But he plays one on TV

Since Obama and the Obamacrats have taken office, there have been a number of shifts in government policies. In foreign policy, the shifts have been major. those who have been loyal friends and allies of the USA for the last twenty years have been shunted aside while the enemies of the last decades have become people we could and should talk to. Thus, the UK Prime Minister got second hand treatment when he visited Washington. Obama treated him as if he were the head of Nauru or Malta rather than the prime minister of our closest ally. Similarly, the prime minister of Canada was treated with disdain, while the President of Mexico was told that all of the crime and violence that Mexico is exporting into the USA was actually the fault of the USA. No reason to hold Mexico accountable when Obama can blame the USA. Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel is given a non-negotiable demand that Israel stop construction of new homes in its existing settlements that house about 6% of the Israeli population. At the same time, President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority is promised further aid in developing his armed forces. The fact that Israel has been our ally in the war on terror while the Palestinians cheered in large crowds when the US was attacked on 9-11 plays no part in the thinking of the Administration.

Obama also threatens to attack Pakistan, our ally, while cozying up to Syria and Iran, two countries that actively support terrorists and which are both attempting to develop nuclear weapons.

Obama seems not to understand this world. After all, the response from Syria and Iran has been basically to laugh at Obama as weak and then demand more concessions. Abbas has not been able to do much, but he certainly did not promise any move at all towards peace. Instead, he demanded that the USA put still more pressure on the Israelis without promising anything in return.

The worst example of Obama foreign policy, however, seems to be North Korea. In the last week, the NK's have exploded a nuke, fired off multiple missiles, and rescinded the armistice agreement that has kept the peace in Korea since 1953. Obama's response has be strictly oral. He seems to think that the NK's actually care about what he says rather than what the US does. this is a very dangerous delusion for the world. North Korea will not stop moving down this road until there is something stopping it. That something should be Chinese pressure, and it should be exerted with the support and at the urging of the US.

This is one area where no sane person could hope for the failure of Obama. The peace of the world depends on success. After all, what would be the aftermath of a nuclear attack by NK upon Seoul? First, the instant death of 3-5 million people. Second, the recommencement of a war in Korea with resulting deaths of thousands or hundreds of thousands of others. Third, the possible widening of the war into a global thermonuclear conflict; this is surely unlikely, but given the nutty behavior that got us here, not impossible. and would the NK's not attack the USA? for all we know, the secretive North Koreans already have nuclear weapons smuggled into US cities. No missiles and no missile defense needed, just push the button and bingo, no more New York or Los Angeles.

After that, Obama and his party would be voted out for good. But what good would that do -- the damage would already have been done.

We need a real president -- unfortunately we got someone who only plays one on TV.

Idiots never learn

After North Korea tested another nuclear weapon, I decided to look at the world commentary about what had happened. Admittedly, I had a preconceived expectation that blame would be put on the Bush Administration for this. Not surprisingly, I was correct.

For example, in the Guardian, there were three possible explanations of why this had happened. the only one which did not center on internal NK events was, of course, the announced failure of the Bush Administration. How predictable.

During the Clinton years, the US made a deal with the NK's to provide them with enormous aid in exchange for their cessation of their nuclear program. The end result of this deal was the the NK's continued with their program in secret and tested a bomb, all the while getting aid from the West.

In 2006, there was a deal in which NK once again agreed to stop its nuclear program. The nuclear plant where the bomb material was made was indeed partially demolished after the deal. For the rest of the Bush Administration, no tests were carried out by the NKs.

After Obama came into office, it took only 4 months until the NK's tested another weapon. Strange isn't it, that even though the NK's had the weapons and could have tested them while Bush was President, they waited until the US had an appeasement friendly president prior to actually carrying out the test. And it is surely less than amazing that the media announces now, with mock sincerity, that all this is Bush's fault.

My guess as to the next step: Obama will announce that he is expediting the closure of Guantanamo since the existence of that prison is, in his opinion, one of the main reasons for the NK's nuclear test.

I only hope that the Israelis have more common sense than this fool. They have to take Iran seriously even if Obama does not.

how to destroy the economy in three easy lessons

Today's news from the UK includes the linked article in which British bankers announce that they will be forced to drop American clients and to disinvest in US shares if Obama's new proposed tax rules go into effect. It seems that the Brits do not want to have to deal with the IRS in the event that one of their clients fails to pay the requisite taxes.

In English, this news means that by putting these new rules into effect, Obama the Magnificent will make business relationships between Britain and the US much more difficult. He will also force down the stock prices of many US corporations as they are dumped by the large London banks. Indeed, if the French and Germans follow suit, there may be another drop in the US markets equivalent to the panic that hit them when Obama took office. We are only just coming back from that drop and another drop would be very deleterious to the economy.

So once again Obama strikes a blow against the US economy. I thought he was trying to protect jobs of American workers. The truth is that he is singlehandedly causing the unemployment rate to soar.

So here are the three easy lessons to destroy the US economy: 1) elect obama; 2)elect obama; and 3) elect Obama.

Israel fails to worship at the Obama altar

Today's news brings the announcement that the new Israeli government is going to continue its policy of allowing construction of new homes in Israeli towns on the West Bank, but will not permit new settlements in this area. Close to 300,000 Israelis live in these towns or "settlements" in the parlance of the Obama administration and the Palestinians. President Obama demanded during his meetings last week with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu that Israel prohibit any further construction in these areas. Not surprisingly, Israel has not gone along with that nonsensical demand. After all, 300,000 citizens have children who grow up and need places to live. Imagine the US response if Israel or any other country demanded that the US bar construction in cities holding 15,000,000 American citizens (proportionately the same amount). While Obama would surely appologize for something, he would also find it compelling to allow those 15,000,000 people to continue to build new homes and businesses.

More important, Israel has no reason to believe that stopping constrution would lead to peace. Israel withdrew from Lebanon and got Hezbollah on the border in return. Israel withdrew from Gaza and got Hamas and rockets into its territory in return.
There is no need for Israel to stop its citizens from building in their towns and cities when no one can make even a reasonable case that this will lead to peace. After all, there is not even a Palestinian leader who could promise peace in a meaningful way.

Obama sinks lower

Today's Drudge report has a headline story in which Obama is quoted in a C-span interview as saying the the US is out of money. He then goes on to blame the deficit on health care costs. I know that Obama admitted taking drugs when he was younger, but he claimed that he had stopped. This latest howler makes me wonder if he was telling the truth. The deficit is due to health care costs? Incredible. Obama makes Nancy Pelosi look like a truth teller. The deficit is due to out of control spending by the government on all manner of things. While there was little restraint over the last few years of the Bush administration, there was, at least, some attempts to keep spending under control. Then the Obamacrats got control of the government and quickly spent nearly two trillion dollars that the USA did not have. That spending spree had nothing to do with health care -- except maybe it led to a few heart attacks among the fiscally responsible as they pondered the maniacal spending pouring out of Washington to bolster the Dems and their allies. The spending was the victory once again of a political/economic philosophy which has failed previously in this and other countries. Indeed, there is no instance in history where there has been a success for the tax and spend (or more precisely the no tax but spend) philosophy. The only way to get the economy growing so that people can get newly created jobs is to motivate the private sector through tax reductions, steady regulation (not everchanging standards imposed seemingly at random like Obama has been doing) and a clear control by the rule of law (not favoritism for one's cronies like Obama has done with the UAW and GE).

Who is he kidding

Today's holier than thou speech by Obama regarding the "torture" conducted on three Al Qaeda captives during the Bush Administration described this as a horrible mistake by the US. Supposedly, this so-called torture was a recruiting tool used by Al Qaeda and other terrorists that made the USA less safe.

While I disagree with the premise and the conclusion of Obama's speech (apparently al Qaeda was able to recruit people for 9-11 and many other attacks before Guantanamo was open), I think that Obama's speech was truly dishonest. During the Clinton years, the USA ran the rendition program when dealing with terror suspects. Under this program, the US turned high value terrorists who were captured over to the Egyptians and the Egyptians then tortured the captives to get the information that these people had. So, under the Democrats, the USA outsourced the actual torture of terrorists to Egyptians, while under Bush, the three people waterboarded were questioned with a doctor present and under the limits imposed by the DOJ. Simply put, if the Bush administration actions were torture, then the Clinton administration actions were much worse torture.

I do not think that torture by Democrats would excuse torture by Republicans. Nevertheless, the halos worn by liars such as Pelosi who was ranking member on the intelligence committee during rendition or the other Obamacrats who decry the actions at Guantanamo are tarnished to say the least. Indeed, were the American people to realize the extent of the duplicity by these self proclaimed paragons of virtue, it would not take long for them all to be run out of town.

Obama himself was obviously not involved during the Clinton years. Nevertheless, he ought tell the truth now if he is doing anything other than political posturing.

Carlson displays racism on Bloomberg

Columnist Margaret Carlson writes today on Bloomberg that GOP chairman Michael Steele won his election only because of his race. What a hypocrite and racist! I am sure that we all recall the outrage visited upon Geraldine Ferraro when she said that Obama had only gotten to where he was due to his race. Liberals in the media screamed racism at Ferraro -- and Carlson was among those leading the charge. Now, when we have another successful black politician who happens to be of the other party, Carlson the hack feels it appropriate to trivialize his success as just a product of his race. The truth is that both Obama and Steele had advantages and disadvantages due to their race. Their successes and failures, however, are their own. Still, knowing Carlson and her history, I am waiting for the inevitable article which will appear after Obama's first really big failure in which she attributes his failure to the after effects of hundreds of years of slavery in the USA. One truth comes out clearly from all of this -- the racism of liberals like Carlson is always there, just waiting to come out on the surface. She should be hounded out of the news media in my opinion, just the same as would happen if a conservative columnist were to say something equally racist.

Iran away

Given the weak actions by the Obamacrats and their "fearless leader" to the threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon, its is seeming more and more likely that the plan by the white house for dealing with Iran is to adopt the plan of the other "fearless leader" and to send Boris and Natasha. Maybe the Iranians will be easier to deal with than Moose and Squirrel. Sadly,Obama had and still has the perfect opportunity to carry out his oft stated pledge and meet with the Iranians -- and to use that meeting to tell the Iranians that if they move forward with their nuclear plans, they will face the full might of the USA. Would the Iranians back down -- my belief is that they would, although nothing is certain. given that our choice is to run away from the problem, the likelihood of preventing an Iranian weapon is nonexistent.

One has to wonder what it would take for obama to get excited about a foreign threat. Oh wait, he already told us. If the Israelis allow another settlement to be built, the world will al but come to and end.

Melting Wax - man

Representative Henry Waxman is chairman and the chief sponsor of the climate change bill now being considered by his committee in the House. Simply put, the bill is an abomination. If passed, the bill would put hundreds of billions of extra dollars in costs upon American business while the companies in the remainder of the world would go on as before. the net result of these cost increase would be an enormous loss in the market for American exports and a loss of the home market as well to further imports from China and other low cost countries. It is a loss of markets that we simply cannot afford at this time. Does Waxman really want to cause another 4 or 5% rise in the unemployment rate? The truth is that he does not care. If we end up with 15% unemployment just so that the pollution that may be causing climate change comes from China rather than from the USA, would any sane American be happy. Clearly not -- although it seems that nothing could make Waxman happier.

It is crazies like Waxman who make the Democrat control of Congress so dangerous. Hopefully, he can be stopped before he and his Obamacrat pals destroy what is left of the US economy.

soak the rich?

In today's Wall Street Journal, there is an article (link is in item title) which should be required reading for all members of state legislatures everywhere. In the article, the authors report on the effect of individual states raising taxes on the wealthiest of their residents. These soak the rich policies are being advocated in many states as the perfect way to close the enormous budget deficits that have arisen. Not surprisingly, the article explains that the tax increases lead to flight of the wealthy from the states in question. This further leads to the loss of high paying jobs from these states and the diminution of growth in the economy. States with lower taxes draw in these new residents and the jobs and companies that they create with the result that these states greatly outperform the high tax states. simply put, if a state like Connecticut wants to hurt itself in the long run, one of the best ways to proceed is to raise the high end of the income tax.

We would all be better off if the budget deficits were closed by cutting expenditures rather than by raising taxes.

The end of the GOP

In the last two months, I have read a number of articles speculating if the Republican party was doomed. The main stream media seems to love this subject, and it writes about it all the time. Apparently, they are seeking for it to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The truth, however, is that the Republicans are doing better now than they have in a long time. As of last Monday, republicans were favored by the voters on four of the ten issues on which Rasmussen does repeat polling. The Dems were ahead on five, and one was tied. Last November, the Democrats were ahead in polling on all ten issues. Indeed, the Republicans have moved up substantially on all ten issues.

Clearly, it is a lot easier to like the Democrats when they are out of power. Once the Dems have the ability to do what they want, they lose support quickly. No surprise there.

The only question is whether or not this erosion of support for the Dems will be sufficient to lead to a major Republican resurgence in the 2010 mid term elections.

What has he been smoking?

Most people are aware that President Obama smokes, although he does his best to avoid being photographed holding a cigarette. Yesterday, Obama said something that makes me wonder just what he has been smoking. Bloomberg news reported the thrust of the statements by Obama as follows: "President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending “unsustainable,” warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries." Obama went on to say that continued deficit spending would greatly harm the economy.

When the Obamacrats came to power 4 months ago, the deficit was 400 billion dollars for the current fiscal year. In just over 100 days, Obama has managed to drive that deficit up to close to two trillion dollars (a five times multiple), by spending on every conceivable program -- even including the study of pig flatulence. So first Obama and the Obamacrats cause the greatest deficit in the history of the world, and then Obama denounces it as causing great harm to the economy. Huh? that means that Obama knew that he was causing great harm when he went into his spending binge, but he did it anyway. Was he just high? Or is it his goal to destroy this country?

Personally, I vote for the latter.

How dumb is she?

Nancy Pelosi is announcing today that the CIA is lying and she was not briefed about the use of waterboarded; rather she was told about it. So Nancy the ninny is making a distinction between briefing and telling. Whoa! The point is not the difference between being briefed and told. No, the point is that Nancy Pelosi knew for years about the use of waterboarding -- and she at no time protested about it. So the upset and horror that is now being put forth by the Obamacrats about the use of waterboarding is pure hypocracy. If this was torture and a crime, the Pelosi was guilty of aiding and abetting. She should be impeached.

GM to import cars from China

Today's news brings the story that GM is planning to import 50,000 cars per year from China into the US. Another great victory for team Obama. Now the federal money in GM has not only been wasted with GM imminently declaring bankruptcy, but whatever remains of it will be used to subsidize Chinese workers while putting Americans out of a job. What fools!

GM to leave Detroit

The latest headlines about General Motors are that the company will likely leave Detroit once its bankruptcy is completed. All I can say is "Great job Obama!" For over 30 billion dollars from the treasury we get a General Motors that will not be able to compete, that will go through bankruptcy, that will stagger Michigan even worse that it has already been hit, and that will not survive for long since it will be run for the benefit of the president's cronies.

Once again, change we can believe in!

Nancy Pa Lousy finally admits that she knew

Well we now have the fourth version of the "absolute truth" from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. First she was never briefed on the use of waterboarding and the other methods that she now denounces as torture. Then, in the face of CIA memos that confirm her briefing by the CIA, she claimed that she was only told that enhanced interrogation methods were legal, but not that they had been used. While this was bad enough -- did she think that the CIA would brief her on legal interrogation methods only to refrain from using them -- additional CIA documents put the lie to this claim as well. As a result, Pelosi next claimed that she was only briefed about the use of "torture" after the fact. Of course, since she neither said or did anything about this until she decided years later to try to use this as a weapon against Republicans,the hypocracy evident in this version is overwhelming. Still, further CIA documents revealed that Pelosi was briefed about ongoing use of waterboarding and other methods. Tonight, Pelosi has now admitted that she was indeed briefed about ongoing use of waterboarding in 2002. She further claims however, that she did not do or say anything about it because she was respecting legislative protocol and allowing Jane Harman to take the lead in protesting the use of waterboarding.

Amazing! What a piece of work! Pelosi changes her story three times in the face of documentary evidence and then hide behind legislative protocol as an excuse. The truth is that Pelosi is a liar and has been revealed as such by her own words. what is even worse, however, is that the Speaker does not feel the need to explain to the American people why she lied consistently on this subject. Indeed, she does not even address the reasons for the change to her story. Here it is at last -- Change we cannot believe.

Wanda the witless

I watched the remarks by Wanda Sykes regarding Rush Limbaugh and the reaction of President Obama who was sitting on the dais just to her right. Ugh! Wanda was her usual tasteless self. First, she accused Rush of treason for stating that he wanted Obama's socialist plans to fail. Obama laughed. Then she called Rush the 20th hijacker from 9-11 but said that he missed his plane because he was too strung out on Oxycontin. Obama laughed. Then she said that she hoped Limbaugh dies -- or more precisely that his kidneys fail. Obama laughed.

I am still wondering why Obama thinks it is funny that Wanda calls political opposition to Obama treason and then wishes for the death of the oponents. This is the new postpartisan spirit of trust and cooperation that Obama promised to bring to Washington? The truth is that Obama's reaction is a window into his soul -- Obama is the most partisan President we have had in a while-- and that is truly saying something.

As for Sykes, she was never funny. She was just performing as per usual. There is a reason that she never made it into the big time. Still remarks from a failed entertainer who cannot figure out when she crosses the line are less troubling than the reaction from our president who ought to know better.

Parliament sleaze

In a move that seems quaint by US standards, the British press is leaking the expense reports of various members of parliament -- all but one of whom are members of the Labour party. For example, minister Barbara Follett is in hot water for using public funds for security at her personal residence after she was mugged and stalked a few years back. Again I say, How quaint! In the US, we have various cabinet secretaries who intentionally cheated on their income taxes and now claim it was just a mistake. We have a Senate Majority Leader who has a number of sons who are lobbyists and who just happen to good results when they speak to dear old Dad. When Harry Reid's sons make huge amounts of money or when Diane Feinstein steers federal contracts to her husbands business, we are told that it is no big deal. In the UK, they get upset for a few thousand pounds being spent on questionable items while in the US we accept having those in congress getting millions of dollars. Let's see -- Follett spent about 10,000 pounds per year on security and gets in trouble; Nancy Pelosi spends more than that each time she flies home to California (at our expense) and then she takes offense if someone has the nerve to question those costs.

Maybe it is time that we adopt British sensibilities.

Pelosi's enhanced lying techniques.

As one of the main purveyors of the "Bush lied people died" meme, Nancy Pelosi claims to be on the side of truth. She should, assumedly, be someone with a modicum of honesty. No such luck. Instead, Pelosi is nothing but a lying politician who seems to think that the truth is the subject of "change we can believe".

For close to two years, the Speaker has claimed that she was never told that the US was using enhanced interrogation techniques, only that they had been approved for use. While this has been a rather thin defense (why did she not protest after the approval of these techniques for use if she opposed them?), it has now been proven that Pelosi's statements were lies. The CIA has released memoranda from 2002 which clearly record that Pelosi was fully briefed on the use of the techniques. Pelosi's predictable response -- she was never told that waterboarding had been used, only other techniques. I guess she is ok with sleep depravation and all the rest, just not waterboarding. It sure sounds like Pelosi herself is using enhanced lying techniques.

More lies

I have to say that I am not surprised to learn that the government web site intended to list all stimulus spending and to detail who got the contracts pertaining to that spending will not be up and running for about a year. More precisely, the web site will be functional, but it will not have the relevant information put on it until some time next spring.

Obama made a big deal out of his new transparency initiatives. The people were going to learn all the details of his stimulus plan -- he was going to have them posted on the net for all to see. What utter BS! Obama simply lied.

Let's put it this way: Anyone even marginally aware of how a web site works knows that it would be possible to put the majority of the information about stimulus expenditures on the web by June 1 of this year if a directive came down from the Great Change Maker to his minions directing that this be done. Surely, a big chunk of the info could be listed. will it happen? Certainly not. Listing those who get billions of our money from the Obamacrats might open them up to charges like cronyism or illegality and we cannot have that. It might hurt St. Barack. Instead we have Obama claim that he is telling all and that is the only thing we get.

It will be interesting to see if there is any backlash at all in the media with regard to this blatant misrepresentation by Obama. Oh what the hell -- let's call it what it really is, a blatant lie!

As of now, the only change we are seeing from Obama is the loss of the openess of the Bush Administration -- and that is not easy to do.

Disbarment for Bush Administration lawyers

In what has to be the strangest move yet by the Obamacrats, they are now planning to have the lawyers who wrote the so-called torture memos disbarred. What utter nonsense. There is no crime to giving a legal opinion in good faith. Indeed, giving incorrect advice is also not a crime. Nor is it the basis for disbarment from the practice of law. One has to imagine the conference room where the Obamacrats are huddled around a table trying to figure out what to do. They cannot prosecute these lawyers since there was no criminal activity. They realize that they cannot do anything to these memo writers. but wait, if they themselves follow the law and do nothing, then the crazies in the Democrat base who are out for blood will be upset. What to do, What to do? Oh.....Let's ask that they be disbarred. As John Lovitz used to say, "Yeah...That's the ticket." Only problem is that there is no basis for disbarment. No crime. No fraud. No misconduct of any kind. Just an opinion that the Obamacrats don't agree with.

What's next in the new post-partisan world? Will the Obamacrats try to institute capital punishment for favoring lower taxes? Maybe 40 lashes for speaking ill of Obama. In truth, the Democrats seem more and more like the Stalinists the are.

Obama, Iran and israel

Today, the Vice President of the United States is quoted as saying that the US will only be able to help Israel stop Iran from producing nuclear weapons if Israel agrees to a palestinian state. As usual, Joe Biden speaks in ignorance and even then messes things up more. First of all, Israel agreed to a two state solution during the days of Arafat. In the last year of the Clinton presidency, Ehud Barak offered Arafat 99% of everything he was asking for at the Camp David peace conference. As Abba Eban famously said, the Palestinians never lose and opportunity to lose and opportunity. Accordingly, Arafat's response was not to accept the offer which would have given the Palestinians a state for the first time in history; rather, he turned it down and began the Palestian terrorist uprising, the result of which has been misery for the Palestinians, economic ruin and the isolation of the Palestinians. Biden ignores this history and makes a statement which implies that the obstacle to peace in the middle east is the Israeli government. Somebody should tell Biden the buffoon to learn the facts before he speaks.

Even worse than being unaware of the facts, however, Biden is also backwards when it comes to the threat from Iran. True, Israel is at great risk from Iranian nuclear weapons, but so is the United States. If the mullahs get nukes, it would be easy for them to put some on freighter ships bound for US ports and to blow them up in New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Miami. The Iranians have already made clear that they believe it to be the highest calling to die in a holy war, whether against Israel or the Great Satan, the USA. Quite simply, they do not care if the US retaliates with nukes against them. Biden the buffoon ignores this. By putting the Israelis in the middle here, he is doing great work for the Iranians. He has taken the focus off of Teheran! Now the mullahs can say that they need progress between Israel and the Palestinians before they will move on nukes, all the while proceeding with development of weapons. After all, they are only agreeing with the obama administration.

Let's hope that the Netanyahu government in Israel does not fall for this nonsense. The best thing Israel can do now for itself and for the USA as well is to ignore Biden the buffoon

Boston shrinks the globe

Having lived in the Boston area for years, I take a perverse sort of pleasure watching the Boston Globe hover on the edge of oblivion. For year after year while I lived there, I watched the Globe support every union issue that came up in the news. No cause was too pro-union to be considered unbalanced. No argument could ever be won by the evil management that -- according to the Globe -- was always trying to undermine the poor unions. Now, the unions are about to force the closure of the Globe. Talk about poetic justice!

Unions are an important and necessary part of a healthy economic system. They have to be realistic in their demands, however. More precisely, the unions have to be realistic in what they will accept. The Globe's newsroom workers are not. Isn't it great that the very people who gather the news are putting themselves out of work. For once, this is change that I can believe in.

Freedom of the Press

Much has been made in the last few days of the threats made to the Chysler bondholders to give in to the White House plan for the "rescue" of Chrysler. Apparently, people are supposed to feel shocked that Obama and his folks threatened those who would not go along with the deal with being smeared by the White House press corps. Why does this surprise anyone? Obama has the press under his total control and he uses that control often. Thus, Obama has a press conference where he actually says that he does not want the government to run car companies or banks (while taking over two of the three US car manufacturers and most of the large banks). After that howler, not a single reporter confronted Obama on this issue. Why didn't someone ask about the government's refusal to let the banks pay back the tarp funds? Why didn't someone ask how Chrysler or GM will survive making cars that the government wants rather than cars that the American people want?

Arlen Specter loses it

Yesterday, Senator Arlen Specter tried to prove his bone fides as a Democrat by announcing the late Jack Kemp might be alive today but for the Republicans. Even for Specter, this is a real howler. For many years Specter was lauded as one of the sharpest of all senators. Apparently he has lost his ability to reason. To say the least, it is nonsense to blame Kemp's death from cancer on the health policies of the GOP. This is particularly true if one looks at Specter's own proposals for changing the health care system. There are exactly none of these proposals that would affect cancer research in any way. Arlen surely knows this, and yet, he feels compelled to join in the loony group that blames everything on the political parties. My guess is that he is trying to appeal to the Democrat base in Pennsylvania. I doubt if there is anything he can do to win them over. For forty years, Specter has been the face of the GOP in Pa (at least in part), and it is too late to erase those memories now.

Torture by waterboarding

Maybe I missed it but my understanding is that the so-called torture carried out by waterboarding was only done on three Al Qeada high ranking prisoners including Khalid Sheik Muhammed, the mastermind of the 9-11 attacks. Can it really be that the Democrats are upset at tough interrogation of this criminal who is responsible for killing 3000 Americans? If it is true, nothing could be more telling about the lack of seriousness that the Democrats have with regard to the safety of the American people.

The interesting thing is that Muhammed resisted giving any information to US forces until he was waterboarded. After that he became a fount of information and gave up information that led to the thwarting of over 10 separate terrorist plots, including the massive followup to the 9-11 attacks that Al Qeada was planning for Los Angeles. Who knows? Maybe Sean Penn owes his life to the waterboarding.