Liberals Will Think It Means Nothing...

That the POTUS shows obeisance to other countries. But the rest of us have grave concerns when he is disrespectful to our greatest friends and bows to others.

Obama's 9/10 Mentality

President Obama's decision to try the mastermind of 9/11 in civilian court would look naive if the reasons weren't so transparent, as Andrew McCarthy notes.

Today's announcement that KSM and other top al-Qaeda terrorists will be transferred to Manhattan federal court for civilian trials neatly fits this hidden agenda. Nothing results in more disclosures of government intelligence than civilian trials. They are a banquet of information, not just at the discovery stage but in the trial process itself, where witnesses — intelligence sources — must expose themselves and their secrets.

Let's take stock of where we are at this point. KSM and his confederates wanted to plead guilty and have their martyrs' execution last December, when they were being handled by military commission. As I said at the time, we could and should have accommodated them. The Obama administration could still accommodate them. After all, the president has not pulled the plug on all military commissions: Holder is going to announce at least one commission trial (for Nashiri, the Cole bomber) today.

Moreover, KSM has no defense. He was under American indictment for terrorism for years before there ever was a 9/11, and he can't help himself but brag about the atrocities he and his fellow barbarians have carried out.

So: We are now going to have a trial that never had to happen for defendants who have no defense. And when defendants have no defense for their own actions, there is only one thing for their lawyers to do: put the government on trial in hopes of getting the jury (and the media) spun up over government errors, abuses and incompetence. That is what is going to happen in the trial of KSM et al. It will be a soapbox for al-Qaeda's case against America. Since that will be their "defense," the defendants will demand every bit of information they can get about interrogations, renditions, secret prisons, undercover operations targeting Muslims and mosques, etc., and — depending on what judge catches the case — they are likely to be given a lot of it. The administration will be able to claim that the judge, not the administration, is responsible for the exposure of our defense secrets. And the circus will be played out for all to see — in the middle of the war. It will provide endless fodder for the transnational Left to press its case that actions taken in America's defense are violations of international law that must be addressed by foreign courts. And the intelligence bounty will make our enemies more efficient at killing us.

Indeed, the idiotic left is delighted at the idea of giving terrorists access to American courts, never thinking about what exposing our intelligence officers and mechanisms will mean for American safety (it basically makes them less effective).

The idea of giving terrorists the rights of American citizens to the American legal system is nonsense, as FDR knew. But for liberals like the Obama administration and the luny left, the idea is to try, not the terrorists, but our own intelligence agencies for being mean to the terrorists when we interrogated them. Because, you know, getting information that saves American lives and helps our country is much less important than arguing about the definition of torture.

One final point here: Allahpundit points out that there's no way Khalid Sheik Mohammed will get out of jail, regardless of the trashing his attorneys try to do to the U.S. intelligence community. How is it due process if he will not be released regardless of the trial's outcome?

So Why Are Democrats Hellbent on Pushing Through a Plan Most Americans Don't Want?

More in U.S. Say Health Coverage Is Not Government Responsibility

More Americans now say it is not the federal government's responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage (50%) than say it is (47%). This is a first since Gallup began tracking this question, and a significant shift from as recently as three years ago, when two-thirds said ensuring healthcare coverage was the government's responsibility.

It's a huge shift, and the reason is simple: we can't afford this boondoggle and people are far more concerned about unemployment and the economy than they are about imposing Obamacare on the unwilling masses.

The problem is simple: Democrats want a giant plan to redistribute wealth and create a new government-dependent (read: Democrat) constituency. That's why Obama wants a smoke-and-mirrors "jobs summit after racking up a record deficit. Maybe he can switch the cards around so no one will notice the trillions his new health plan will add to the deficit.

No wonder liberals are quaking in their boots.

Pandagon Watch: Christians = Radical Muslims

One of the reasons I love reading Pandagon so much is because of the fringe positions discussed there and lapped up by the commenters. On Pandagon, if you are a conservative, a Republican of any stripe, a Christian and/or a pro-life supporter, you aren't merely misguided or stupid, you're evil. Then the writer cherrypicks some individual or tiny group to point out some supposed universal truth about conservatives, Republicans, Christians and pro-life supporters.

Take this post by--who else?--Amanda Marcotte titled, "We call them the cracker Taliban for a reason." The reason, in this case, is that one church burned a bunch of books on Halloween. The list of books included different versions of the Bible, music of all persuasions, and books by authors ranging from Billy Graham to Rick Warren to Benny Hinn to Mother Teresa.

The Amazing Grace Baptist Church of Canton, North Carolina is an "Independent Fundamental King James Version Baptist Church," meaning it believes the King James Version of the Bible to be the only true Bible and rejects all other translations and interpretations. It also holds some very strict interpretations of scripture, and only endorses certain kinds of music (no contemporary Christian music, no modern praise music). This church also condemns body piercing, cross dressing and surgery to alter one's sex. In other words, this is a very strict church with very narrow interpretations of scripture and many rules about behavior (a complete list can be found here).

And this church is also probably tiny. Pastor Marc Grizzard describes it as "small," although the total number of members is not listed. I'd put it at probably about 20. In any event, the beliefs of the Amazing Grace Baptist Church don't reflect the views of millions of Christians regarding faith or politics.

But that doesn't stop Amanda from tarring Christians with this group or comparing them to the Taliban.

Right wing Christians try to pretend there’s some kind of yawning gulf between Islam and Christianity, but this sort of thing just goes to show that no matter what the technical religion is, crazy ass fundamentalists are all the same.

Nowhere on the church's website did I find calls for squirting school girls with acid, beating men for beard length violations or the banning of kite flying or bird keeping. Moreover, to argue that because a tiny fringe group favors, say, dress codes, that that equals suicide bombers or jihadis is just batshit insane. But this is precisely the argument Amanda makes, and has made many times before.

The Cracker Taliban would happily ban art and music to prove their bona fides. The mentality that drives this sort of thing is inherently competitive and misanthropic. Misanthropic, because of the deep-seated hostility to pleasure (at least experienced by other people), and competitive, because religious nuts love to show that they’re tougher than their competitors in the art of making people’s short stays on earth as miserable as possible. No music, no entertaining reading, no diversion from sitting around hating life and wishing it could be over already. Meanwhile, the sadists get lots of pleasure out of hurting others.

Amanda doesn't bother giving any examples of how members of the Amazing Grace Baptist Church are "making people miserable" or "hurting others," but, nonetheless, she thinks it's a scary, scary place when 20 people believe in a non-government approved way.

Amusingly, Amanda finds a way to transition from "The Cracker Taliban is gonna throw acid on your wimmins" to "Not forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions is genocide!!1!" This isn't the first time that every diatribe against some tiny church leads back to "don't stop Planned Parenthood!" or some such nonsense.

Part of what makes this comparison so bizarre is that nowhere in this post or others, can Amanda find even one case of the "Cracker Taliban" mowing down a lot of innocent civilians while yelling, "God is great" or something similar. Instead, her complaint is that *one* church has a book burning, which includes a wide variety of tomes. She complains that these Christians want everyone to be miserable (there's no evidence of that), which, I guess is supposed to equate with Sharia law, in which stealing is punishable by chopping off your hand.

Of course, the comparison is meant to be offensive; Amanda is probably another of those Hasan enablers/apologists who believe the real reason Nidal Hasan gunned down a bunch of his fellow soldiers while yelling "Allahu Akbar" was because of George Bush and pro-lifers. Sure, there's no evidence connecting those groups and Hasan, but then, there's no connection between fundamentalist Christians and the Taliban, either.

Obama Administration Tries to Purge Republicans

Remember the whole Attorneygate flap? It least the U.S. attorneys were political appointments. Now, the Obama administration is trying to purge Republicans from civil service jobs.

It is a typical Washington process that many political appointees are able to take jobs within the civil service once their political appointment expires — usually at the conclusion of one administration. What often happens as well is Congressional staffers, before an election or shortly thereafter, will move over to the Executive Branch placed into the civil service, in effect, by appointment.

So, for example, when George Bush became President in 2001, a number of Clinton political appointees became civil service employees. As a result, they became subject to civil service hiring and firing rules, which meant they could no longer be replaced simply for having been a Democratic appointee.

Barack Obama is changing that. He intends to purge all Republicans from the federal bureaucracy retroactive to five years ago.

Under his new rules, made retroactive for five years, the Office of Personnel Management will examine civil service employees who got their start as political appointees in the Bush administration and terminate those employees. The order is retroactive to 2004, that moment when a number of Republican congressional staffers and others sought to embed into the second Bush administration right after the election.

Chicago style, baby.

Unintended Consequences: Same Sex Marriage Mandates Could Harm Charities

Forcing churches to accept homosexual couples and treat them like heterosexual ones could cause many churches to simply stop participating in certain services for the poor and needy.

Refusing to include robust religious liberty protections in the bill that has just been approved by a Council subcommittee, the City appears poised to impose requirements that will drastically cut social services for some of the city’s most hard-pressed residents. The impact will be severest on food pantries, health care providers, services for the homeless and adoption and foster care assistance.

The conflict focuses on the scope of the religious liberty exemption included in the bill the D.C. City Council could pass as early as December 1 to replace its traditional marriage law with a regime that allows same-sex unions. In testimony before the Council late last month, both the American Civil Liberties Union and the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, which disagree fundamentally on public policy that approves same-sex marriage, testified that the original draft religious liberty exemption in the bill was far too narrow. The draft bill not only put social services to the needy at risk, but it also would have required churches that operate facilities like reception halls to make them available to same-sex couples regardless of the churches’ religious teachings and practice.
The version of the bill the Council subcommittee approved this week relented on the issue of reception halls, allowing churches to decline to make them available for same-sex marriages and other unions to which they might object. However, the bill did not exempt churches from obligations it would impose that would, for example, require the churches to provide marriage benefits to same-sex couples who work for them. As a result, and because D.C. contracts for social services will require compliance with the city’s non-discrimination laws, the longstanding agreements with service providers like the Archdiocese will end. An analogous impasse occurred in Boston in 2006, where Catholic Charities was unable to obtain a state license because of its views on traditional marriage and was forced to shutter its adoption services for hard-to-place children.

It's more important to be politically correct than to feed the poor.

No Blood for Oil! Unless You're a Democrat

The liberal advisor to Joe Biden and John Kerry stands to reap millions off the Kurds.

As Tom Maguire notes,

If this had been an advisor to Dick Cheney, libs would be leaping from tall buildings.

But we can fully expect the silent treatment from the moonbatosphere over this one. Because IOKIYAD.

Jail Time for Not Buying Insurance Isn't Just a Republican Rumor

It's true.

Pelosi: Jail time “very fair” for failing to buy your patriotic ObamaCare coverage

Democrats are fearful of having to admit that people actually choose not to get insurance, so, she thinks throwing people in jail for it is "fair."

Of course, the other option is to make people responsible for paying their own bills. Nothing requires us to pick up the tab for people in clinics or emergency rooms, especially those who can afford to pay their way. This is the point that Pelosi and her statist colleagues seem to forget. People who choose not to buy coverage even though they could afford it assume the risk of paying out of pocket — and that may be a very rational choice, as it is most unlikely that those people would use $3,000 a month in medical services, which is what their insurance would cost now.

The argument that the E.R. bills are passed on to taxpayers now is ridiculous. When you go to the E.R., the billing people will ask how you are paying for the services. People with insurance typically have the charges filled with their insurance first. If you don't have insurance, there is typically a financial department at the hospital that you can meet with to make arrangements. Or you can pay the bill when it comes to your house. In any event, it's not billed to the taxpayer.

Still, in the world of the Democrats, jailing people for choosing to assume their own risk is fair. And they wonder why we call them Stalinists.

It's Tough When You Try to Make a False Equivalency

An Immoderate Proposal

have a moral objection to paying for any kind of erectile dysfunction medicine in the new health reform bill and I think men who want to use it should just pay for it out of pocket. After all, I won't ever need such a pill. And anyway, it's no biggie. Just because most of them can get it under their insurance today doesn't mean they shouldn't have it stripped from their coverage in the future because of my moral objections. (I don't think there's even been a Supreme Court ruling making wood a constitutional right. I might be wrong about that.)

Many of the men who are prescribed this medication are on Medicare, so I think it should be stripped out of that coverage as well. And unlike the payments for abortion, which actually lower overall medical costs (pregnancy obviously costs much, much more) banning tax dollars from covering any kind of Viagra would result in a substantial savings:

One first has to ask what the moral objections to erections are and why it is in the best interest of public policy to oppose them. The moral objections to abortion are pretty clear: abortion kills babies. As a matter of public policy, it's a very bad idea to use taxpayer funding to help kill future taxpayers (and U.S. citizens), and the moral objection to killing innocents is well codified in our law. There's no similar history of objecting to erections.

Moreover, the societal cost of abortion is high; the desensitization of Americans to the taking of life is more apparent that possibly at any time in our history. We, in fact, can see human life in the womb, through ultrasound, and even the awful Roe vs. Wade argued that snuffing out human life (or potential human life) is something that should be heavily restricted. There's no similar rational objection to erectile medications.

I suppose Digby is attempting to argue that stripping funding of abortions from the Democrats' health care proposals is simply a form of sexism. The problem, of course, is that here is possibly the best example we have where men and women are not interchangeable. Men don't get pregnant and have babies or kill babies in the claim that it is "their body." Only women do that. The right (or not) to have an erection comes nowhere close to the same societal implications.

I actually have no problem with the idea of restricting taxpayer-funded health care from paying for erectile dysfunction treatments. It's not a necessary service, and only the most basic care should be covered by the taxpayers. If you want Viagra, pay for it yourself. And if you want an abortion, pay for that yourself, as well.

This is the unintended consequence of Democrats' determination to take over the health care system. An intended consequence is a permanent, economically-enslaved majority.

Fort Hood Shootings GWB's Fault

Of course!

On Tuesday, Stephanie Miller suggested it could be because "George Bush made many people around the world feel like this was a war against Islam by using words like crusade."

It sucks when they have no boogeymen to blame things on anymore.

Are We Headed for This Kind of Medicine?

Chuck has posted several links to examples of the great care one receives from socialized medicine:

Cancer survivor confronts the health secretary on 62-day wait

The current target of 62 days from urgent referral by a doctor to starting treatment has still not been met in Scotland, despite that originally being the target figure for 2005.

Girl, 3, has heart operation cancelled three times because of bed shortage

More than 57,000 surgeries were postponed for non-clinical reasons, including a lack of beds, last year – 10 per cent more than the previous year.

Latest figures show that the problem persists. At least 43,000 operations were cancelled in the first nine months of 2008-09, with nearly 1,800 patients not being treated within 28 days of their original scheduled date.

Kidney cancer patients denied life-saving drugs by NHS rationing body NICE

Thousands of kidney cancer patients are likely to lose out on life-prolonging drugs.
The NHS rationing body, NICE, has confirmed a ban on three out of four new treatments.
It has reversed its position on just one, Sutent, which will now be allowed for patients with advanced cancer.

But campaigners who fought NICE's original blanket ban said this was not enough. They said some patients with heart problems cannot tolerate Sutent.
Kate Spall, head of the Pamela Northcott Fund campaign group, said the ruling meant that fewer than half of newly diagnosed patients would be eligible for therapy.

We're told socialized medicine will give us better results. I'm sure these patients would disagree.

Happy Veterans Day!

From a grateful nation, we salute your service and sacrifice.

We All Knew This Already...

Confessions of an Obamacare Backer

Mr. Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. "The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment," he writes. "Let's not pretend that it isn't a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won't. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind."

Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats' "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.

...but it's always nice to hear them admit it.

I Liked President Obama's Speech

Apparently, I'm not the only one.

Obama had to lead a nation's grieving; he had to try and address the thorny issues of Islam and terrorism; to be firm; to express the spirit of America, using familiar, comforting tropes in a way that didn't sound trite.

I was very impressed with the speech because President Obama didn't attempt to gloss over the impact of Hasan's radical religious views on his actions. From the speech:

It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know - no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice - in this world, and the next.

I thought the speech was powerful, well-delivered, with the right balance of sentimentality and logic, emotion and analysis. It approached the gorilla in the room (Hasan's Islamism) and didn't flinch. And unlike idiots on the left who think a lone gunman killing an abortion doctor equals a radical killing 13 of his fellow soldiers, Obama didn't apologize for calling this evil evil.

It was excellent.

Quote of the Day

"One of the few advantages to the country in having Congress overwhelmingly in the hands of one party is that the lack of need to compromise lets the leaders of that party reveal themselves for what they are — in this case, people with unbounded arrogance and utter contempt for the right of ordinary people to live thei...r lives as they see fit, much less the right to know as citizens what laws are going to be passed by their government." ~ Thomas Sowell

Thanks to Chuck.

Nobody Knows the Vice President

From Allahpundit, who notes that Joe Biden probably doesn't remember, either.

Sure, Fred Phelps Is A Democrat...

But that won't stop us from trying to tar Republicans with him!

Did Dems Ever Do This To the Bush Twins?

Well, other than the fact that Jenna and Barbara Bush were adults by the time their father was elected president, I'm sure we could find a few Code Pink people who would have loved to compare GWB to the minion of Satan.

From the comments:

In the past two decades, one party has embraced racism, religious bigotry, homophobia, xenophobia, and so much more as their party identity. One has not.

While both parties may be overrun by corporate corruption, there is a distinct difference between the two when it comes to tolerance and inclusiveness.

Calling Fred Phelps a Democrat is like calling Lyndon LaRouche a Democrat. It avoids the point that the Phelpses of the world would not exist or, at least, would not actually receive press, were it not an outgrowth of what the Rethugs have preached since Nixon, i.e. divide and conquer. With the election of a black man as President, this has been taken to an unconscionable level. The Rethuglican Party has enabled the Fred Phelps (and Glenn Becks, et al) of this world, and that’s the point.

This poor guy obviously never paid attention to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson (racism), Jeremiah Wright (religious bigotry), or Robert Byrd (xenophobia). His attempt to excuse that the crazies are in his parties is laughable.

What's so sad here is that El Sonambulo (well-named) can't simply denounce Fred Phelps. Instead, he tries to find some tortured way to tie him to Republicans...who weren't present and have repeatedly condemned Phelps and his church. But I guess when your party is under attack and you can't defend them, you have to make stuff up.

One More Waste of the Kelo Case

Pfizer abandons site of infamous Kelo eminent domain taking

The private homes that New London, Conn., took away from Suzette Kelo and her neighbors have been torn down. Their former site is a wasteland of fields of weeds, a monument to the power of eminent domain.

But now Pfizer, the drug company whose neighboring research facility had been the original cause of the homes' seizure, has just announced that it is closing up shop in New London.

To lure those jobs to New London a decade ago, the local government promised to demolish the older residential neighborhood adjacent to the land Pfizer was buying for next-to-nothing. Suzette Kelo fought the taking to the Supreme Court, and lost. Five justices found this redevelopment met the constitutional hurdle of "public use."

They took her house for nothing.

Obama's Failed Stimulus in Pictures

Excellent.

Why Should We Remember the Berlin Wall?

A young friend of mine snottily told me that she didn't consider the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall to be a big deal. As she put it:

I am sure this will irk some, but I have a problem with us being so sentimental about tearing down a wall in another country when we're so gung-ho about putting up a fence at our own.

Why should we remember? Maybe this is why:

How a Real Commander in Chief Acts

George W. Bush Visits Fort Hood, Wounded Soldiers
No photogs. Classy.

Where was Obama? Too busy shilling for Obamacare. Glad to know his priorities.

House Passes Pelosicare--For Your Own Good

Sweeping Health Care Plan Passes House

Congratulations, Democrats. You passed a bill that liberals hate, feminists hate and all Republicans hate. We all know you're gonna strip out all the provisions about not using taxpayer funds to cover abortions. You want taxpayers to pay for abortions, because if the taxpayer isn't footing the bill, it's not a "choice," don't you know.

I'm curious how you're going to make going to jail for being uninsured sound like anything other than penalizing people for not having insurance. This would be a first in our country. From Just One Minute:

Those penalties won't affect the long-term unemployed, who are heavily subsidized in any case. However, someone who works from January to June and is then laid off had better arrange for insurance - over the tax year, the person will show plenty of income, even if take-home cash flow is scarce from July to December. This person's actual income in the second half of the year may be zero, but if they don't have insurance they will owe a 2.5% penalty on their earnings from January to June.

Does that sound like a tax on the middle class? Hey, it's for our own good.

Tom goes on to point out that the bill is a job killer with a link to Steven Pearlstein.

Economists agree that in the long run, however, the increased cost for employee health benefits would be passed on to the employees themselves in the form of lower wages and salaries. That's what happened economy-wide in recent decades, as average wages stagnated while the cost of health insurance skyrocketed. If the same holds true for small businesses, then requiring them to provide health insurance should result in no job loss at all.

No job loss at all! Of course, the fact that you can't get a job in this economy doesn't count. Sorta like the government accounting where giving a few people a raise counts as "jobs saved."

So, see, the middle class will still be paying for this monstrosity, be forced to buy insurance they may not want, and face jail time if they can't afford it. But remember, it's for your own good!

The Shoe on the Other Foot

Several of my left-leaning friends are having an unpleasant awakening of conscience these days, concerning their criticism and mockery of George W. Bush. The awakening comes in watching a president they like and admire, Barack Obama, be treated to the same sort of unrealistic standards that they themselves were only too happy to place on a Republican president.

The most recent incident concerns President Obama's response to Major Hasan's jihad at Fort Hood. Obama had his own"My Pet Goat" moment that earned him the derision of the right, even as the left tried valiantly to claim that it wasn't the same thing at all.

Indeed, one could argue that President Obama's nonchalance at the killing of 13 American soldiers is worse than President Bush's deer-in-the-headlights look at the moment he was told about the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, D.C. We weren't permitted to see President Obama's initial reaction to the news from Fort Hood, but we can conclude from his speech, in which it was a higher priority to praise politics than get right to a statement about Fort Hood, that he didn't consider it a high enough priority.

But I digress.

My liberal friends have been feeling decidedly uncomfortable given President Obama's behavior in the wake of these events and the way he has been criticized for it. Take this story on the fact that President Obama doesn't plan to attend celebrations in Germany commemmorating the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is taking aim at President Obama's decision not to travel to Germany next week to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, the latest in a string of conservatives to criticize Obama's decision to skip the ceremony on November 9...

While the president had originally planned to be on hand for the event, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs confirmed earlier this week scheduling conflicts and preparation for his impending 10-day trip to Asia have instead caused Obama to stay in Washington.

I have to admit that not going to Berlin to remember the end of communism is peculiar for any sitting American president. And because of "scheduling conflicts" and the fact that he "needed to prepare" for his trip to Asia? We were promised that this oh-so-smart president could basically do everything. Call him the male version of the old Enjoli ad. It's no wonder people are starting to grumble.

It's tough when your guy is running the country, no doubt. It should make liberals pause before bashing the next Republican president. But it won't.