Coming Home to Roost

The US government is about to get socked with a huge bill - paying back the borrowed money. Now not all of this can be laid at the feet of the President although he has spent like no one before him. President Bush was quite the spendthrift as well. Here is how the NY Times puts it.

The United States government is financing its more than trillion-dollar-a-year borrowing with I.O.U.’s on terms that seem too good to be true.

But that happy situation, aided by ultra-low interest rates, may not last much longer.

Treasury officials now face a trifecta of headaches: a mountain of new debt, a balloon of short-term borrowings that come due in the months ahead, and interest rates that are sure to climb back to normal as soon as the Federal Reserve decides that the emergency has passed.

Even as Treasury officials are racing to lock in today’s low rates by exchanging short-term borrowings for long-term bonds, the government faces a payment shock similar to those that sent legions of overstretched homeowners into default on their mortgages.

With the national debt now topping $12 trillion, the White House estimates that the government’s tab for servicing the debt will exceed $700 billion a year in 2019, up from $202 billion this year, even if annual budget deficits shrink drastically. Other forecasters say the figure could be much higher.

In concrete terms, an additional $500 billion a year in interest expense would total more than the combined federal budgets this year for education, energy, homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The potential for rapidly escalating interest payouts is just one of the wrenching challenges facing the United States after decades of living beyond its means.

How are we ever going to dig out of this hole if the Democrats manage to add more and more programs to the federal budget.

Palin v Obama

The first line in this story LA Times Blog story says it all.

Not that it matters politically because obviously she's a female Republican dunce and he's obviously a male Democrat genius.

But Sarah Palin's poll numbers are strengthening.

And President Obama's are sliding.

Guess what? They're about to meet in the 40s.

The handwriting seems to be on the wall but I don't think the Obama Administration or the Democrat-lead Congress can read.

A Reason to Love the French

Here is another reason to love the French. The Telegraph newspaper in Great Britain has an article about a law in Paris that bans women from wearing pants! Oh, I wish that were the law everywhere. Women reading this blog are probably furious right now but speaking on behalf of the male of the species, may I point out that women are most attractive when wearing modest, feminine dresses and skirts. Men, am I right?

Liberal Bias?

The Associated Press has put 11 reporters to the job of "fact checking" Sarah Palin's new book Going Rogue: An American Life. This FoxNews story points out that the same Associated Press put no reporters to work fact checking many other political books.

The organization did not review for accuracy recent books by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, then - Sen. Joe Biden, either book by Barack Obama released before he was president or autobiographies by Bill or Hillary Clinton. The AP did more traditional news stories on those books.

The attraction to Palin doesn't appear to be partisan, since AP didn't fact-check recent political tomes by Republicans Rudy Giuliani or Newt Gingrich.

Given the moderate political stances of Giuliani and Gingrich could it be because Palin is the only true conservative on the list? You can probably guess what my opinion is.

Recent AP Poll

As readers of this blog already know, polls can be big news on condition that they report something that props up liberalism or tears down conservatism. Look at results from a November 10 AP poll that you've probably heard nothing about.

• 38% of people think the country is heading in the right direction
• 54% approve of the President to some degree, down from 74% only 8 months ago
• 46% approve of the President's job on the economy
• 49% approve of the President's job on health care
• 39% approve of the President's job on immigration
• 7 % strongly approve of what Congress is doing

In answer to a question on what the Democrats should do about health care, only 31% said they should go ahead and pass a bill without Republicans. 61% said they should keep trying until they make a deal with Republicans.

Why do you think that you can't find a single significant issue where a majority of people believe Barack Obama is right, yet he has majority support (54% approve)? How can you approve of the man, yet disagree with his positions. Personally I have no problem with him. He has a beautiful family, regularly dates his wife, seems to lead a clean life, etc... My disagreements aren't personal.

If this poll supported the President or Congress in any way, I'm sure it would have been headlines everywhere. Since it doesn't, it gets shelved. Typical left-wing media bias at work.

Scandal in the White House?

Vice President Joe Biden is in a bit of hot water. It seems that he has used his position to enrich a friend of his, Peter W. Galbraith. Galbraith who is the son of renowned economist John Kenneth Galbraith, stands to earn perhaps a hundred million or more dollars. The Washington Examiner puts it this way - "It seems that Galbraith used his political influence to get rich off Iraqi oil money."

The article then marvels at the great lengths that the New York Times goes in order to distance this from the Vice President.

As the scope of Mr. Galbraith’s financial interests in Kurdistan become clear, they have the potential to inflame some of Iraqis’ deepest fears, including conspiracy theories that the true reason for the American invasion of their country was to take its oil. It may not help that outside Kurdistan, Mr. Galbraith’s influential view that Iraq should be broken up along ethnic lines is considered offensive to many Iraqis’ nationalism. Mr. Biden and Mr. Kerry, who have been influenced by Mr. Galbraith’s thinking but do not advocate such a partitioning of the country, were not aware of Mr. Galbraith’s oil dealings in Iraq, aides to both politicians say.

The Times needs to read its own paper. Of course Joe Biden advocated this view. He wrote about it in this May 2006 article printed in the New York Times! Or how about this Times article written by Galbraith himself admitting that Biden advocated a plan that enriched Galbraith. The key part is this paragraph.

IN a surge of realism, the Senate has voted 75-23 to acknowledge that Iraq has broken up and cannot be put back together. The measure, co-sponsored by Joe Biden, a Democratic presidential candidate, and Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, supports a plan for Iraq to become a loose confederation of three regions — a Kurdish area in the north, a Shiite region in the south and a Sunni enclave in the center — with the national government in Baghdad having few powers other than to manage the equitable distribution of oil revenues.

Does anyone believe that if this had happened when President Bush was in office that Dick Cheney would have had the New York Times making excuses for them? Would they have accepted the word of "aides to both politicians" as the final word?

The Washington Examiner concludes its story with the following paragraph.

What happened here is clear -- Joe Biden advocated policies in Iraq that his adviser Galbraith also advocated. Galbraith profited handsomely off those policies through close ties to oil companies. Does anyone think that if this story were about an adviser to Dick Cheney profiteering as a nexus between powerful politicians and oil companies that the paper would dishonestly obscure the relationship between the two men?

Would anyone want to bet that this story never becomes a scandal, that the mainstream press virtually ignores it? The odds are in favor of this being swept under the rug. This is as blatant a display of partisan, dishonest media corruption that I have ever seen in this country.

Hat tip to Instapundit.

Obama's Double Standard

The President’s reaction to the shooting at Fort Hood by an Islamic officer who had been in touch with Al Quaeda was that we not leap to conclusions. 13 dead and 30 wounded is not nearly as important as maintaining a politically correct posture. But what did he do a few months back when there was that incident at Harvard wherein a white police officer arrested a black professor?

A liberal blogger explained it like this. President Obama "accused Sgt. Crowley of “acting stupidly” by arresting his good ole’ buddy from Harvard for his disorderly conduct". Does this sound like restraint? How about avoiding pre-judging? Apparently the President’s attitude about restraint and pre-judging a situation only applies to political correctness. Since it is politically correct to accuse white cops of racism, he went ahead and pre-judged the situation. But since political correctness is all about liberalism, and liberals have decided that it is not appropriate to equate Islam with terrorism, then we can’t “rush to judgement” about Major Hassan. It must be nice to be a liberal. You make up the rules and change them whenever it suits you. How these people cannot see the rank hypocrisy of their own positions boggles the mind.

In retrospect it isn’t that surprising. It’s simply Alinsky’s Rule #8 on display, although some of us call it a double-standard or even hypocrisy. Liberals call it politics.

Saul Alinksy

In a recent post I pointed out the practical application of Saul Alinksy's Rules for Radicals as practiced by modern liberals. So who was Saul Alinksy? Born in 1909 Alinsky was an American community organizer and writer. He is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing, one of our President's past jobs. In summary here are his rules for radicals.

1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. Whenever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Notice the absence of truth in his arguments. Truth is not even a consideration. Its all about what you can sell. Smoke and mirrors. Illusions and strategies that wear the opposition down rather than meeting them on the debate floor and winning the debate. Whatever works. The ends justify the means. The politics of personal destruction perfected by Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton is #13.

Even a casual observer of politics recognizes this as the liberal play book. Alinksy was an amoral genius at organizing. But the keyword here is amoral. So are those people who use his strategies.

Incidentally in the first edition of Rules for Radicals, Alinsky dedicated it to Lucifer, calling him the first radical. Alinsky (and many leading Democrats) seem to be following in the "first radical's" footsteps. I wonder if they know it? I suspect most wouldn't even care.

Liberal Tolerance

Liberals are always preaching to everyone about how tolerant they are. Diversity has become almost sacred in their lexicon. But are they really tolerant, or do they just talk about it a lot?

This Arizona Daily Sun story explains that two 40-something women attacked a 69-year old man in Flagstaff because he held a viewpoint that they didn't like. The story includes this description of the attack.

Witnesses told police that the two women approached Wallace and began to try to take and destroy the sign he was holding.

So what was the offensive view that the man held that merited such treatment? Was it a racial slur? Was he a neo-Nazi with a swastika or picture of Hitler? Was he a Yankees or Lakers fan? No. He was one of the 84% of Americans who believe that access to abortion should be severely restricted.

And I thought liberals loved diversity! I guess that doesn't include diversity of opinions.

Liberal Humility

Continuing in the meme of liberal ugliness, have you noticed the total absence of humility among liberals? Now humility is a virtue that is in short supply pretty much everywhere. But among conservatives we see it from time to time. Among liberals there is no presence at all.

There is a phony humility present when liberals apologize for the sins of America such as when Bill Clinton apologized for our history of slavery; or when Barack Obama apologized for American arrogance. Can you remember when a single liberal sincerely apologized for his/her own failings? I can't!

When William Jefferson, Democratic member of the U. S. House of Representatives representing the 2nd District of Louisiana 1991-2008, was caught caught on film by the FBI picking up a briefcase full of $100,000 in bribe money. That's the same congressman who was caught days later with 90,000 of those marked dollars wrapped in foil and put in food boxes in the freezer of his home. How did he respond?

In true liberal fashion he refused to resign, in fact, he refused to withdraw from his next race. And consistent with liberal voting patterns, no one seemed to care. He was re-elected.

He was then indicted on 16 charges of corruption. Did this shame him sufficiently to withdraw from Congress? No. Did this shame him enough to withdraw from his next race? No. At least this time the liberal voters of New Orleans rejected him and he lost his re-election bid.

Having been caught red-handed, did William Jefferson plead guilty? No. In August of 2009 he was found guilty of 11 counts of corruption. Did he finally show an ounce of humility? No. Instead he has instructed his attorneys to appeal.

William Jefferson is not unique in how he handled charges of corruption. This is the liberal template - never apologize, never admit you are wrong unless you can somehow pervert it into an attack on your opponents. It's Saul Alinsky's Rule #8 on display.

What do liberals always do when the corruption charge is against a conservative? Demand apologies, demand resignations, demand, demand, demand - Alinksy's Rule #4.

Liberal Women

This post actually started out as a reply to a comment that was made on this blog. But my reply started to be so long that I decided to make it a separate post.

I am not the first person to notice that conservative women tend to much more attractive than liberal women. I don't think that is an accident. Among liberal women politicians, I really don't know any who are attractive. Jackie Spears in California was an exception but I don't know of any on a national scale. I think that there is something about the philosophy of liberalism that kills happiness and beauty. I don't know what it is - haughtiness, anger, power, aggressiveness etc... but it usually adds up to ugly. And even women who have naturally beautiful features tend to turn rather ugly by virtue of their politics (see Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, etc...)

Another factor that I think hurts liberal women is that most reject their natural femininity which accentuates female beauty. In rejecting traditionally feminine virtues, feminine beauty is one of the things they sacrifice. The most beautiful and happy women I know are those who accept their traditional roles. Joy and happiness follows these women, and beauty is one of the results. Among women who reject those things; unhappiness seems to be the result. Unhappy people are not beautiful regardless of their natural features. I suspect that is the root of the beauty gap between conservative and liberal women.