“Unintentional” Co-Conspirators

I wanted to discuss how years of inflammatory, often violent, rhetoric from the far Left walked us all right up to the moment in Tucson where liberal hate led to liberal violence in one horrific afternoon. I wanted to point out how the incessant drumbeat of rage from Democrat Party outlets like MSNBC and Daily Kos was laying a welding torch to the gunpowder of Leftist anger. I wanted to expound on the fact that the endless “Worst person in the world” ranting from MSNBC’s Zen master of hate Keith Olbermann, with the defamatory efforts of his “mini-me,” the appallingly angry Rachel Maddow, would ultimately drive one of their brainless acolytes to the edge of insanity.

But none of that really matters. Today, a husband sits anxiously next to his wife’s hospital bed. Today, a family is preparing to bury their husband and father. Children have to say goodbye to parents. Parents have to say goodbye to children.

Nonetheless, while the Democrat Party urges its supplicant media to find a way to pin the murder of six people on Sarah Palin, the Tea Party and the GOP by proxy; the facts reveal a vastly different picture. It’s a picture of the ultimate expression of Leftist rage, fanned by monsters like Markos Moulitsas, raging idiots like Olbermann, violent union thugs from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and possibly the anti-semitic roaring of characters like former President Jimmy Carter:

While Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) was clinging to life, Democrat Party shill Paul Krugman showed up on television to offer:

“..violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate. And it’s long past time for the GOP’s leaders to take a stand against the hate-mongers.”

I’ll presume that Krugman didn’t mean statements like this one:

“If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard…”

Or this one:

“I’m itching for a fight.”

Or this one:

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun…”

All of the preceding statements were made by homicidal terrorist William Ayers’
friend, Barack Obama, since he won the Presidential election of 2008.

Nonetheless, forget all of it. Forget Olbermann’s lunatic yammering on
the Democrats’ “news” channel, MSNBC. Set aside Daily
and their violent vitriol:

Daily Kos

Peruse that inset, then tell me again how appalling Sarah Palin’s ads
are. Daily Kos also scrubbed a “diary” by an acolyte who
calls himself “Boy Blue” which made repeated references to a Congresswoman
being “dead.” Make sure you keep in mind Daily Kos owner
Moulitsas’ endorsement of Islamofascist terrorism when you do.

Shuffle the SEIU’s assaults on Obamacare opponents to the back of your
mind. Lock away your images of the NAACP standing up for cop killers like Troy
Davis. And consider this:

Jared Lee Loughner appears to be Unabomber-crazy. While the Democrat Party trots
out the big media and blogosphere guns to pin the Tucson tragedy on conservatism,
their macabre effort to profit from human suffering and death rings as hollow
as an Ed Schultz “voter fraud is ok when it benefits the Democrat Party”

The Left has developed a cottage industry built on hatred. And while the nation
united in mourning the loss of the victims of Loughner’s murderous rage, they
left the door to their asylum wide open.

But amidst the cacophony of liberal rage, I’ll simply say:

Good night, sweet Christina Green. You deserved better.

Gas’n’Go Under

While driving my hideously fuel-inefficient SUV earlier this week, I noticed the warning light on my instrument cluster alerting me that my gas tank was perilously close to “MSNBC’s primetime ratings.” Since I have access to neither the private jet nor the chauffer-driven limousine Al Gore uses when he leaves one of his multimillion dollar mansions, I pulled into the next gas station.

That’s when I noted the price of a gallon of gasoline starts with a “3.” The last time gas prices were this high, Democrats assured us it was a direct result of George W. Bush’s cozy relationship with “Big and/or Foreign Oil.”

“Since George Bush and Dick Cheney took over as president and vice president, gas prices have doubled… (because) They are too cozy with the oil industry”

California’s senior Senator Barbara Boxer offered that clever canard back in April of 2006. At the time, gas prices at the Exxon station from which she staged her shriekfest were $3.10/gallon, just over 8 cents above where they are right now. And Boxer wasn’t the only Democrat assailing Bush over the plight of the people who pay her fuel bills. According to then-junior Senator from New York Hillary Clinton:

“We are one accident or one terrorist attack away from oil at $100 a barrel!”

Actually, if the terrorists are planning this sort of petroleum-based ploy, it may already be too late. As of Tuesday, the price of a barrel of crude is just under $90, nearly $25 higher than it was while Senators Boxer and Clinton were blaming rising gas prices on the former president. Industry experts predict the price will eclipse $100 within a year.

As is the case with commodities — with the possible exception of Arkansas cattle futures — oil’s price can fluctuate wildly depending on supply. However, the supply of oil and the AVAILABLE supply of oil are not always the same thing. There is the oil which American interests pump out of the ground, then refine into useable products at reasonable profit. There is also oil which is chemically about the same as the American stuff, but is located in countries with names that contain words like “People’s Republic of” or sound like “Jihadistan” or are controlled by fascists like Hugo Chavez.

The first type of oil is fine. It makes your car go, heats your home, and gives liberals something to whine about. The second type of oil requires handing checks with more zeros than the Dailykos.com membership roster to reprobates like Chavez.

But oil is tricky stuff. It hides, either under places where caribou and polar bears pose for Sierra Club calendar shoots, or underneath the ocean, which not only presents a logistical problem, but can make seagulls yucky. When things go wrong, as it did last spring and summer during the Deepwater Horizon nightmare, it can create headaches for everyone from BP oil execs (Tony Hayward is still really, really sorry) to the President of the United States (“did you plug the hole yet, Daddy?”).

Fortunately, we have President Barack Obama and the Democrat Party to protect us. Thanks to a Democrat-backed ban on pretty much every kind of drilling outside the dentist’s office, the Gulf of Mexico is closing in on being clean of every kind of oil except Coppertone. So, it’s back to foreign oil; and $3+/gallon gasoline.

According to Monday’s Wall Street Journal:

“Oil companies are still waiting for approval to drill the first new oil well (in the Gulf of Mexico). Experts now expect the wait to continue until the second half of 2011, and perhaps into 2012.

But Obama lifted the ban last October, right? Sadly, he’s doing the same thing with energy as he did with Obamacare’s death panels: Using regulatory power to accomplish something he knew wouldn’t cut the mustard legislatively. The Obama Administration claims that “safety” concerns are the cause of the holdup. They used that same excuse to keep skimmers from saving manatees from an “Iffy-Lube” last summer.

Add that to the fact that Democrats have opposed virtually every effort to exploit or expand domestic resources over the last 40 years (the newest refinery in the U.S. was built in 1976; while the newest nuclear power plant dates to 1996), and the picture becomes clear.

So, Senator Boxer: When are you scheduling your “President Obama isn’t doing enough to lower gas prices” press conference?

Bad Call

This past weekend, I sat in front of the television watching football and trying to ignore the headache I’d earned on New Year’s Eve. 2010 was a wild ride for me, but just like 2009, I managed to avoid committing any felonies. I deliberately complicated no criminal investigations. I did no time at any Federal penitentiaries. And for sport, I tortured and killed exactly zero dogs.

Despite this impressive year’s worth of credentials, I received no phone call from President Barack Obama. I didn’t even get a Christmas/Ramadan/Kwanzaa card.

Before the Obama apologists begin howling about his busy schedule or my lack of sufficient import, let me point out that the President DID make time to call Jeffrey Lurie, the owner of the NFL’s Philadelphia Eagles. Obama didn’t ring up Lurie to discuss the multi-millionaire’s ideas to rescue the national economy Obama and the Democrats have driven into the same swamp Nancy Pelosi neglected to drain. He wasn’t looking for tickets to an Eagles game. He wasn’t seeking Lurie’s tips on where to get a great cheese steak. He wanted to applaud Lurie for offering employment to the convict, Michael Vick.

I’m well aware that any discussion of Vick is likely to inflame some passions. Some people are appalled by the idea of hanging, drowning and electrocuting puppies, and others are all right with it, as long as the perpetrator can run 40 yards in less than 4.5 seconds (and promises he’ll never, ever electrocute Fluffy for kicks again).

Evidently, we can count Obama amongst the latter. And maybe Vick should be back in the NFL. After all, it’s not like he’s Rush Limbaugh or anything.

According to Lurie, the President said of Lurie’s hiring of Vick: “So many people who serve time never get a fair second chance.”

That’s true. Of course, so many people who serve time can’t throw a football 65 yards without a counterweight trebuchet. In fact, I’m going to throw a flag on that play. The idea of Michael Vick serving as any kind of real-life example to his erstwhile Leavenworth huddle-mates is laughable. That’s presuming the remaining population of the nation’s penitentiaries isn’t as good as Vick is at reading blitz on third down.

Vick committed unspeakably ugly acts of barbarism for laughs and then did everything but hide in the locker room in an effort to avoid the sack by law enforcement. He went to a Federal prison, got out and immediately went back to a multi-million dollar job to which most prisoners — most EVERYONE — will never get closer than the TV.

Hey, I love a comeback as much as the next guy. I think it’s terrific that MSNBC gave Rachel Maddow a gig as Keith Olbermann’s Igor after that whole hate radio thing didn’t work out. And I certainly understand the appeal of the outlaw image. I can quote “The Godfather” like every American male. However, neither moronic television personalities nor mobsters tend to get sympathetic phone calls from the President of the United States. Well, at least mobsters don’t. I hope.

Of the many ex-cons who are actually leading productive, non-Snoopy murdering lives since their release, how many of their bosses will get a Presidential back-slap?

For that matter, a question for the President: Of the millions of Americans who haven’t electrocuted puppies, how many of their bosses is he planning to congratulate?

“Is this Sam Smith? Of Sam the Sham’s Shack O’Stuff? This is President Barack Obama. Sam, I just wanted to tell you how proud I am of you for letting Bob Jones come back to work each day after not committing multiple felonies and then lying to investigators about it. You’re an inspiration to the bosses of people who lead law-abiding lives everywhere.”

To be fair, being President is full-time work. America is facing tough times at home and turbulent conditions abroad. And two weeks of golf, surf and sun on the taxpayer’s nickel in a tropical paradise is a serious undertaking. He barely had enough time to call the owner of a sports team to offer congratulations for generosity toward Cruella De Vil’s dream date.

Never let it be said that Ben Crystal wasn’t there to support his President in a time of crisis. Tell you what, Mr. President: I’ll handle the back nine at Luana Hills. You need to start dialing.

When We Were 234, it was a Very Strange Year

As 2010 draws to a close, I couldn’t resist the opportunity to offer a few bons mots to my fellow denizens of the Personal Liberty Digest. While it is indeed a fool’s errand to encapsulate what many might describe as an annus horribilis, there were some bright spots on the calendar we’re all about to place in the circular file in the kitchen — and not just the cute puppy on the June page.

All right, perhaps “bright” is a bit of an overstatement. Let’s say: “Less dim than MSNBC’s writing staff.” I thought about ranking my picks in order of importance, chronology or geography; but I ended up leading with the WikiLeaks story — mostly because “pasty-faced ex-cyber-criminal” is more florid than “shellacking.”

Read on, MacDuff, And damn’d be him that first cries, “But I LIKE Michael Moore!”

Springing The WikiLeaks
What fun, watching some pasty-faced ex-cyber-criminal become a worldwide celebrity. Liberals who once went into paroxysms of misguided rage over the “outing” of Valerie Plame sang the praises of Julian Assange. At the same time, al-Qaida sent him a thank-you note for leads on the next recipient of the “most likely to be stoned to death for assisting the infidel crusaders” award.

Assange was quickly discovered to have a sexual history which would make even a Kennedy blanch. In a strange turn of events, Democrat Party “documentarian” Michael Moore called rape charges against Assange “hooey,” an odd choice for a party which represents itself as being deeply gender-sensitive. In an even stranger turn of events, Moore’s statement remains just about the only substantive response to the situation from the Obama Administration.

The November To Remember
In a midterm election which even President Barack Obama called a “shellacking,” GOP candidates, many backed by the liberally-reviled (and mistakenly discounted) Tea Party, treated ex-Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s floundering Democrat House contingent like a tackling dummy, taking a net 63 seats away from the Dems in the biggest House beat down since 1948.

While Pelosi went back to her “draining the swamp with a colander,” the GOP pulled the rug out from under the Democrats at the state level, snaring six Governor’s mansions and 780 (!) seats in state legislatures. Voters cited the Democrats’ disastrous handling of the economy and the government takeover of the nation’s healthcare system as primary reasons for the whipping. So, when Obama cast himself as a “uniter,” he meant AGAINST his own party.

It’s STILL The Economy, Stupid!
Bailouts and payoffs and tax fraud, oh my! Led by a Secretary of the Treasury who was evidently outsmarted by those clever cretins at H&R Block, the economy continued to backtrack like Michael Jackson moon walking through a Pepsi ad shoot — only in this case, it’s the American taxpayers whose hair was set ablaze.

Obama promised everything but a “chicken in every pot” in an effort to bolster consumer confidence; the administration even ordered the corporate media to refer to a “recovery summer.” Millions of For Sale signs in front of homes across the nation, along with the worst unemployment since the days of Hoovervilles, spoke volumes to the contrary. Four years of Democrat Congressional control and a President who dines with Oprah while citizens starve gives way to the aforementioned “November to Remember.”

The reanimated corpse of 1994’s “Hillarycare” lurched back into the spotlight with a vengeance. Although this legislative monstrosity passed after a couple of rounds, it became the biggest single factor in Democrat defeat beyond general economic malaise.

Now the clowns who make visits to the Department of Motor Vehicles such a joy will be in charge of whether you see a doctor, or someone whose first name is “Doctor.” And the death panels at which the Democrat elite scoffed are real. Have fun arguing for chemo for your aging mother with the blue-suits at the Department of Health and Human Services tasked with means-testing the viability of senior citizens. (But pray the death-panelists aren’t from the SEIU).

On The Wings Of The Turkey.
With Obama under increasing pressure to look marginally statesman-like as the world’s more unsavory nations wake up to the reality that the U.S. is now led by a second-rate pantywaist, his administration responded by… feeling up little kids at the airport.

NC-17 rated pictures of American citizens taken from “secure” machines began popping up on the Internet. Despite a spirited backlash, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano stood by the plan. In November and December, reports appear revealing that the measures don’t work. Napolitano went on TV and essentially said: “Reports? We don’t need no stinking reports.” The lone bright spot in this 4th Amendment-abrogating disaster: “If you touch my junk, I’m going to have you arrested.”

The Ground Zero Mosque.
This ended up being Ground Zero for the whole pseudo-sensitivity crowd. An Imam with ties to Islamofascism, shadowy finances and a location which had previously served as the spot where some of the wreckage from one of the 9/11 flights landed — how could anyone object? The Democrat ruling elite responded by… fumbling the ball. Pelosi suggested Federal investigations into the GZM’s opponents, followed by talking hairdo Keith Olbermann claiming that there was no Ground Zero Mosque. Not if we have anything to do with it, brainiac.

AZ 1070
Frustrated with years of Federal refusal to deal with a flood of illegal immigrants, and overwhelmed with the illegals themselves, the State of Arizona passed a law to combat the problem on its own battlefield. Despite tremendous support from not only a majority of Arizonans, but American citizens as a whole, Arizona found itself defamed by the Democrat ruling elite who continue to deliberately confuse patriotism with racism. Obama even dispatched a report to the clown-car drivers at the United Nations implying Arizona is violating human rights. True to form, the Feds sued Arizona, hoping to find a judge who missed 10th Amendment day in Bill of Rights class.

A Taxing Compromise
The GOP won the majority in the House and agreed to a partial extension of the Bush-era tax relief without the accompaniment of spending cuts. I’m hoping this may be a ploy to show the Democrats the folly of their “tax’n’spend” stupidity. At least they got the stupid part right.

Federal Oil and Vinegar
In a flashback to Hurricane Katrina, bad Democrat decision making leads to an unmitigated environmental disaster. While oil washed ashore along the Gulf coast, Obama roared into action by… hitting the links. U.S. — and foreign-flagged skimmers sat idle while the Obama administration checked to make sure they had the appropriate number of life vests and fire extinguishers.

The State of Louisiana began building sand berms to protect itself from the spreading oil, only to be stopped by the Obama administration out of concern for… wait for it… environmental damages. Even First Daughter Malia questions Obama’s acumen: “Did you plug the hole yet, Daddy?” If by “hole,” she meant “the 18th at Congressional,” then the answer is “double-bogey.”

Iraq ‘em Up
As August gave way to September, Obama announced the end of combat operations in Iraq. Unfortunately, few of the Islamofascists have cable so they missed the announcement. Somehow, the success of the “surge” (which Obama opposed) was missed in the corporate media’s fawning efforts to present Obama as a wartime leader. They also missed the 48,000 troops who still have boots on the ground in Iraq (not to mention the many more who contend with life in fabulous Afghanistan!)

Of course, a year like 2010 presents far more noteworthy moments than I can adequately cover in one trip Outside The Asylum. Honorable mention goes to Scott Brown’s Massachusetts Senate victory, the abominable real estate market, Obama’s repopulation attempts at the Supreme Court and the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Feel free to add your own choices in the comments section. You have all year.


From our “statements we never want to see in an email from a U.S. Representative” file:

“We would ask that you not broadcast this accomplishment out to any of your lists, even if they are ‘supporters’… Thus far, it seems that no press or blogs have discovered it… The longer this goes unnoticed, the better our chances of keeping it.”  — Rep. Earl Blumenauer, (D-Ore.)

This cryptic missive issued by the gentleman from Oregon refers to the reintroduction — by Medicare regulation — of an Obamacare proposal to pay “practitioners” — §1233 (2(a)) doesn’t require “practitioner” to mean “medical school graduate” — to annually push people to consider shuffling off the final steps of their mortal coil. While end-of-life counseling became a part of Medicare during the Bush Administration, the Obamacare regulation to which Blumenauer referred in that spooky email introduces the grading and payment of “practitioners” who even the Democrat-controlled New York Times acknowledges must:

“…advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forego aggressive life-sustaining treatment.”

The same “pay-for-slay” plan was actually a part of the original version of Obamacare. After Republicans discovered the planned introduction of “death panels,” the proposal was dropped to facilitate passage of the largest government intrusion into the private sector since William Howard Taft went to the grocery store.

Now, thanks to some Blumenauer staffer’s electronic indiscretion, we learn the Democrats are planning to circumvent the legislative process and return section 1233’s allowance of annual “ready to die yet?” consultations to legal status through the regulation-writing process.

The revelation of said email raises a couple of noteworthy questions, foremost among them:

“…if this is such a grand idea, then why are Democrats trying to hide it?”

In the interests of full disclosure, I am entirely comfortable with the idea of a sound-minded human being making an informed decision to end their own suffering, as long as that decision doesn’t require me to steam-clean the drapes afterwards. But Blumenauer’s secretly-celebrated regulation doesn’t introduce the idea of paying doctors to annually press “end-of-life-planning” to alleviate the suffering of people, it introduces the idea of paying doctors to annually press Kevorkian-esque logic to alleviate the suffering of government.

Section 936 of the ObamaCare legislation actually calls for governmentally-constructed brochures and videos which will essentially serve as scripts for teaching practitioners to convince people to pull the plug.

“Hi, I’m President Barack Obama. Like members of Congress, I am never going to be subjected to the tenets of Obamacare. But, if you’re watching this, you know someone who is. Here are some tips on the best ways to talk old people into assuming room temperature…”


What worries me is the likelihood of Federally-prompted bureaucrat “practitioners” talking people into making rash decisions because Kathleen Sebelius has a budget line to meet. If someone is being eaten alive by bone cancer, they ought to have the option to ask someone to turn off their lights. But if some Department of Health and Human Services functionary is pushing them to hit the switch not to alleviate incredible pain, but because they need the bed, that’s seriously macabre.

We don’t generally means-test the viability of civilized people in a civilized nation. Once we do — and Obamacare clearly raises that possibility — then we will find ourselves living in a nation in which a Federal bureaucracy is making determinations on the value of individuals. We can’t even successfully accomplish that task when dealing with convicted criminals on death row. Though it is interesting how the same ideological mélange which declaims the death penalty for mass-murderers warms to the idea of smothering Grandma with a proverbial pillow.

Liberals often whine about the supposed evils of corporate culture, but they’re evidently backing a regulatory addition to Obamacare which entails the ultimate in sinister anonymity:

“Well, Mrs. Patient 423-06-4487, we COULD begin a regimen of financially burdensome treatments which may or may not cure your… let me check… hmm… 4485, 4486, AH — cancer; OR, you can take this pill, feel a little sleepy, and see your mother in the afterlife.”

In addition to the zombie-like return of the “pay-for-slay” provision, a perusal of H.R. 3200 also reveals:

“…the Secretary shall include quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that have been adopted or endorsed by a consensus-based organization.”

Terrific. Global warming cultists are “a consensus-based organization,” and I wouldn’t ask them for a weather forecast. My potential end-of-life decision will be made in consultation with my physician — sorry — “practitioner” and my loved ones (in my case, my dog). I neither need nor want advice from any “consensus-based” anything.

Mr. Crystal, we’ve arrived at a consensus. You suck. We bribed your dog with bacon. Have fun being dead.”

Stalled From The START

If there were any doubts as to President Barack Obama’s religious affiliations, then this past Wednesday ought to roast them like chestnuts in an open fire. With assistance from the more pliable Republican spines in the Senate, Obama handed the Russian military machine one whopper of a Christmas gift.

Carrying through on his campaign promise (for once), Obama managed to push the New START treaty through the just-ended lame-duck session of the Senate. To hear Obama and the treaty’s backers tell the tale, New START will ensure a lasting peace across the planet. However, a perusal of the treaty’s provisions reveals that peace remains far from guaranteed; and may have gotten a lot more expensive — for us.

According to Senator John Kerry:

“…we move the world a little out of the dark shadow of nuclear nightmare…"

Outside Chernobyl — to which nuclear nightmare might the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts be referring? The reason huge swaths of the planetary rabble have never been subjected to a nuclear nightmare is that one nation — the United States — has been willing and able to invest in and maintain a deterrent arsenal.

Examination of New START calls to mind the warnings at some national parks: “Please don’t feed the bears.” In the case of the Russians, Obama has made what he considers a diplomatic gesture. The problem is that the Russians look at diplomatic gestures the way ursines look at roast beef sandwiches: “Nice sandwich. I wonder if we can get the whole arm.”

New START does not reduce tactical nuclear weapons, in which the Russians hold a nearly 10 to one advantage over us. Presuming the Russians abide by treaty provisions (which by itself would be a hell of thing), Obama has essentially agreed to limit shotguns, while ignoring all their AK-47s.

In addition, New START is a nuclear-powered raspberry to allies we’ve spent nearly two decades warming up after they spent a half-century enduring a long Soviet winter. In order to convince the Russians to go along with New START, Obama agreed to scrap planned missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Democrats often wax rhapsodic about their admiration for European culture. According to paragraph nine of New START’s preamble, American missile defense systems must be limited so as to:

“…not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the Parties.”

New START could potentially allow them to appreciate European culture at night; once it glows in the dark. And the Russians are already threatening to abrogate the treaty should we place new “nukebusters” in Europe. According to General Yevgeny Buzinskiy:

“… (it is) possible for us, in case the Americans increase their strategic ABM system, to claim that they are not observing… the treaty."

The President signed New START in April. The Senate ratified it last Thursday. The Russians are acting like they had their fingers crossed the whole time, with General Nikolai Makarov saying:

"The Strategic Rocket Forces will not be reduced. The forces will be armed with modern mobile missile launchers."

They’ve already found a loophole and they’re going to exploit it like a blind drunk babushka.

There’s also a minor detail regarding nuclear-armed countries which speak both English AND Russian with funny accents. New START has no effect on nations other than Russia and the United States. The Chi-coms are nearly as good at building nukes as they are at pirating DVDs and running over dissenters with tanks. They are not a party to New START. Neither is North Korea, which has nuclear weapons under the thumb of Kim Jong Il, who’s a monocle and pet cat away from being a James Bond movie villain. Neither is Iran, which is diligently working on nuclear power for peaceful means — honest! Neither is Pakistan, which is an Islamabad cricket match from being renamed “Jihadistan,” and electing “President bin Laden.”

New START also has a limited verification provision, which amounts to a “the inspectors are here, act like we’re not playing with the enriched uranium” effect. But it will have virtually no impact on movements of non-covered (read: tactical) weapons within the signatory countries. With the Russians infamously lax in the weapon-security department, the possibility exists that a Russian weapon could end up in the hands of our good friends in al-Qaida — and ultimately in a suburban shopping mall.

New START is the worst kind of flower-child diplomacy. Our co-signers are about as likely to abide by the letter of the agreement as John Kerry is to win a presidential election. (Too soon?) The treaty puts the United States at a marked, and potentially dangerous, disadvantage. While Obama’s general ineptitude is — at best — trying, this sort of muddled “peace at any price” foreign policy is somewhat frightening.

To quote Homer:

"There can be no covenants between men and lions."

Nor bears.

Happy Freaking Holidays

During an appearance on Inside Washington last weekend, National Public Radio‘s Nina Totenberg was rambling through the usual Democrat Party talking points, which she presumably thinks pass for erudite commentary, when she jerked the wheel of mendacity for a moment to offer her sincere apologies for uttering a grossly offensive word…”Christmas”:

“Well, these agencies, including the Defense Department, don’t know how much money they’ve got and for what. And I was at—forgive the expression—a Christmas party at the Department of Justice and people actually were really worried about this…"

Oh, Nina—there are so many things wrong with that whole sentence that it’s difficult to know where to aim the bandwidth.

So—Ms. Totenberg was kicking back at Eric Holder’s place, and everyone took a break from drinking eggnog, refusing to prosecute racist election law violators and defaming the good people of Arizona in order to whine about how much jack those jerks over the Pentagon have?

Moreover, did she just apologize for attending a Christmas Party? I suppose she would have eschewed the pardon-begging if it had been a Ramadan party? I should also ask: “They’re having Christmas parties—at Obama’s Department of Justice?” Does anyone want to bet on how many times the Attorney General did “Mele Kalikimaka” on the karaoke machine?

She’s not sorry that she was playing “pin the red nose on Rudolph” with Obama Administration insiders while claiming to be an independent media commentator. She’s not even sorry she was getting her groove on at the Department of Justice. Nina is begging our pardon for saying “Christmas.”

Nina, that’s just about the only thing for which I will pardon you. Had you been doing the white-woman’s overbite on the DOJ dance floor during a Hanukkah party, I wouldn’t have batted an eyelid. I certainly wouldn’t have expected an apology (although the other party-goers might feel differently).

During the season of giving, I would have surmised that an open-minded and tolerant pundit such as Nina would be more than happy to offer a little tolerance to us Christians. After all, we’ve been fighting off our supposedly Inquisitorial instincts for quite some time in order to tolerate her.

I presume Ms. Totenberg’s apology was directed at the poor non-Christians in the Washington, D.C., Public Broadcasting Service affiliate’s meager audience. I was unaware that they lacked the ability to endure the indignity of hearing about a Christmas party. Just yesterday, I heard a reference to the manufactured “Kwanzaa” holiday. The individual who made the reference offered no apology; of course, I didn’t ask for one.

For almost 80 percent of the nearly 310 million Americans, Christmas is the “most wonderful time of the year.” My question for Ms. Totenberg and her ilk: Why can’t it be the most wonderful time of your year? No one expects you to trim a tree, nor make sure the stockings are hung with care; and I am in no way complaining about some “war on Christmas.” I’m merely suggesting, in the tolerant vein of the Democrats’ beloved savior, Barack Obama, how about the Democrats allow us to show a little love to our Savior? As for Ms. Totenberg: Maybe your wish for Christmas 2010 doesn’t involve some Republican’s grandchildren being stricken with AIDS?

The liberal disdain for Christmas cheer clearly stems from their standard fear mongering masquerading as cultural awareness. It leaves out the right of every American to celebrate his (or her—how’s that for sensitivity?) own culture without reasonable restriction. If you want to celebrate Christmas, then go jingle your bells. If Hanukkah is your winter wonder-days, then spin that dreidel! Heck, invent your own holiday feast! (Kwanzaa has been taken since the late 60s.)

We live in what may well be the most fractured America since the end of the Civil War. It strikes me that a holiday season in which the message ought to be one of love and acceptance engenders an annual effort by some to deliberately exclude others based on religious intolerance. Ms. Totenberg—I’m not talking about the guys who wanted to put up a Nativity scene at the Fire Station.

With Christmas day less than 48 hours from now, I thought it might at least be worthwhile to simply say to Ms. Totenberg and the rest of the killjoys on the left:

“I forgive you. Merry Christmas.”

Supersizing Stupidity

Listen to some and you might think McDonald’s is as morally bankrupt as your friendly neighborhood crack dealer. Imagine Ronald and the Fry Guys slow-rolling through the ‘hood, pushing Quarter Pounders on poor Grimace and the Hamburglar. You should listen to reason instead. The belief that a multinational fast food chain would deliberately shorten the lives of their own clientele is sillier than “Nader 2012.”

Last week, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) announced that they had “recruited” a California woman to sue McDonald’s. Although the CSPI has been assaulting what it perceives to be threats to the public waistlines (if not the public taste buds) since its inception, its occasional shrieks have generally been met with the same yawn I expel each time Ed Schultz mimes intelligence. The CSPI’s food-Nazi forays have accomplished little more than info-taining labels on food we already knew was god-awful for us (So…Twinkies are not health food? Thanks, CSPI!).

But the CSPI’s newest ticket in the lawsuit lottery carries a twist: Instead of the usual frivolities involving some gravy-sweating hulk who blames Mayor McCheese because he can’t leave his bed without help from the Army Corps of Engineers, CSPI has Monet Parham.

When it comes to dining on McDonald’s finest fare, Parham appears to have demonstrated some restraint. However, she has ceded her children’s nutritional needs to Mickey D’s (not that they auditioned for the role). The idea that California’s CFSD hasn’t yanked her children from her care is a far better question than whether special sauce should be marked as a class III narcotic.

Parham claims that McDonald’s offer of free toys in “Happy Meals” causes her insurmountable parental problems.

“I object to the fact that McDonald’s is getting into my kids’ heads without my permission and actually changing what my kids want to eat… I am concerned about the health of my children and feel that McDonald’s should be a very limited part of their diet and their childhood experience.”

Parham’s daughters are 6 and 2. Perhaps she should try my mother’s sage advice:

Finish your vegetables.”

The suit claims that McDonald’s packaging of toys with their immensely popular Happy Meals is too alluring for children to resist. The suit further claims that people like Parham, therefore, require protection from what the CSPI claims is advertising which “exploits a child’s developmental vulnerability“; plus attorney’s fees (of course).

God forbid she cooks her kids a meal. Now, Parham wants to punish McDonald’s for her own inability to display rudimentary parental skills.

But there’s more to this sordid tale than meets the eye. Parham isn’t merely the CSPI’s latest stooge. Parham is also known as Monet Parham-Lee. And she works for the already-suffering taxpayers of the State of California; specifically, Parham-Lee works on a Federally-funded (your tax dollars at work, kiddies!) program designed to teach kids to eat their vegetables.

There’s a serendipitous alliance of an extraordinarily stupid woman and a liberal group which is working toward an ultimate goal of the Federal government feeding us like gerbils at some Ministry of Nutrition; and then there’s outright conspiracy.

Perhaps Parham-Lee has silly putty for a spine and really is cowering before her kids’ demands to visit Ronald, in which case she’s unfit to have children — or even a hamster. Perhaps the food Nazis at the CSPI recognized that at random, and decided to exploit her apparent unwillingness to discipline her children. However, the smart money says these two culinary crusaders met by less than chance.

McDonald’s placement of toys in the meals is obviously an effort to entice children. The Parham-Lee/CSPI suit alleges:

Children… influence the purchasing decisions of their parents. McDonald’s exploits that influence, by bombarding children with advertisements for Happy Meals with toys, knowing that it will result in kids nagging parents to purchase nutritionally poor Happy Meals for their children…”

Parham-Lee, the CSPI, and the ambulance-chasers who represent them are absolutely correct. Well-crafted advertisements DO influence children to nag their parents. However, the suit doesn’t mention the fact that well-crafted parents can — and often do — say “NO.”

Ultimately, Parham-Lee is:

  1. A sniveling idiot who lacks the fortitude to deny her children Shrek figurines.
  2. A slithering cretin who is deliberately using her children as sock puppets to push a nanny-state agenda.
  3. A sadly misguided woman who is being shamelessly exploited by the parasites at the CSPI.
  4. Some combination of the above.

CSPI needs no clarification; “nosy killjoys” fits the bill. As for the lawyers representing the plaintiffs in this waste of time, money, and justice: Shakespeare’s Henry VI, Act IV, Scene II says it best: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”

I’m off to McDonald’s — and I DO want fries with that.

Obamacare’s Paper Tiger

Thanks to a well-reasoned argument by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and a thoughtful decision by Judge Henry Hudson, Obamacare may soon be joining “Carter for President 1980″ and “Keith Olbermann on Sunday Night Football” on the ash-heap of monumentally bad ideas.

In Hudson’s landmark ruling of earlier this week, he called the fundamental tenet of the misleadingly-monikered Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) — specifically, the fine for non-compliance — exactly what it is: A grotesque grab for power by the same Democrats who have been lying about Obamacare’s effects all along.

Thankfully, there are Federal judges who have not only read the Constitution, but understand it. You may count Judge Henry Hudson among them. In striking down Section 1501 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the part that requires you to buy comprehensive coverage or face a fine), Hudson wrote:

“The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers.”

Put simply: the Federal government does has not have the prerogative to force people to buy health insurance; and “policy raids by The Doctor Police” is just plain Big Brother-creepy. Democrats hoping to utilize the Constitution’s Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) to force citizens to buy into a government-run system felt the back of Hudson’s hand; he noted that section 1501 of the PPACA “exceeds the Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article 1.”

And how! In addition to levying a financial penalty on citizens who choose to eschew the government’s healthcare boondoggle, Obamacare actually penalizes younger, healthier citizens who DO participate, by forcing insurance companies to cease the practice of offering lower rates to the fittest among us based on academic projections.

Fortunately, Hudson saw through the veneer of Democrat duplicity. It should be noted that the Democrats were perfectly willing to acknowledge that Section 1501 mandated a non-participation penalty right up until the Obama Administration found itself defending the bill in Federal Court, at which point the “penalty” became a “tax.” Not so fast, said Hudson:

“Having concluded that Section 1501(b)(1) is… a penalty as opposed to a tax (author’s emphasis)… Congress lacked power under the Commerce Clause… to compel an individual to involuntarily engage in a private commercial transaction… The absence of a constitutionally viable exercise of this enumerated power is fatal to the accompanying sanction for non-compliance.”

Notice Hudson said “sanction” and not “tax.” Through the Minimum Essential Coverage (MEC) provision, the Democrats were planning to institute the first tax in U.S. history paid by people for NOT buying something.

While Hudson’s decision DID sever Section 1501 from the PPACA as opposed to simply gunning down the whole bureaucratic monstrosity which is Obamacare, the bill can be regarded as surviving on legislative life support. More Federal cases are in the pipeline, notably in Florida, where 16 states’ Attorneys General are leading the charge to stuff Obamacare back in the Democrats’ pieholes.

Judge Roger Vinson has already ruled that the case can go forward. Vinson’s ruling is déjà vu for the Democrats; Hudson issued a similar ruling in Virginia back in August. There are also religious exemptions which are begging for a 1st Amendment challenge, the obvious 10th Amendment issues, and a privacy case regarding the PPACA’s data-mining intrusions and more — it’s a cornucopia of constitutional contentions — and just in time for Christmas!

Most importantly, without Section 1501’s penalty for failure to buy insurance at Big Barry’s, the PPACA is a legislative paper tiger. The bulk of the Obamacare power grab rested on the threat of enforcement. The Democrats wanted control of the nation’s healthcare apparatus and violated the Constitution to facilitate their greed. Now, the PPACA is little more than a 2,700-page suggestion that people purchase insurance in the manner proscribed.

The uninsured will continue to make their choices. Indigent care, Medicare and the host of other taxpayer-subsidized healthcare services will still require funding. Only now, with the PPACA and attendant layers of bureaucracy, make-work jobs and functionary excess which ALWAYS ride shotgun on overarching Federal legislation, more money will still be required. When the loss of the MEC enforcement provision is factored in — the taxpayers are going to have foot the bill anyway.

The proper response here is not: “Why not just pass it?” The proper response IS: “How about we dump the whole bill like we dumped the Democrat House majority?”

The Prodigal Bubba Returns

(The Oval Office — Thursday, December 9):

“Hey Bill, it’s Barack. Barack… Obama. Yeah, I think Michelle looks great in the stretchy pants, too. Seriously — you’ve probably noticed I make George W. Bush look like a Rhodes Scholar, and Mr. Soros mentioned YOU were a Rhodes Scholar. If you’re not too busy, do you think you could drop by the White House and, um… do my job?”

Last Friday President Obama, facing shrieking indignation from his fellow liberals over his decision to accept the GOP’s tax-rate extension, decided to remind everyone that he is farther out of his depth than a quadriplegic in Loch Ness. Obama called a press conference — on such short notice that he had to ask his spokesmodel Robert Gibbs to find someone to unlock the White House briefing room. The most inept president in American history was going to acknowledge that he and his party had driven the economy into a ditch, and the GOP was going to drive for a while.

Actually, Obama was simply going to act as if the tax policies he’d repeatedly opposed had suddenly been his plan all along. To pull off this latest charade, Obama called in some heavy artillery: Former President Bill Clinton, who is infamous for his ability to dig in against conservative ideals, then take credit for them with a methodical mendacity he calls “triangulation.” And Obama lacks Willie’s slickness, so he invited Clinton to share some tips on how to win votes and influence reporters.

Although he looked about as happy as a vegan in an abattoir, Obama claimed he was pleased with the tax-rate deal:

“The opportunity for families to send their kids to college hinges on this… The ability of parents to put food on the table while looking for a job depends on this…”

That’s a rather abrupt about-face from earlier in the week, when Obama called the Republicans “hostage-takers” over the same compromise.

And then, while Clinton loomed over Obama’s shoulder, looking very much like a disappointed parent, the scene took a turn for the weird as Obama… quit. The President (the actual one) took a powder. Claiming he had to go pound white wine spritzers with the Lady Macbeth of Chicago, Barry hit the bricks, leaving Monica’s ex-boyfriend to… run the country?

Did I miss a memo? While I’m well aware that the Democrat Party has been dealing with some fairly serious intramural dissent of late (and let’s watch the language, people — you’re on television), I was unaware that America’s worst President gave America’s creepiest President the keys to the Lincoln Bedroom.

Clinton, of course, was masterful. The man who spent eight years playing the White House press corps the way Van Cliburn played a Steinway looked as if he’d never left. If you closed your eyes, you would have thought Clinton — musing on everything from the environment to Haiti — was, well, President. Few in the room, including a number of Obama staffers who were evidently abandoned to their fates by their suddenly absent savior, batted an eye at Clinton’s endorsement of the tax-rate compromise against which both he and Obama have vociferously railed. Even fewer noted that Clinton was convincingly pontificating in support of tax rates he has openly, albeit intermittently, opposed throughout his entire career, mostly because we “wouldn’t spend them right.”

In a tableau which only Slick Willy could provide, he was now for the tax rates, after he was against them, after he was for them, after he was against them.

If he had stuck around, Obama would have called the Friday presser a “teachable moment.” Faced with a resurgent Republican House, an economy capable of fiscal super-speed reduced by Democrat policies to idling in the driveway and erstwhile allies who were now describing him in terms normally used by Tourette’s-afflicted schizophrenics, Obama abdicated.

Barack Obama’s 2008 Presidential campaign was noteworthy for a comprehensive dearth of substance. Criticism was squashed with laughable claims of racism. The former community organizer from Chicago displayed neither the expertise nor the résumé for the position. Serious, and seriously reasonable, questions about his ability were swept under the rug of liberal lust for power. Suffice it to say, the subsequent years of epic, ham-fisted incompetence have been a little… strange.

But nothing could have prepared us for last Friday afternoon, when the President of the United States, winner of a Nobel Peace Prize, Community Organizer to the Stars and architect of the Audacity of Hope, faced with yet another tight spot of his own making, ran and hid behind his big buddy Bubba.