Another one of those seemingly boring, legalistic White House scandals has popped up again—the kind that was legion during the Clinton era. This one bears scrutiny because of the contrast between the media’s treatment of it and a similar but benign Bush controversy.
In 2006, George W. Bush asked eight U.S. attorneys to resign. Bush had full discretion to fire the attorneys, who as members of the executive branch served at his pleasure. He could have removed them for not wearing flag pins if he felt like it. The mainstream media and Congressional Democrats screamed bloody murder. Proving that Democrats are more likely to defend evil than Republicans are to defend good, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales sheepishly resigned over his involvement.
In the past week, the Obama administration has discharged two Inspectors General: Gerald Walpin, IG for the Corporation for National and Community Service, which includes AmeriCorps; and Judith Gwynn, IG for the International Trade Commission; and made life miserable for a third, Neil Barofksy, IG for TARP.
Obama fired Walpin in retaliation for his critical report on Obama supporter and Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson’s misuse of funds with nonprofit organization St. Hope Academy. The agency received $850,000 from AmeriCorps to tutor students, redevelop buildings, and fund arts programs; instead, Johnson used the money to pad salaries, pay employees for personal favors, and bribe constituents to interfere in a local election. Johnson was barred from receiving federal funds. read more »
In a survey conducted in early June, Rasmussen found that Americans trust Republicans more than Democrats on six out of eleven top issues.
It’s no surprise that Republicans lead on national security: after
9/11, when Bush implemented policies to fight terrorism, Republicans’
trust ratings skyrocketed, because Americans saw the problem at hand
and liked the way Republicans were dealing with it. Years later, Obama
and other Democratic presidential candidates boasted how much more
effective they would be on national security—a fraud they were able to
perpetrate because Bush had kept us safe since 9/11 and the threat of
attack seemed remote. Even if Americans actually came to believe that
the way to defeat terrorists is to love them, Obama soon co-opted
Bush’s entire war policy, thus validating Republicans’ arguments for
the past eight years.
So we know national security isn’t Democrats’ strong suit. Perhaps
to distract from their unpopular war agenda, Obama and the newly
engorged Democratic Congressional majorities started talking about “a
new era of transparency.” After 384 Obama appointees turned out to be
tax cheats, liars, campaign underwriters, and lobbyists, Republicans
now lead on government ethics, the second-most important issue to
When ethics didn’t prove to be Democrats’ trump card, Obama started
traveling around the country handing out stimulus goodies and talking
about projects and jobs funded by the Recovery Act. Then ABC’s Jake
Tapper started uncovering all of Obama’s lies about the nonexistent effects of stimulus spending, and economists deconstructed the lunacy of his “saved or created” jobs argument. Now a plurality of Americans wants the unspent portion of the stimulus recalled. read more »
Around the time President Obama was delivering his speech “A New
Beginning with Muslims” in Cairo, Governor Sarah Palin was making
introductory remarks for main speaker Michael Reagan to an audience in
Anchorage. Though Obama’s oration was approximately 17 times longer
than Palin’s and focused on Middle East foreign policy, Palin’s
informal comments contained more understanding of the nature of Islamic
extremism and the forces that motivate it than Obama’s entire homily.
In one speech, Obama managed to apologize for:
• The Cold War, “in which Muslim-majority countries were too
often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations”—as
opposed to the aspirations they fruitfully pursued under a leader like
• Western “colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to
many Muslims”—as opposed to the rights they have under a leader like
former colony Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad
• Not having enough “mutual respect”—as opposed to the fawning
respect Islamists shower on women, Jews, Christians, gays, and
• Not letting women wear hajibs—as opposed to Islamists’ insistence that gays always be allowed to wear nooses
• Not saying “openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that
too often are said only behind closed doors”—as opposed to the constant
warmongering that glides so effortlessly off of Obama’s tongue
• Believing in “any world order that elevates one nation or group
of people over another”—rather than viewing those who uphold liberty
the same as those who stone women for being gang raped read more »
How did the Republican Party’s approach to dealing with
objectionable Supreme Court nominees come to resemble the Democrats’
strategy for the war on terror: scorn anyone who says anything critical
of the opposition and settle for second-class citizen status,
dhimmitude-style? Are Republicans trying to balance Obama’s cooption
of Bush’s war policy to restore some kind of harmony in the universe?
Over the past week, we’ve been treated by Republicans to a range of
subtle and nuanced political stratagems for dealing with the nomination
of Sonia Sotomayor, including: shut your mouth, don’t speak, zip your
lip, don’t make waves, and while you’re at it, don’t say anything.
This, from the party of “hawks” who bravely fought and won the Civil
War, the Cold War, and the Battle of Chad.
Let’s examine the reasons offered by Republican turncoats why we should not tender a whisper against the Sotomayor nomination:
It’s mean-spirited. Well, Democrats successfully mobilized
before Reagan’s fourth Supreme Court nomination, Robert Bork, savagely
vowing to form a “phalanx of opposition” against anyone at all Reagan
deigned to choose. Democrats tried to destroy George W. Bush
appointees John Roberts and Samuel Alito but failed only because they
lacked the votes (at least they managed to invade Roberts’ family’s
privacy and make Samuel Alito’s wife cry!). The Republicans have not
opposed a Supreme Court nominee by a Democratic president since 1968.
I think that at least qualifies as “sporting.” read more »
A couple of months ago, the mainstream media was snickering because
a national survey of liberal historians had rated George W. Bush to be
among the least successful of all American presidents, mostly on the
basis of his conduct in the war against Islamic terrorists. Given
Obama’s adoration by the media, his wholesale reversal of nearly every
one of his foreign policy campaign promises, and his Xeroxing of Bush’s
war strategy, Bush should reach… oh, about #2 on the presidents’ list
by the end of Obama’s tenure.
Candidate Obama wailed for years about Bush’s war in Iraq and
promised to remove all troops by March 2009. The latest plan, which
President Obama scrawled on a cocktail napkin at one of his Wednesday
night White House soirees, is to remove them by August 2010 and leave
up to 50,000 troops in place for security purposes—and if you believe
those dates and numbers won’t be extended further as “conditions change
on the ground,” you probably voted for Obama. Admittedly, “Obama lied,
kids died” doesn’t have quite the same ring, but I think if Bush had
pulled a fast one like this, we would have heard a few more complaints
about his mendacity.
Obama formerly countered the spectacularly successful surge in Iraq,
claiming that there was no way it could work—then turned around as
President and implemented something in Afghanistan that starts with ‘s’
and rhymes with ‘urge’ but is definitely not a surge.
As Senator, Obama rejected special funding measures for U.S.
anti-terror military conflicts—then, while president, asked Congress
for an additional $83 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; you
know, the ones we were fighting all along. On the campaign trail,
Obama whined about the cost of war and swore that funding would not be
approved without benchmarks; when Congress’s bill came to a vote, Obama
asked that the benchmarks be removed. read more »
Two ineluctable facts stand out when scrutinizing politicians’
actions on gay issues over the past 30 years: (1) Republicans are not
anti-gay and (2) Democrats are not pro-gay. By 2009, there are few
differences between Republican and Democratic politicians on gay
issues, except that Democrats are more likely to jerk gay voters around
and Republicans are more likely to quietly favor pro-liberty stances.
There may have been a difference between the two parties once, but that
hasn’t been the case for a long time.
In 1978, California governor Ronald Reagan opposed the Briggs
Initiative, which would have barred gays from teaching in public
schools. In an op-ed penned as he was beginning his presidential
campaign, Reagan wrote, “Prevailing scientific opinion is that an
individual’s sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a
child’s teachers do not really influence this.” This, in the late 70s,
while Jimmy Carter was publicly refusing to meet with gay groups. The
initiative was overwhelmingly defeated, mostly due to Reagan’s efforts,
and this momentum was instrumental in forming the Log Cabin Republicans.
Reagan was the first president to invite two openly gay men—interior
decorator Ted Graber and his partner—to spend the night at the White
House. Washington Post reporter Robert Kaiser called Reagan a “closet
tolerant.” If Reagan was closeted, it was because no one asked him his
views, not because he was hiding anything.
The number of gays discharged from the military dropped every year under Reagan. In contrast, the number of gays discharged increased every full year under Bill Clinton except one, doubling from 617 in 1994 to 1,231 in 2000. The number of gays discharged decreased
again every full year under George W. Bush except one, halved from
1,273 in 2001 to 612 in 2006. Gay rights groups report the number of
gays discharged over decades, but they never break it down by
administration, because the numbers make Democrats look bad and
Republicans look good. read more »
In an unintentionally comic piece, Stanley Crouch claims, “On President Obama’s watch, patience is the ultimate virtue.”
Is he kidding? To rephrase the expression, Barack Obama never
waited a day in his administration. (Up until the presidential
campaign, “worked an honest day in his life” covers him pretty well,
Obama would have nationalized healthcare, banned carbon dioxide,
withdrawn from Iraq, and started a second New Deal while still in the
“Office of the President-Elect” if he could have gotten away with it.
President “I want a stimulus package on my desk by January 20” Obama
couldn’t be bothered with niceties like posting the bill online for 48
hours for voters to read, even though he waited four days after it
passed to sign it. In his quote from the week before the $800 billion
boondoggle was brought to a vote—“We can’t afford to make perfect the
enemy of the absolutely necessary”—by “perfect” he evidently meant “a
bill with completed wording.”
Obama is just fine with Nancy Pelosi ramming “healthcare reform”
through Congress with a simple majority by inappropriately using budget
reconciliation to write it into law after the budget is approved, so
members of Congress don’t have time to debate it. read more »
Paul Krugman’s recent column, “An Affordable Salvation,”
gushes about how, now that the “junk science”-loving (and Nazi-hugging)
former occupant of the White House is gone, we can finally start saving
the planet. And it won’t cost much, either! That is, if only we can
get cap-and-trade skeptics to stop practicing “junk economics.”
“The best available estimates,” according to Krugman, suggest that
turning industrial civilization green will basically be painless, and
in the end will actually be good for us. Perhaps his “best available
estimates” include the recent, breathless press release
from the Environmental Defense Fund: “For about a dime a day we can
solve climate change, invest in a clean energy future, and save
billions in imported oil.” New EDF slogan: Saving the planet and 90
cents will get you a cup of coffee!
In the Rube Goldberg scheme of alternative energy sources, permits,
taxes, carbon credit swapping, and rebates known as “cap-and-trade,” I
count at least six additional charges consumers will directly or
indirectly face. First, there is the cost of less efficient
“green” energy production, which will be passed on to consumers.
Second, there is the charge for emissions permits, which will also be
passed on to consumers. read more »
In celebration of Obama’s first 100 days in office, PolitiFact.com published a series, “The Obameter: Tracking Obama’s Campaign Promises.”
The site compiles 514 promises Obama made during the campaign and
tracks his daily progress in fulfilling them. PolitiFact assigns each
promise one of the following outcomes: Kept, Compromise, Broken,
Stalled, In the Works, No Action, and Yes We Can (just kidding on the
last one). They also identify his “Top 25” most important promises.
This seems like such an even-handed, nonpartisan way to evaluate
Obama, one we can all agree on. Indeed, as of Day 96, PolitiFact, the
St. Petersburg Times-housed, Pulitzer Prize-winning site, lists only 5%
of Obama’s promises as Kept, 12% as In the Works, and 79% as No Action.
It’s interesting, however, that for PolitiFact, the baseline for
success is whether Obama keeps his promises. The assumption is that
his promises are worth keeping. As Obama said, “You can’t just listen
to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.”
A better way to track Obama’s performance might be to first classify
his threats—er, promises—into three categories: Harmful, Inoffensive,
and Worthy. By this system, I determine that 15 out of 25, or 60%, of
Obama’s Top 25 promises are Harmful, 24% are Inoffensive, and 16% are
Worthy. Off to a great start!
Second, let’s give Obama 1 point for every Worthy promise he’s kept,
a ½ point for every one that’s compromised, stalled, or in the works,
and 0 points for every one that’s broken or not acted on. Give him 0
points for every Harmful promise, no matter what stage it’s in, except
let’s give him a ½ point for every Harmful promise he’s broken, because
he might just have been appeasing his base during the campaign (though
he still loses credit for scaring us). Inoffensive promises get no
points. read more »
The New York Times recently published an editorial titled “In the Spirit of Openness.”
It begins, “When he was vice president, Dick Cheney never acknowledged
the public’s right to know anything. Now, suddenly, he has the full
How did Cheney catch this “full disclosure bug”? Could it in fact be
an allergic reaction to some recent event or another—I don’t know, say,
the Obama administration’s censorious partial disclosure of the
enhanced interrogation memos with all of the spoilers blacked out?
The Times mocks Cheney’s statement that the decision to release the
memos “inspired” him to ask the CIA to release full transcripts of the
interrogations. Might “inspired” be a euphemism for “forced”?
The Times continues: “Mr. Cheney was not being entirely honest… and
his logic is confounding. If releasing the memos leaves this country
open to a devastating terrorist attack… imagine the potential harm from
revealing all of the secrets gleaned from the three most ‘high value’
terrorists captured since Sept. 11, 2001.”
Let’s examine Cheney’s supposed breakdown in logic. Releasing the
memos, which detail the nature and limits of the U.S.’s enhanced
interrogation techniques, inarguably makes our country more vulnerable
to attack, because it increases terrorists’ understanding of our
methods and what is needed to resist them. read more »
A state-sponsored pregnancy prevention program at the University of North Carolina is paying girls $1.00 a day not to get pregnant.
Since it takes two to make a baby, shouldn't young men be getting this WELFARE also?
If it was reversed, wouldn't NOW nags be crying discrimination?
Some will argue there really isn't anyway to prove boys are complying with the program.
But the same is true with girls up until the time they either have the baby or one notices the bulge in the belly.
So, when this happens, will program administrators subtract back to around the time when the contract was broken and demand any compensation from that point forward be returned to the program's coffers?
How about, instead of handing out money, scaring both boys and girls into keeping their pants on and legs together by emphasizing what will happen to them should they catch an incurable disease or the hardship that will result from having a baby before they get married?
Contrary to the headshrinkers, fear can be a good motivator.
by Frederick Meekins
What if I had told you in October 2008, before the last presidential election, that before Barack Obama’s first 100 days in office, the federal government would be in control of both the mortgage and the banking industries? That 19 of America’s largest banks would be forced to undergo “stress tests” by the federal government which would determine that they were “insufficiently capitalized” so they must be supervised by the government? Would you have said, “C’mon, that will never happen in America”?
What if I had told you that within Barack Obama’s first 100 days in office the federal government would be the largest shareholder in the US Big Three automakers – Ford, GM, and Chrysler? That the government would kick out the CEO’s of these companies and appoint hand-picked executives with zero experience in the auto industry and that executive compensation would be determined not by a Board of Directors but by the government? Would you have said, “C’mon, that will never happen in America”?
What if I had told you that Barack Obama would appoint 21 “Czars”, without congressional approval, accountable only to him – not to the voters – who would have control over a wide range of US policy decisions? That there would be a Stimulus Accountability Czar, an Urban Czar, a Compensation Czar, an Iran Czar, an Auto Industry Czar, a Cyber Security Czar, an Energy Czar, a Bank Bailout Czar, and more than a dozen other government bureaucrats with unchecked regulatory powers over US domestic and foreign policy? Would you have said, “C’mon, that will never happen in America”? read more »
The human mind and spirit cannot endure for very long the chaotic vacillation of such lawlessness before the individual eventually cries out for answers to the extremes of licentiousness and total control. Throughout much of the Modern Era, the Christian apologist could appeal to a shared respect for historic and scientific fact common to both Christianity and commonsense realism. Today, the Christian must first reestablish why anyone ought to believe in anything at all and then assert how the Biblical approach provides the best possible explanation for the condition in which man actually finds himself and the facts as they are rather than how he might like them to be.
The apologist must begin this process by exposing the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the Postmodernist system. James Sire writes in The Universe Next Door, "If we hold that all linguistic utterances are power plays, then that utterance itself is a power play and no more likely to be more proper than any other (187)."
This claim by Postmodernists that all utterances are merely power plays fails the test of systematic consistency where a philosophical proposition must square with the external world as well as logically cohere with the other statements comprising the set of beliefs under consideration. But more important than the sense of satisfaction resulting from the discovery of this contradiction allowing for a degree of one-upmanship in the battle of ideas is the realization that this contradiction exposes the unlivability of a particular worldview.
Big deal, the Postmodernist might quip in response to this inconsistency since they are not known for their devotion to logical argumentation. Try as they might to gloss over this oversight with platitudes honoring the glories of relativism and tolerance, Postmodernists still deep down possess that human yearning for a universal justice. Romans 2:14-15 says, "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts..." read more »
One might say the future is here --- and we might want to send it back for a refund. Having waited years and wondering at times whether mankind would even survive to see the day, the world now finds itself on the other side of a new millennium. In some ways, it is everything optimistic futurists dreamed of in terms of faster modes of transportation, improved forms of medicine and almost instantaneous global communication. However, one would hardly consider it the quaint but technologically sophisticated world of George Jetson whose most formidable challenges consisted of navigating Mr. Spacely's fickle temper and making sure Rosie the robot maid stayed adequately oiled. Instead, inhabitants of the early twenty-first century worry if their children will even return home alive from school in the evening or how much longer they have until turbaned fanatics turn the accumulated glories of Western civilization into a smoldering atomic wasteland.
Somewhere along the highway leading from intentions to actuality society seems to have taken a wrong turn and gotten lost along the way. When finding oneself in unintended surroundings while road-tripping across the country, one pulls over to the shoulder of the road to look at a map to determine where one's navigation went astray. Likewise, when a culture begins to display signs of being out of kilter, the time has come to examine the sociological roadmap in terms of the philosophies, beliefs, and ideas individuals use to live their lives and those in authority employ to oversee events.
The observer of intellectual trends might note the contradictory nature of today's philosophical scene. For while proponents of the status quo purport to be characterized by a considerable latitude of conscience, such professed flexibility ultimately turns back on itself and bears down harshly upon any dissident daring to question the system's most cherished assumptions. The prevailing outlook can be characterized as a pragmatic Postmodernism. read more »
The story by Karin Zeitvogel of a Washington, DC Episcopal Church paying for the wedding of two homeless people raises a number of questions.
First, I don't care how much they love each other, if these two cannot afford to care for themselves, should they really be getting married?
As my grandmother's sister use to say, "Love can fall in a bucket of sh--."
By this she meant that while important, love was not the sole determining factor upon which one should make critical life decisions especially when one is existing at a minimal subsistence level. read more »
Some traditions should be so hallowed that they should not be sullied by political controversies or used as a vehicle to manipulate the participants into embracing perspectives and policies they might not otherwise be exposed to or willing to accept. As a celebration of profound cultural significance at one of America's most solemn and historic venues, the annual Easter Egg Roll at the White House ought to be just such an occasion. read more »
Since Iowa is now granting it's blessing to sodomite unions, marriage licenses in the state will now read "Party A" and "Party B".
Those mired in counterrevolutionary notions can still check blocks labeled "Bride" and "Groom", no doubt the document to be entered into evidence at a later date as to why these individuals will need to be hauled off to a reeducation camp.
State Senator Matt McCoy, one deviant favoring this movement, though abominable in his outlook, possessed enough foresight to categorize these changes as " a precursor of other things to come."
Where does this all end? read more »
The Obama progeny are well into their studies at Sidwell Friends School. As their parents, Barack and Michelle have every right to enroll their daughters in the school they think best for their children. Ironically, this is one of the many prerogatives the President’s most enthusiastic supporters would frown upon should you, the average American, decide to exercise them. read more »
President Obama has recently been traveling throughout the world apologizing for America’s supposed arrogance, aggression, unilateralism, and other sins. In Europe Obama proclaimed “In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” This shows an amazing sense of naiveté and a complete ignorance of American and world history. read more »
Leftists want the captured Somali tried as a juvenile because he is about 17 years old.
Interestingly, in every other instance, these very same liberals constantly counsel how the cultural norms of Third World trashpile nations are inherently superior to those utilized in the civilized West and the law used to justify letting this scumbag off easy says we must take into account the "social background of the juvenile".
In liberalese that means the supposedly impoverished and downtrodden should be allowed to kill and pillage as many White people and Americans as they want to. read more »