organization will investigate the actions and will speak with the international hockey federation and Canadian Olympic Committee and ask them to "act accordingly."

Horrors! Beer and cigars! By women! And one is 12 months underage! We can't have that! Apparently, some are calling for punishment, but what would be appropriate? Spanking?

I'm all for enforcing the law, but this sort of heavy-handed scolding doesn't protect anyone or help anyone. Eighteen-year-olds watching the Canadian women's hockey team celebrate are no more or less likely to drink just because a peer drank a beer.

Waterboarding Is Not Torture

And we have the provisions to prove it.

While the country and the Congress have their eyes on today’s dog-and-pony show on socialized medicine, House Democrats last night stashed a new provision in the intelligence bill which is to be voted on today. It is an attack on the CIA: the enactment of a criminal statute that would ban “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.”...

“Waterboarding” is specified. In one sense, I’m glad they’ve done this because it proves a point I’ve been making all along. Waterboarding, as it was practiced by the CIA, is not torture and was never illegal under U.S. law. The reason the Democrats are reduced to doing this is: what they’ve been saying is not true — waterboarding was not a crime and it was fully supported by congressional leaders of both parties, who were told about it while it was being done. On that score, it is interesting to note that while Democrats secretly tucked this provision into an important bill, hoping no one would notice until it was too late, they failed to include in the bill a proposed Republican amendment that would have required full and complete disclosure of records describing the briefings members of Congress received about the Bush CIA’s enhanced interrogation program. Those briefings, of course, would establish that Speaker Pelosi and others knew all about the program and lodged no objections. Naturally, members of Congress are not targeted by this criminal statute — only the CIA.

More to the point, this shows how politicized law-enforcement has become under the Obama Democrats. They could have criminalized waterboarding at any time since Jan. 20, 2009. But they waited until now. Why? Because if they had tried to do it before now, it would have been a tacit admission that waterboarding was not illegal when the Bush CIA was using it. That would have harmed the politicized witch-hunt against John Yoo and Jay Bybee, a key component of which was the assumption that waterboarding and the other tactics they authorizied were illegal. Only now, when that witch-hunt has collapsed, have the Democrats moved to criminalize these tactics. It is transparently partisan.

We've been told for years that waterboarding is torture. But once the Democrats got through using it for political theater, they are now forced to admit it wasn't and isn't.

UPDATE: Thank God for sunlight...and Republicans. The bill has been pulled. For now.

Rethinking Miranda

'Miranda' Dealt One-Two Punch by High Court

In decisions issued on Tuesday and Wednesday, the Court ruled that confessions should be admitted at trial even when police interviewed suspects in circumstances that lower courts viewed as Miranda violations.

The Court on Wednesday issued Maryland v. Shatzer (pdf), establishing new, more permissive rules for police who want to question a suspect for a second time after the suspect invokes Miranda's right to remain silent.

The Maryland case came down a day after the justices decided Florida v. Powell (pdf), in which a 7-2 majority Court said that Florida's alternative wording of the Miranda warning is acceptable, even though it does not explicitly state that a suspect has a right to have a lawyer present during questioning.

The idea of "once Mirandized, always Mirandized" was insane to begin with. And any expression of the Miranda warnings that gets the point across shouldn't be thrown out just because it doesn't follow Joe Friday's exact wording.

How Can They Claim They Weren't Informed?

CIA briefed 68 lawmakers on torture program, documents reveal

CIA officials briefed at least 68 U.S. lawmakers between 2001 and 2007 on enhanced interrogation methods like simulated drowning that were being considered or used against captured al Qaeda members, according to declassified documents released on Tuesday...

The CIA briefed lawmakers as it began seeking expanded authority for the interrogation program. Current House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, then minority whip, attended a briefing on Abu Zubaydah's interrogation April 24, 2002, along with seven other members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the documents show.

The CIA did not begin using the interrogation techniques until after receiving legal guidance from the Department of Justice in August 2002.

In 2005, President Obama and the Democrats Thought Reconciliation Was 'Arrogant'

Here is the video. But really, that was soooo 2005. Everything with Obama has an expiration date.

Leftwingers Make Big Deal Out of Fox News Not Pointing Out More Domestic Terrorism

You have to wonder sometimes what is it the Left actually wants. Now we have moonbats complaining that the guy flying a plane into an IRS building in Austin yesterday isn't being classified as terrorism by either the FBI or Fox News.

You'd think they'd be happy that Fox News isn't pointing out yet another act of terrorism on Obama's watch, but, somehow, they're cranky because Fox News accepted the FBI explanation that this guy isn't a terrorist.

I'm really surprised you have to sift through the comments to find the typical, "It's not terrorism cuz he's a white guy" crap because at least that sounds like something lefties say. Instead, we're treated to leftwingers smacking Fox News for not getting hysterical about this when, usually, the leftwingers smack Fox News around for getting hysterical. More of that damned if you do, damned if you don't thing, I suppose.

UPDATE(s): Thank God CAIR knows a terrorist when it sees one.

And while Scott Brown "yawns" (according to Think Progress) about the attack, if you read the guy's statements, he's clearly on the left. Nonetheless, leftwing media sycophants say they guy "sounds like a Tea Partier." Yeah, there have been so many violent acts come out of the tea party movement.

Did You Know...

Soviet spy Alger Hiss was readmitted to the Massachusetts bar within days of his conviction of perjury because Hiss "had demonstrated the "moral and intellectual fitness" required to be an attorney"?

Scalia: "There Is No Right to Secede"

On Facebook, I was involved in a thread where the idea of the United States as a voluntary union was brought up (the main argument was that the Civil War was "about slavery." I argued that the war was actually about whether states had the right to leave the union, slavery being only the impetus for the action). The owner of the thread quoted Texas v. White as supporting the idea that the union was never voluntary and that no one had thought it was.

But this argument was a bit self-serving. To start with, the case was determined in 1869, four years after the Civil War actually determined whether or not states could leave the U.S. But also, the case concerned a state's ability to recover bonds that had been sold by the Confederate government. The court went through a convoluted process to allow the state to recover the bond money.

Well, Justice Antonin Scalia has weighed in on the issue.

I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.

Read the post for background, but this should change Ricky Perry's mind.

Reporter Fired for Being Too Objective

From where else? A "progressive" newspaper.

Atlanta Progressive News fires reporter for trying to be objective

Atlanta Progressive News has parted ways with long-serving senior staff writer Jonathan Springston. Apparently, Springston’s affinity for fact-based reporting clashed with Cardinale’s vision.

And, no, that’s not sarcasm.

In an e-mail statement, editor Matthew Cardinale says Springston was asked to leave APN last week “because he held on to the notion that there was an objective reality that could be reported objectively, despite the fact that that was not our editorial policy at Atlanta Progressive News.”

At least the editor was honest.

Quote of the Day

"Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual -- or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country." --Samuel Adams

I've Been Telling You This

U.S. has the best health care.

As recently published by Investor Business Daily, a survey by the U.N. International Health Organization has reported:

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis: U.S. 65 percent, Eng-land 46 percent, Canada 42 percent.

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months: U.S. 93 percent, England 15 percent, Canada 43 percent.

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months: U.S. 90 percent, England 15 percent, Canada 43 percent.

Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month: U.S. 77 percent, England 40 percent, Canada 43 percent.

Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people: U.S. 71, England 14, Canada 18.

Percentage of seniors (65 and older) with low income who say they are in “excellent health”: U.S. 12 percent, England 2 percent, Canada 6 percent.
The initial conclusion from this report is that the U.S. has the best health care in the world.

Well, duh.

History Will Thank Him

Cheney: Obama should thank George W. Bush

If [the administration is] going to take credit for [Iraq's success], fair enough ... but it ought to come with a healthy dose of 'Thank you, George Bush' up front and a recognition that some of their early recommendations with respect to prosecuting that war were just dead wrong," Cheney told ABC News' Jonathan Karl.

Bill Clinton Just Got 2 Stents...Will You?

Bill Clinton had two stents put in his coronary artery today because he was feeling discomfort in his chest. Clinton had a quadruple bypass in 2004. We wish him the best for a quick recovery.

But Michelle Malkin notes that stents don't grow on trees. Boston Scientific, the maker of the stents, says the taxes Democrats are proposing could have dire effects on that manufacturer.

Boston Scientific Corp (BSX.N) warned on Tuesday that a proposed tax in the U.S. health care reform bill that cleared the Senate Finance Committee last week could have serious consequences for the company, including job losses.

"The bill that came out of the committee last week makes absolutely no sense and would be very damaging to Boston Scientific, and the medical device industry as a whole," Boston Scientific Chief Executive Ray Elliott said during a post-earnings conference call.

"In a nutshell, it would raise costs and lead to significant job losses. It does not address the quality of care but the political scorecard of savings."

Elliott said that the company's tax liability would be doubled, adding $150 million to $200 million a year, and it would be forced to make substantial cuts in research and development spending, which could result in 1,000 to 2,000 jobs being lost at Boston Scientific.

Elliott said that the company's tax liability would be doubled, adding $150 million to $200 million a year, and it would be forced to make substantial cuts in research and development spending, which could result in 1,000 to 2,000 jobs being lost at Boston Scientific...

The Senate bill in its current form contains $4 billion in annual fees on medical device makers beginning in 2010 to pay for health care reform. The device industry is fighting to remove or reduce the fees...

In addition to direct fees on device makers, the industry faces a double tax because hospitals, which have agreed to accept $155 billion in cuts in government payments over 10 years, will pass on part of that burden to device makers, said Elliott.

Clinton got his needed stents. But will you?

Medina Is a Truther?

Interesting watching the third place GOP candidate in the Texas governor's race trying to have it both ways when Glenn Beck asks her if she thinks the government was involved in 9/11.

Ok, her politician answer was that she didn’t have enough proof to take a side on whether or not the government had anything to do with causing the twin towers to fall. Really? How in the hell do you not take a side on that issue? I mean, you are running for the governor of Texas, and you still don’t know whether or not Osama Bin Laden ordered the attack on the twin towers? You don’t have all of the evidence?

This isn't even a good politician's answer. Everybody with two brain cells has enough information to recognize that 9/11 was not, in fact, an inside job. Yet Medina must be concerned about insulting her Truth base. Sadly, I have friends who are committed to Medina and this information must be embarrassing to them.

From Hot Air:

Any candidate who thinks that a nutcase conspiracy theory about the US government destroying the WTC is within the realm of reasonable speculation is a candidate that richly deserves the obscurity she will shortly enter.

Well said.

How's that Government Health Care Working for Ya, Massachusetts?

Put health costs on a diet

Not only does Massachusetts have the highest health costs in the country, but according to the report the higher-cost hospitals do not necessarily provide the best care or treat the most complicated cases. Instead, the high rates often reflect the special advantage of a hospital’s brand name, its inclusion in a large provider network, or its location in an isolated geographic area.

If patients were treated like health care consumers, knowing how much treatments cost and making decisions accordingly, costs would come down.

Shocker! Iran Now Capable of Making Weapons Grade Uranium

Congratulations, Barack Obama and Democrats. This morning, Ahmadinejad announced Iran can make weapons grade uranium.

e said it had produced its first batch of 20 per cent enriched uranium - and had the capability to enrich to far higher levels at its Natanz plant.

But not to worry. The international community is really coming down on Mahmoud for the announcement.

The international community has warned Iran against further enrichment activities, threatening new UN sanctions.

That'll stop 'em!

GOP Valentine's Day Cards

Just for fun, send a bunch to your favorite moonbats as well as your conservative buddies.

In Texas, We're Just Talking about Bad Weather

It's supposed to be rainy/snowy here for the next day or so, but we haven't seen any precip at all yet. The cold weather we've had the last few days has been playing havoc with my arthritis, unfortunately, but at least we're not facing Dana Pico weather (or Chuck Serio in Maryland weather, either). I had to steal this pic from Yorkshire:












UPDATE: Well, it did decide to snow here!



I'm not going to tell you this is anything like they are having on the East Coast; the schools here are still open, after all, and our officials will close school at the first sign of snow, usually. But it is significant for north Texas!

Obama, Leadership and the Filibuster

Nothing pisses off the Left more these days than the filibuster. Or, at least, the threat of a filibuster. As Hugh Hewitt has noted, for all the hoopla from the moonbatosphere about filibuster abuse, the Republicans mounted not one filibuster in 2009. Not one.

What Democrats are complaining about is the use of calls for cloture, which Republicans have used effectively. Now, Democrats want to make the filibuster a campaign issue. Which, of course, would be smart if Americans actually wanted the legislation that has gotten bottled up with cloture votes. They don't and, in fact, applaud the idea of Democrats losing their supermajority. Even Barack Obama is pretending he favors bipartisanship (even as his press secretary mocks a private citizen. Nice bipartisanship!). But that doesn't stop the lemmings in the Democratic Party from claiming that the filibuster is being abused and stopping them from doing the People's Business.

Wonder of wonders, we even have Ezra Klein saying Obama should be more like George W. Bush.

George W. Bush had recess appointed 10 nominees, including one to the National Labor Relations Board in August of his first year. We're in February of Obama's second, he has more than twice as many nominees held up as Bush did, and he's only threatening his first recess appointment.

Bush had this right. In his first year in office, he was using recess appointments and running major legislation through the reconciliation process. That normalized those moves for the rest of his administration. Using those tools wasn't a story. The Obama White House, by contrast, is holding those moves in reserve, which has allowed Republicans to paint them as extraordinary measures. But they're not extraordinary measures. They're basic elements of governance in an era of polarization and procedural obstructionism, and the White House should treat them that way.

Ah, what convenient memories liberals have. Yes, George W. Bush used recess appointments in his first year in office. But Democrats vehemently opposed those appointments and put blanket holds on GWB's nominees. Moreover, President Bush quit using them after Democrats retook Congress in 2006.

What Klein should be complaining about is the rampant hypocrisy of Democrats complaining about procedural foot-dragging now when they applauded it less than four years ago. If the filibuster was good and recess appointments were bad in 2004, then Democrats should accept the consequences of those positions now.

Crib Notes vs. Teleprompter

Sometimes, the moonbats get bent about the weirdest things. The latest? Sarah Palin's crib notes on her hand.

Just to be clear: The notes most likely weren't for her speech, for which she used prepared remarks, but for the Q&A session that followed, during which she glanced at the hand in question.

But in my opinion that's even worse.

There were no specifics on there, just general concepts and things she supports.

The takeaway is that this presidential contender apparently can't remember her supposed core principles and needs a cheat-sheet when simply asked about her beliefs.

Wait. She makes notes to herself to make sure she covers some essentials, and that, seemingly, makes her dumber than the president who needs a teleprompter to talk to sixth graders? Seems like stretching to me.

Andrew Sullivan is stretching to show that this makes her dumb, but Ann Althouse brings back a little sanity.

But what the hell? Make stuff up. Like the theory that she was told "the questions" in advance. And she had the answer to one question written on her hand? Of course, she had the words on her hand for some reason. I think the most obvious theory is that these were themes she could always find a way to, whatever the question. When in doubt, bring it around to your specialty, energy, go with the main theme tax cuts, or fall back on lifting America's spirits — some of that good old Morning-in-America/Hope-and-Change inspiration that people lap up so gratefully.

You know, I write stuff on my hand sometimes to remind myself of important stuff I want to make sure I don't forget. I have a hard time figuring out how the Left can embrace the president who can't memorize his speeches but come unglued because someone left five words on her hand.

Liberal Smugness

Why are liberals so condescending?

It's an odd time for liberals to feel smug. But even with Democratic fortunes on the wane, leading liberals insist that they have almost nothing to learn from conservatives. Many Democrats describe their troubles simply as a PR challenge, a combination of conservative misinformation -- as when Obama charges that critics of health-care reform are peddling fake fears of a "Bolshevik plot" -- and the country's failure to grasp great liberal accomplishments. "We were so busy just getting stuff done . . . that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are," the president told ABC's George Stephanopoulos in a recent interview. The benighted public is either uncomprehending or deliberately misinformed (by conservatives).

This condescension is part of a liberal tradition that for generations has impoverished American debates over the economy, society and the functions of government -- and threatens to do so again today, when dialogue would be more valuable than ever.

A recent comment from Perry accused me of a simplistic thought process: conservative = good, liberal = bad. But, in fact, liberals tend to be the ones who think their ideological counterparts aren't simply misinformed or misguided but downright evil. Spend some time at Pandagon, Delaware Liberal, or reading the latest rant at Daily KOS and you'll see what I mean.

When KOS commissioned a poll, rather than reading the results, the KOS kids used it to provide more sound for the echo chamber that conservatives want to impeach Barack Obama, don't think he's American and are generally racist, homophobic, narrow-minded bigots. Never mind that the only way to come up with those results was to lump every "don't know" response in with the most negative one available.

As is a liberal's wont, Matthew Yglesias uses Gerard Alexander's observation for an "everybody's doing it" response.

have a condescending attitude toward this op-ed. Of course I think my views are correct and based on fact and reason. If I thought my views weren’t correct and based on fact and reason, I would adopt different views—correct fact-and-reason based ones. Does Alexander really think that conservatives don’t think their views are correct? Does Alexander not think his own views are correct? Not based on fact? Not based on reason? I’m not sure it’s possible to be condescending enough to this op-ed.

Of course, "believing one is right" doesn't necessarily equate with condescension, but how delicious is it that Yglesias displays the very attitude about which Alexander wrote in an attempt to be oh-so-clever?

Alexander's point (also expressed in today's Charles Krauthammer column is that liberals are incredibly condescending to their political opponents...and they have absolutely no reason to do so.

Let's face it. To liberals, voters are either evil or dupes. They are evil if they "manipulate" others to vote for Republican candidates and they are dupes if they actually do the voting. It's impossible for a smart person to actually believe any of the tenets of conservatism without being a heartless bastard bent on the destruction of women, homosexuals, black people, America and, quite possibly, the Constitution, law and order and apple pie.

The big difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives might consider liberals misguided, but at least they want to do the right thing. Liberals think no such thing. Well, except when President Barack Obama thinks he needs to talk down to the American people to make them understand why taking over 1/6 of the economy is for their own good. Whether they want him to or not.

We heard a lot last year about elections having consequences. This was supposed to be an explanation for the Democrat power-grab and determination to use a recession to cram through a lot of unpleasant (and unwanted) regulations, policies and liberal goals. Bizarrely, when people reject Democrats at the polls as they have for months, we aren't hearing anything at all about elections having consequences. Instead, all we hear is that Americans are just too stupid to know what's in their best interest. Condescension, indeed.

Andrew Sullivan Apologizes for Not Commenting on John Edwards' Love Child Hypocrisy

But, you see, he was too busy pursuing the "Trig Palin is the product of aliens" story to be bothered.

Sullivan's explanation for ignoring Edwards' infidelity is pathetic.

So why did I let it go? My first reason is my leeriness of investigating people's sex lives. I had my own ransacked a decade ago and it was a brutalizing experience. The exposure of such intimate thing coarsens our discourse, violates human dignity and should, in my view, be done only if massive hypocrisy is on the table and the person is more than just a minor public figure. That's why I've long opposed outing people.

So I steered clear out of this sensitivity. I barely covered the Tiger Woods stuff for those reasons, and even came to defend Clinton in the end because of the callousness and fanaticism of Ken Starr. But there was something else at work here in the case of Edwards, I suspect.

It just seemed too awful for me to believe. I mean his wife, whom I took to be a very decent person, had terminal cancer. Although adultery is extremely common - especially among people disturbed enough to seek political office - I dismissed it too easily. I mean his wife was confronting death on a daily basis. I just couldn't believe a husband could do that to his wife then. I also felt protective toward Elizabeth, feeling that investigating this would be deeply hurtful to a woman faced with mortality. Maybe my own brushes with mortality affected me in this as well.

In all this, of course, I was wrong. It really was that bad, and if Game Change is to be believed (and I think it broadly is), it was even worse. My mistake as a journalist was in making an assumption of a baseline of decency in public officials that it is not my job to make. My job is to assume nothing and to trust nothing until verified. One doesn't have to pry; but when rumors emerge, we should not be deferent with public officials. We should ask questions.

See, Sullivan just couldn't believe a guy whose wife has cancer would actually cheat on her. Cuz that's way harder to believe than that a 40-odd year-old woman who says she is the mother of a Downs Syndrome child would actually be that baby's mother. But fear not! Sullivan' hasn't given up on proving Sarah Palin isn't Trig's mom.

o, I'm not backtracking on Palin: all I regret is not being able to expose her for real yet.

Because it's way more important to pursue the "aliens produced Trig Palin" story almost as long as Truthers protest that fire doesn't melt steel.

Tom MaGuire has one glaringly obvious explanation for Sullivan's double standard:

For myself, I am stuck on the simpler theory that Andrew wants to bash what he sees as homophobic Republicans, not seemingly sympathetic Dems.

But I think there's, at least, another explanation for Sullivan's obsession with Sarah Palin's maternity and that is misogyny. Oh, I know feminists are always claiming misogyny whenever there is opposition to something they endorse, but it's hard to argue the woman-hatred involved in Sullivan's absolute obsession with Palin while, at the same time, ignoring a sex scandal from a Democrat presidential candidate.

To this day, I can't understand why who the mother of Trig Palin is was more important than anything else going on in the 2008 presidential campaign cycle, yet Sullivan harangued about it incessantly, as though Trig's parentage had some deeper symbolism for what was "wrong with Sarah Palin. Sullivan's endless, juvenile nit-picking about Palin nearly puts Amanda Marcotte, queen of the nit-picking liberal shills, to shame.

So, while I believe Maguire is right to some extent--that Andrew Sullivan's blind spot is Democrat hypocrisy--there is most certainly more at work than simply that.

A Victim of The Economy He Isn't Responsible For

Obama store closes.

The Obama Store was capitalism at its most brilliant rawness; find a market and exploit it quickly. The store made possible one-stop shopping for all of your tacky Obama merchandise needs. T-shirts! Hats! Calendars! Hand-warmers! Keychains! It was like something out of Spaceballs (“Obama: The Flame Thrower! The kids love this one.”). The store carried every imaginable product with the words “Obama” and “Commemorative,” except, notably, the Obama Chia Pet.

Of course, the closing of the Obama Store may not be due solely to Obama’s falling popularity. Perhaps the faltering economy (which Obama has nothing to do with, he keeps telling us) played a role. Regardless, the store was ideally situated to make big profits. Not only was it in the District of Columbia, where Obama won 93 percent of the vote, but Union Station is swarmed by the most wallet-opening demographic of them all—tourists!

...or maybe people are suffering from overexposure to the Obamessiah.

Obama's Apology Tour: Who He Really Owes Apologies To

Top 10 apologies Obama should make to the world

Apology to the British people: Obama’s treatment of US’ closest ally has been little short of appalling. It started off badly when he threw a bust of Churchill out of the Oval Office. He humiliated the British PM during his visit to Washington last March, treating him like the leader of a Third World country, and sent him packing with a gift of 25 DVDs. A senior state department official put it — “There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment.”

Apology to allies in Eastern and Central Europe: The Obama administration’s decision to appease Moscow by pulling out of an agreement to install missile interceptors and radars in Poland and the Czech Republic was an appalling betrayal of allies who had faced up to intimidation from Russia.

Apology to Iranian dissidents: Barack Obama’s appeasement of the brutal Iranian regime in the name of ‘engagement’ has not only emboldened Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the mullahs, but has also undercut the Iranians who have bravely protested against the theocracy. Obama’s refusal to take a strong stand is a disgrace, and a damning indictment of his world leadership.

Apology to the victims of communism: Obama made Berlin a central stage of his election campaign when he addressed a huge crowd of Germans in July 2008. He could not be bothered to fly to Berlin to attend the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Hillary Clinton stood in for him and delivered an speech that was more about Obama than American leadership in the Cold War. The White House decision to snub the Berlin ceremony was an insult to the memory of the tens of millions who perished at the hands of communism in Europe.

More at the link.

A Pro-Choicer Agrees With Tim Tebow

Sally Jenkins has an incredible column up about the flap over Tim Tebow's pro-life Super Bowl ad.

Jenkins is pro-choice but makes the argument that Tebow's ad is, in fact, pro-choice, because Pam Tebow had the choice to have an abortion and chose not to. As a pro-lifer, I think this is the uncomfortable stretch those who support abortion on demand have to make, but I'm even willing to accept it, provided those calling themselves pro-choice decide to support all women's choices, including the choice to have children others think they shouldn't.

Jenkins is one of them.

She also goes on to make excellent points about why NOW, Amanda Marcotte and the hysterical feminists are flat out wrong about Tebow.

Here's what we do need a lot more of: Tebows. Collegians who are selfless enough to choose not to spend summers poolside, but travel to impoverished countries to dispense medical care to children, as Tebow has every summer of his career. Athletes who believe in something other than themselves, and are willing to put their backbone where their mouth is. Celebrities who are self-possessed and self-controlled enough to use their wattage to advertise commitment over decadence.

You know what we really need more of? Famous guys who aren't embarrassed to practice sexual restraint, and to say it out loud. If we had more of those, women might have fewer abortions. See, the best way to deal with unwanted pregnancy is to not get the sperm in the egg and the egg implanted to begin with, and that is an issue for men, too -- and they should step up to that.

Emphasis mine.

Feminists hate talking about abstinence, whether it's simply telling people to keep their pants zipped till they are prepared to be parents or supporting abstinence education, which works better than comprehensive sex ed. This is because expecting people to show self-restraint is, somehow, the same as forcing women to wear burqas or chastity belts. The argument is that telling people not to act on every urge is evil or means you hate sex (quite the opposite, actually).

We need more feminists making the argument for abstinence because it creates fewer unwanted pregnancies. That means not hopping into bed with the guy you met tonight just because you're horny, but recognizing that if things go awry, you, as a woman, are the one left holding the bag, so to speak. This isn't "slut shaming," just biology.

Obama's Backdoor Taxes

Reuters has since yanked the story, but fortunately, Dump the Democrats managed to snag an extended comment from it before its trip down the memory hole.

The point is that Barack Obama, who famously promised not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250k per year, and the Democrats running Congress have loaded up on backdoor taxes on the middle class to pay for his budget-busting budget. This will largely be done by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. Our friend Dana at Common Sense Political Thought has chronicled how Obama is flatout lying when he says he won't raise taxes on middle class folk precisely because of this tax cut expiration. I fully expect Democrats to tapdance around this and argue that letting tax cuts expire isn't the same as raising taxes, but your wallet won't know the difference.

UPDATE: In support of free speech, the White House asked Reuters to pull the story.

Obama administration aides appealed to the Reuters White House reporting team to kill a story by another reporter of the news service that suggested the president's new budget blueprint included "backdoor" tax hikes.

Ahh, can you imagine the howls had George W. Bush leaned on a news outlet to quell a story?

Reading a Poll For the Results You Want

Read this post on a new Daily KOS poll of Republicans to see what I mean.

The KOS king makes a lot of grand generalizations from the results, lumping in "not sure" with "no" where convenient and not bothering to think about what "not sure" actually means (such as, "I don't know the arguments on both sides, so I'm not sure how to answer"). Hey, dumbass KOS jerk, if 42% of Republicans think Obama was born in the U.S., that means most do, not that "over half think he wasn't born in the U.S. or that it's open for debate." It also means that this is a strawman liberals use to prop up their "Republicans iz nutz" meme. Just like the question on whether Jesus Christ is the only way to go to heaven (in a political poll, yet!) explains why Republicans support a strong defense. I'm all for theological discussions, but leaping from basic tenets of Christianity to "they hate brown people" is Guiness world record size jumping.

The post and poll are worth a laugh, if nothing else. It helps liberals insulate themselves from the truth that the Democrats are tanking horribly and their policies have been rejected in virtually every political race since Obama's inauguration. They need a blankey and some thumb-sucking and this provides it for them.

Rahm Emmanuel Was Right

Liberal activists are retarded. Unfortunately, he apologized.

IT'S A WAR, NOT A CRIMINAL OFFENSE

Sorry for the caps, but I'm becoming so exasperated with the Obama administration, that caps seem perfectly appropriate for talking about their complete idiocy in handling terrorists. This Charles Krauthammer piece is excellent in its analysis.

The real scandal surrounding the failed Christmas Day airline bombing was not the fact that a terrorist got on a plane -- that can happen to any administration, as it surely did to the Bush administration -- but what happened afterward when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was captured and came under the full control of the U.S. government.

After 50 minutes of questioning him, the Obama administration chose, reflexively and mindlessly, to give the chatty terrorist the right to remain silent. Which he immediately did, undoubtedly denying us crucial information about al-Qaeda in Yemen, which had trained, armed and dispatched him.

We have since learned that the decision to Mirandize Abdulmutallab had been made without the knowledge of or consultation with (1) the secretary of defense, (2) the secretary of homeland security, (3) the director of the FBI, (4) the director of the National Counterterrorism Center or (5) the director of national intelligence (DNI).

The Justice Department acted not just unilaterally but unaccountably. Obama's own DNI said that Abdulmutallab should have been interrogated by the HIG, the administration's new High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group.

Perhaps you hadn't heard the term. Well, in the very first week of his presidency, Obama abolished by executive order the Bush-Cheney interrogation procedures and pledged to study a substitute mechanism. In August, the administration announced the establishment of the HIG, housed in the FBI but overseen by the National Security Council.

Where was it during the Abdulmutallab case? Not available, admitted National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, because it had been conceived for use only abroad. Had not one person in this vast administration of highly nuanced sophisticates considered the possibility of a terror attack on American soil?

It gets worse. Blair later had to explain that the HIG was not deployed because it does not yet exist. After a year! I suppose this administration was so busy deploying scores of the country's best lawyerly minds on finding the most rapid way to release Gitmo miscreants that it could not be bothered to establish a single operational HIG team to interrogate at-large miscreants with actionable intelligence that might save American lives.

People need to remember that George W. Bush was not elected in 2000 as a war president. He had promised to be the Education President and offered a softer, more compassionate conservatism to handle domestic issues. What changed GWB was 9/11, when he realized that the jihadis were freakin' serious about killing as many Americans as possible whenever possible.

Will it take another 9/11 to change Obama's course? Unfortunately, I don't think losing 3,000 Americans would be enough to change Barack Obama from an advocate of criminalization to a president who recognizes war when he sees it. And that's what scares the frilly panties off me.