Ranger from the North

Justice is in Good Hands!

2012-01-31T18:48:00.003-05:00

In an administration filled with them, Holder is an especially unlovely character, a second-rate intellect wrapped inside a third-rate temperament. Whiny, petulant, accusatory, obfuscatory, unhelpful, and deceitful, he never convincingly defends himself but instead reflexively accuses his critics of racism – truly, the last refuge of a liberal scoundrel – and never should have been brought back to the Justice Department after his disgraceful service in the Clinton administration regarding the Marc Rich pardon.

New Year's Resolution

2011-12-31T15:04:00.003-05:00

In 2012, let us rededicate ourselves to...math. Here's an example of what I'm talking about from a speech delivered by Jeff Sessions on the Senate floor back in July 2011:

Another myth I’d like to address is the idea that our current budget crisis is the result of two wars and a tax cut. Let’s consider that claim. The total cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, over the entire last decade, is $1.3 trillion. Again, that’s over the last decade. This year alone the deficit is expected to be $1.4 trillion dollars. War costs represent only 4 percent of total outlays over the last ten years. The total amount of money spent since the president took office is $8.5 trillion dollars. By the end of his first three years in office we will have added $5 trillion to our gross federal debt. We are borrowing almost half of what we’re spending every single day. In the last two years, non-defense discretionary spending has soared 24 percent. The stimulus package alone—enacted into law in a single day in 2009—cost more than the entire war in Iraq. Annual spending when President Bush took office was less than $2 trillion. Today, it’s almost $4 trillion. It will be almost $6 trillion by the end of the decade.

Via Power Line.

Summing up the Occupiers

2011-11-30T20:11:00.001-05:00

John Hinderaker:

The whole essence of their movement is that some people have money, and they would like to steal it.

No Class

2011-10-30T22:16:00.001-04:00

Yuval Levin:

Just about every conservative critic of Obamacare pointed to the irrational design of the CLASS Act before the legislation’s enactment. In fact, the administration’s own CMS actuary said it would never work. He was ignored by his employers not because they disagreed with him, but because they needed to pretend their legislation would reduce the deficit. The CBO’s scoring methodology could be manipulated to accept a lot of implausible assumptions, but even with those the legislation needed help, and by designing the CLASS Act to start collecting premiums five years before it would start paying benefits (and counting those premiums as deficit reduction even though they would eventually need to be paid out in benefits) they were able to make the program seem to be in the black by $70 billion in its first ten years, which accounted for about half of the overall “deficit reduction” the Democrats claimed.

Of course, administration officials can’t acknowledge that they always knew the program’s finances could never work, so rather than admit to cynicism they are pleading incompetence. And who knows, maybe they really are that incompetent. Having assured Congress for over a year that the program could be made to work, HHS Secretary Sebelius said today that “Despite our best analytical efforts, I do not see a viable path forward for CLASS implementation at this time.” In essence: We tried our best, but the statute makes no sense.

Get used to that excuse. This confirmation that Obamacare cannot in fact defy the laws of mathematics and accounting should serve as a warning regarding the implementation of the broader law, most of which would begin in 2014 if it is not repealed by then. The other major provisions of the statute are also grossly ill-designed. If it is permitted to take effect in full, the law will cause premiums to rise rapidly in the individual market and create major dislocation in the employer market, driving people into vastly overregulated exchanges that would push premiums higher still, and then initiate a program of subsidies whose only real answer to the mounting costs of coverage will be to pay them with public dollars and so inflate them further. It aims to spend a trillion dollars on subsidies to large insurance companies and the expansion of an unreformed Medicaid system, to micromanage the insurance industry in ways likely to make it even less efficient, to cut Medicare benefits without using the money to shore up the program or reduce the deficit, and to raise taxes on employment, investment, and medical research. CBO does not expect it to make a real dent in the inflation of health-care costs or to avert the fiscal implosion of Medicare. Instead, it will double down on price controls and centralized administration and make a real reform of our system much more difficult. These outcomes are nearly as predictable as the fiscal collapse of the CLASS Act (and have been predicted by the same people who saw that the CLASS Act would never work, including the CMS actuary). But in the case of the CLASS Act, the Secretary of HHS was required to certify in advance that her actuaries believed it could be sustained, and at the end of the day there was no way around the fact that it couldn’t. The rest of the law has no such requirements, so the “we tried our best” excuse will come only after disaster strikes.

But none of this has to happen. It seems we will avert the fiscal disaster of the CLASS Act. Now let’s find a way to avert the even greater disaster of the rest of Obamacare by repealing the law and enacting in its place a set of market-based reforms of Medicare, Medicaid, and a private insurance sector badly distorted by decades of ill-conceived federal policies. American voters will have one chance, next November, to correct the terrible mistake made by their leaders last year before it fully takes effect. Let’s hope we do.

Energy Subsidies

2011-09-30T16:48:00.002-04:00

John Hinderaker:

Crony capitalism–in its full-blown version, national socialism–is always and everywhere a failure. You cannot create wealth by subsidizing the inefficient production of energy–a fundamental rule of economics that the Obama administration, sadly, has yet to learn.

Check out the chart in the post.

The Beginning of the End?

2011-08-31T19:28:00.003-04:00

John Hinderaker asks, is the Social Security fraud drawing to a close?

Social Security, not Medicare or Medicaid, is the crown jewel of the entitlement state. For several generations now, it has been sold to voters as a more or less sacred compact. Many Americans still believe that the federal government maintains an “account” in their name, which contains assets. Some even think that their “account” contains their own contributions, carefully set aside for their retirement by Franklin Roosevelt or his successors. If this is not the biggest fraud in the history of the human race, it is certainly in the top five. Inexorable demographic realities are casting the shadow of extinction over Social Security; ironically, though, what may set the program’s demise in motion is a cheap political trick by the Democratic Party.

Declaration

2011-07-06T19:49:00.002-04:00

About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning cannot be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

-President Calvin Coolidge

Political Petroleum Reserve

2011-06-27T18:51:00.001-04:00

John Hinderaker:

The Democrats have been blocking oil companies from developing America's fossil fuel resources--the largest in the world--for decades. Whenever their anti-drilling policies are challenged, they assure us that increasing domestic production would do little or nothing to bring down the cost of energy.

Yet, whenever the price of gasoline becomes politically embarrassing, what do they do? They take "emergency" action to increase the supply of petroleum by opening up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve--some 700 million barrels of oil that are stored along the Gulf coast. Today the Obama administration announced that it will release 30 million gallons from the reserve in an effort to hold down prices.

No one pretends that this is the intended use of the strategic reserve--the administration is just trying to get past the Fourth of July without too much political fallout from gas prices--nor does anyone think that a one-time influx of oil will have any long-term impact on energy costs. Still, the administration's action is revealing: if you want to keep prices down, what do you do? You increase supply.

That being the case, why has the Democratic Party done everything in its power for more than 30 years to suppress domestic production of oil? Let's consider some sources of petroleum that the Democrats have blocked. ANWR is estimated to have the capacity to produce 1,000,000 barrels per day. Currently, around 1.5 million barrels per day are produced in the Gulf of Mexico; if the Obama administration would stop blocking permits and allow that production to increase by only 20 percent, that would be 300,000 barrels per day. Then there is the Keystone pipeline. The administration would like to block its construction, which would prevent 900,000 barrels per day from entering the U.S. If it is a good idea to restrain prices by a one-time release of 30 million barrels, why isn't it a really great idea to open up production that would add more than twice that amount every month, indefinitely?

There is, of course, no good answer to this question. The problem isn't that the Democrats are too dumb to understand that opening up our energy resources would lower energy costs and make the country more prosperous. Rather, the problem is that increasing the country's prosperity is not their objective.

Words of wisdom

2011-05-28T15:49:00.002-04:00

I saw a link to this gem on The Corner.

...in order to transfer wealth...

2011-04-30T14:04:00.002-04:00

John Hinderaker:

As the nation embarks on a debate about how to restore fiscal sanity to our government, a debate that will dominate our politics for years to come, a sensible starting point would be to ask, what is the purpose of our federal government? Many believe, apparently, that the main function of government is to transfer wealth from the young and the middle-aged to the elderly. Let's put that theory on the table, and challenge its proponents to justify it.

Nuclear-powered cars

2011-03-28T21:29:00.002-04:00

Steven Hayward:

Okay, I hate to take issue with my own peeps at National Review and elsewhere, but the latest issue of the magazine perpetuates a basic confusion about energy. The second item of “The Week” in the April 4 issue, discussing the hysteria about Japan’s nuclear situation, has everything right until the last sentence, which reads: “The United States should continue to pursue nuclear power as an alternative to Qaddafi oil.” (Don’t feel bad, NR: I also heard my good pal Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal, who I am sure knows better, say much the same thing on Fox News early Saturday afternoon. This is a widespread cliche on both left and right.)

Wrong. We could double our nuclear plants overnight, and carpet the nation with windmills and solar panels if you prefer “green” power, and it would do virtually nothing to reduce our oil imports for a simple reason: we do not use oil to generate electricity. (Okay, if you want to be a stickler, a very tiny amount — less than 1 percent of our total — comes from oil, chiefly in peculiar circumstances. See this item explaining how we “got off oil” a long time ago as far as electricity generation is concerned; at one point in the 1970s, oil was our second-leading source of electricity generation. High oil prices made us shift rapidly to coal and led to increasing the output of our existing nuclear plants.)

We use oil overwhelmingly for our transportation needs, and as such, until someone develops really good electric-vehicle technology (don’t hold your breath), neither nuclear nor any other of the favorite gizmos will change our need for oil. The real alternative to Qaddafi’s oil (and Saudi oil etc.) is to drill more here at home. By all means we should build more nuclear power if the economics of it make sense, but not because it will help us “get off foreign oil.”

I would hope that conservatives would leave this kind of energy illiteracy to the windmill heads and sun-worshippers on the left.

Business Model Comparison

2011-03-27T22:01:00.002-04:00

John Hinderaker:

One can hardly resist comparing GE with another American company--one that has steadily increased its American workforce, rather than cutting it. One that has never gone to the federal government for a bailout. One that lobbies out of self-defense, as all companies do, but not to secure special privileges for itself at the taxpayers' expense. One that pays lots of taxes. One that not only advocates free enterprise, but lives by it, competing for business with superior products and services.

A number of companies would fit that description, but I have in mind Koch Industries. Koch is smaller than GE, although not radically so--$100 billion in revenues vs. $150 billion--but it pays a whole lot more in taxes. One might think that a company like Koch would be honored and respected compared with a company like GE, but that is not the case--not on the left, anyway. On the contrary, it is Koch's very integrity that makes it public enemy number one for the Democratic Party.

Are they surprised?

2011-03-26T15:05:00.002-04:00

From The Washington Post:

Mr. Obama mentioned the Inter-American Democratic Charter, which nominally binds the governments of the hemisphere to act against those who commit political abuses, and said “we have to speak out when we see those principles violated.” Yet he himself did not speak out. Not once during his tour did he mention Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador or Bolivia or their increasingly autocratic rulers.

The president did bring up the people of Cuba, who, he said, “are entitled to the same freedom and liberty as everyone else in this hemisphere.” But Cuba, as he pointed out, has been stuck in “this history that’s now lasted for longer than I’ve been alive.” Venezuela and Nicaragua, on the other hand, are teetering between the democracies they had a decade ago and the autocracies their current leaders hope to install. By failing to discuss those fateful struggles, Mr. Obama did a great disservice to those Latin Americans who are fighting to save freedom in their countries, at great personal risk.

Clinging to their "rights"

2011-03-24T17:56:00.008-04:00

From Henry Payne:

Exactly!

2011-03-24T17:43:00.001-04:00

Jim Geraghty (from 11 March 2011):

In today’s press conference, President Obama lamented that “new drilling won’t be online soon” and then lamented that “we’ve been having this conversation for nearly four decades now.”

Indeed, if those who opposed drilling in the past, like the president and his allies, had relented, we might have had the new drilling operating by now.

This is what democracy looks like!

2011-03-15T19:44:00.001-04:00

Michael Barone:

In effect, public-employee unions are a mechanism by which every taxpayer is forced to fund the Democratic party.

I could not agree more...

2011-02-23T18:45:00.002-05:00

...with Jonah Goldberg:

The unions and the protesters in Wisconsin see Walker’s reforms as a potential death knell for government unions. My response? If only.

Run Away!

2011-02-23T17:11:00.001-05:00

Yuval Levin:

The tactic of escaping to another state to avoid a vote you’re likely to lose has got to be one of the dumbest PR moves in the history of American politics. What better image could there be of the Democrats’ unwillingness to face the facts of our fiscal situation these days than their literally running away from these votes? The next time Democrats in Washington complain about a Republican use of the filibuster—a legislative tactic that, for all its problems, is actually part of the rules of the Senate—we should be sure to check if they had anything to say about this act of obstruction through coordinated cowardly dereliction.

The Freedom Doctrine

2011-02-14T10:50:00.001-05:00

Charles Krauthammer:

We are, unwillingly again, parties to a long twilight struggle, this time with Islamism — most notably Iran, its proxies, and its potential allies, Sunni and Shiite. We should be clear-eyed about our preferred outcome — real democracies governed by committed democrats — and develop policies to see this through.

Happy Birthday, President Reagan

2011-02-06T14:38:00.002-05:00

h/t: Steven Hayward

Egypt

2011-01-28T12:25:00.003-05:00

Hugh Hewitt:

Three decades ago revolution swept Iran, and Jimmy Carter's legacy to America is a radical Islamist regime in Tehran, one that routinely threatens Israel, supports terrorism across the globe and is striving for nuclear weapons.

Three decades from now single sentence summaries of Barak Obama's foreign policy achievements or failures will focus on the nature of the government in Cairo. To the president's surprise, the biggest issue in the region isn't Israeli building plans.

It is true, as the editorialists at the Wall Street Journal state, that the U.S. is "caught between Hosni Mubarak's lifespan and fear of the Muslim Brotherhood." It is also true that "[i]t's not reassuring that the Obama Administration seems to have been caught by surprise in all of these Arab countries." The Journal might have added that the Administration's hostility to Israel has blinded it to the real crises engulfing the region.

Whatever the mistakes he has made and the plans he didn't lay, the president is in charge right now and he needs to communicate right now what he wants Mubarak to do. If we want him to get out and allow for a transition to a new figure, then President Obama needs to lead by stating that and assisting a new government to take place. If he is sticking by Mubarak, he needs to communicate that as well.

Right now the late '70s are back in reruns with Egypt playing the role of Iran. At a minimum, increase the security at the U.S. Embassy.

Those darn negative liberties

2010-12-14T19:30:00.002-05:00

Scott Johnson:

The economic "rights" asserted by Roosevelt in his second Bill of Rights differ and conflict with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They are claims on the liberty of others. If I have a right to medical care, you must have a corresponding duty to supply it. If I have a right to a decent home, you must have a duty to provide it.

The argument for the welfare state belongs in the same family as "the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of king-craft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden." That's Lincoln again.

Lincoln memorably derided the underlying principle as "the same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it."

If Obamacare is constitutional, we have experienced the demise of limited government. If the government can, among other things, command citizens to purchase health insurance of a prescribed shape and size, you can bet it will be using this power in a variety of (other) unpleasing ways in the future. As the Tea Party folks recognize, it's time to take a stand.

Korea

2010-11-23T22:40:00.001-05:00

Hugh Hewitt:

North Korea is testing the resolve of the West and particularly President Obama. The sinking of the South Korean ship, the shelling today and the unveiling of the new nuclear facilities telegraph the dictator's assessment of President Obama.

Missile Defense

2010-11-23T22:35:00.002-05:00

Scott Johnson:

Obama's opposition to "unproven missile defense systems" included the one the United States had committed to install in Poland, a commitment which Obama abrogated to please the Russians. What about the missile defense system NATO leaders agreed to last week? Has that one been "proven"? Someone who covers the Obama administration for a living really ought to ask him about it.

Trends in education

2010-10-28T14:42:00.004-04:00

From the Cato Institute:

Either the president is badly misinformed about our education system or he thinks that promising to hire another 10,000 teachers union members is politically advantageous–in which case he would seem to be badly misinformed about the present political climate. Or he lives in an alternate universe in which Kirk and Spock have facial hair and government monopolies are efficient. It’s hard to say.

h/t: John Hinderaker

That sums it up

2010-10-25T14:21:00.001-04:00

P. J. O'Rourke:

Democrats will do anything to make sure that Democratic voters stay helpless and hopeless enough to vote for Democrats.

Education

2010-09-28T16:21:00.001-04:00

Jonah Goldberg:

Amidst all of this talk about education this week, there’s an omission that drives me crazy. Yes, yes, the horrid state of American education is an American problem, and to that extent we’re all to blame in some abstract sort of way. But is there another major area of American public policy that is more screwed up and more completely the fault of one ideological side? Which party do the teachers’ unions support overwhelmingly? What is the ideological outlook of the bureaucrats at the Department of Education? Which party claims it “cares” more about education and demagogues any attempt by the other party to reform it? Who has controlled the large inner city school systems for generations? What is the ideological orientation of the ed school racket? Whose preferred teaching methods have been funded and whose have been ridiculed?

Please read the entire post.

Stimulus

2010-09-28T16:18:00.001-04:00

John Hinderaker:

The federal government could pay people to dig holes and fill them in again, and most Democrats, I suspect, would consider that a stimulus to the economy.

The case is much the same with respect to the unprecedented extensions of unemployment benefits that have been enacted by the Democratic Congress. Most Democrats, I suspect, don't understand why such benefits should ever expire. Economists and many others with common sense, meanwhile, warned that extensions of unemployment benefits would help keep unemployment high. That has turned out to be true, but don't expect the Dems to catch on any time soon.

Where's Russ Feingold?

2010-09-28T16:11:00.004-04:00

Today, he's definitely not in Madison.

President Barack Obama is returning to the University of Wisconsin-Madison to ask young voters who helped propel him to the White House to support Democrats in key governor and U.S. Senate races.

Tuesday's visit carries a different political atmosphere than the one that surrounded the then-candidate in 2008, when a boisterous overflow crowd of more than 17,000 people greeted him at the Kohl Center on the Madison campus.

Obama's popularity has dipped, and many Democrats are facing tough challenges in the Nov. 2 midterm election.

Among them is Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold. Feingold has long courted young voters but is skipping the president's rally and staying in Washington, where the Senate is in session.

Google Election Map

2010-09-21T13:26:00.003-04:00

Check out this map from Google.

(Via Jim Geraghty.)

Good luck with that

2010-08-01T16:56:00.001-04:00

Hugh Hewitt:

It is a testament to the deep unpopularity of Obamacare that the president has to campaign on the bailout of GM as his great achievement.

Road Map

2010-07-19T23:03:00.000-04:00

Fred Barnes discusses Paul Ryan's Road Map here.

It depends on what the meaning of the word "reserves" is

2010-06-17T17:57:00.002-04:00

President Obama:

We consume more than 20% of the world's oil, but have less than 2% of the world's oil reserves. And that's part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean - because we're running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.

John Hinderaker's response:

This howler is a favorite canard of Democratic politicians. As is so often the case, they are relying on the public's ignorance. Most people don't realize that in the U.S., oil isn't counted as part of our "reserves" unless it is legally available for drilling. Thus, ANWR, to take one of many examples, isn't counted toward the total "reserves." The U.S. government could cause our reserves to skyrocket overnight by opening new areas, on land and in shallow water, to drilling. But the U.S. is the only country in the world that has deliberately chosen not to develop its own energy resources. No one else is that dumb.

And from Hugh Hewitt:

The president's pratfall reinforces the widespread and growing impression that he is simply way in over his head, and that his team of advisors are similarly overmatched. His dismal handling of the Gulf crisis is a reminder to future generations of voters that it is best to discover whether presidential candidates have executive ability as opposed to, say, debating skills, before entrusting the nation's defense to them.

Quit NATO?

2010-06-14T21:28:00.002-04:00

Arthur Herman:

In short, one NATO ally is lining up to help Iran dominate the Middle East. Another, after months of promises that it would not, intends to sell Russia the means not only to intimidate maritime neighbors like Lithuania and Georgia, but possibly to eavesdrop on every NATO operation around the world.

Add in NATO's refusal to carry its share of the burden of fighting in Afghanistan, which is hampering our strategy there and putting our soldiers in danger, and there's only one conclusion to draw: The Cold War alliance that was once an important pillar of Western and US security is becoming a danger to both.

Don't Let the Door Hit You

2010-05-18T23:44:00.001-04:00

Sestak Defeats Specter in Pennsylvania Democratic Primary

Good Plan

2010-05-17T20:33:00.002-04:00

John Hinderaker:

So, one wonders: what, exactly, is the Obama administration's policy toward Iran, a nation that has been bitterly hostile to the U.S. for decades and has spared no effort to kill American soldiers whenever possible? Strange as it may seem, I think President Obama's strategy really was to give a handful of speeches to "the Muslim world" and thereby convince our enemies to beat their swords into plowshares. If that seems impossibly stupid, bear in mind that Obama came of age in a political culture so frivolous that a few speeches filled with fine words actually led to success--in his case, the Presidency.

Got hope?

Quite Insane

2010-04-12T20:00:00.001-04:00

Charles Krauthammer:

Nuclear doctrine consists of thinking the unthinkable. It involves making threats and promising retaliation that is cruel and destructive beyond imagining. But it has its purpose: to prevent war in the first place.

During the Cold War, we let the Russians know that if they dared use their huge conventional military advantage and invaded Western Europe, they risked massive U.S. nuclear retaliation. Goodbye Moscow.

Was this credible? Would we have done it? Who knows? No one’s ever been there. A nuclear posture is just that — a declaratory policy designed to make the other guy think twice.

Our policies did. The result was called deterrence. For half a century, it held. The Soviets never invaded. We never used nukes. That’s why nuclear doctrine is important.

The Obama administration has just issued a new one that “includes significant changes to the U.S. nuclear posture,” said Defense Secretary Bob Gates. First among these involves the U.S. response to being attacked with biological or chemical weapons.

Under the old doctrine, supported by every president of both parties for decades, any aggressor ran the risk of a cataclysmic U.S. nuclear response that would leave the attacking nation a cinder and a memory.

Again: Credible? Doable? No one knows. But the threat was very effective.

Under President Obama’s new policy, however, if the state that has just attacked us with biological or chemical weapons is “in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),” explained Gates, then “the U.S. pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it.”

Imagine the scenario: Hundreds of thousands are lying dead in the streets of Boston after a massive anthrax or nerve-gas attack. The president immediately calls in the lawyers to determine whether the attacking state is in compliance with the NPT. If it turns out that the attacker is up to date with its latest IAEA inspections, well, it gets immunity from nuclear retaliation. Our response is then restricted to bullets, bombs, and other conventional munitions.

However, if the lawyers tell the president that the attacking state is NPT noncompliant, we are free to blow the bastards to nuclear kingdom come.

This is quite insane. It’s like saying that if a terrorist deliberately uses his car to mow down a hundred people waiting at a bus stop, the decision as to whether he gets (a) hanged or (b) 100 hours of community service hinges entirely on whether his car had passed emissions inspections.

Apart from being morally bizarre, the Obama policy is strategically loopy. Does anyone believe that North Korea or Iran will be more persuaded to abjure nuclear weapons because they could then carry out a biological or chemical attack on the U.S. without fear of nuclear retaliation?

The naïveté is stunning. Similarly stunning is the Obama pledge to forswear development of any new nuclear warheads — indeed, to permit no replacement of aging nuclear components without the authorization of the president himself. This under the theory that our moral example will move other countries to eschew nukes.

On the contrary. The last quarter-century — the time of greatest superpower nuclear-arms reduction — is precisely when Iran and North Korea went hellbent into the development of nuclear weapons.

It gets worse. The administration’s Nuclear Posture Review declares U.S. determination to “continue to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attacks.” The ultimate aim is to get to a blanket doctrine of no first use.

This is deeply worrying to the many small nations that for half a century relied on the extended U.S. nuclear umbrella to keep them from being attacked or overrun by far more powerful neighbors. When smaller allies see the United States determined to move inexorably away from that posture — and for them it’s not posture, but existential protection — what are they to think?

Fend for yourself. Get yourself your own WMDs. Go nuclear if you have to. Do you imagine they are not thinking that in the Persian Gulf?

This administration seems to believe that by restricting retaliatory threats and by downplaying our reliance on nuclear weapons, it is discouraging proliferation.

But the opposite is true. Since World War II, smaller countries have agreed to forgo the acquisition of deterrent forces — nuclear, biological, and chemical — precisely because they placed their trust in the firmness, power, and reliability of the American deterrent.

Seeing America retreat, they will rethink. And some will arm. There is no greater spur to hyperproliferation than the furling of the American nuclear umbrella.

The Income Shift Act of 2010

2010-03-25T17:59:00.003-04:00

Hugh Hewitt:

Max Baucus is the Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, and the Democrat most responsible fo Obamacare's final shape other than Nancy Pelosi.

In an unusual speech on the Senate floor moments ago, Max Baucus declares that the "healthcare bill" to be "an income shift, it is a shift, a leveling to help lower income middle income Americans." Baucus continued, "[t]oo often, much of late, the last couple three years the mal-distribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind. Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America."

Change we can believe in!

An Incomplete List, No Doubt

2010-03-23T16:46:00.002-04:00

20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms by David Hogberg

With House Democrats poised to pass the Senate health care bill with some reconciliation changes later today, it is worthwhile to take a comprehensive look at the freedoms we will lose.

Of course, the overhaul is supposed to provide us with security. But it will result in skyrocketing insurance costs and physicians leaving the field in droves, making it harder to afford and find medical care. We may be about to live Benjamin Franklin’s adage, “People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”

The sections described below are taken from HR 3590 as agreed to by the Senate and from the reconciliation bill as displayed by the Rules Committee.

1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501)

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).

3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).

4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712).

5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employees’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).

7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d) (1) (A))

8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A)).

9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 50 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).

10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)).

11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))

12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A))

13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a country where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).

14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)

15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).

16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).

The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405).

17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)

18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014).

19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).

That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).

20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).

The Untold Story

2010-02-16T09:27:00.001-05:00

Check out Understanding the Surge.

"...an impressive record of incompetence."

2010-01-26T13:22:00.004-05:00

Stephen F. Hayes:

It has been a month since Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab nearly killed 289 people on Flight 253. In the weeks since the Christmas Day attack, we've learned some very disturbing things about the Obama administration and terrorism.

We learned that the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Michael Leiter, whose agency is responsible for pulling together pieces of intelligence to prevent attacks, went on vacation the day after the attack. We learned that the top White House counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, told him to go. We learned that the White House's initial view of the botched attack -- from Janet Napolitano and Robert Gibbs -- was that "the system worked." We learned that President Obama still believed the attempted bombing was the work of "an isolated extremist" three days after the attack, despite a wealth of evidence that Abdulmutallab had been sent by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). We learned that Brennan was surprised that AQAP was capable of attacking the United States. We learned that Napolitano was surprised by al Qaeda's "determination" to hit the U.S. and stunned that they would send an individual -- not a group -- to conduct an attack. We learned that four top U.S. counterterrorism officials -- Leiter, Napolitano, FBI Director Robert Mueller and Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair -- were not consulted about whether to treat Abdulmutallab as an enemy combatant or a criminal. We learned that a proposed "high-value detainee interrogation unit," or HIG, does not exist one year into the Obama administration. We learned that Blair, the nation's top intelligence official, thought that it did. We learned that Abdulmutallab was read his Miranda rights less than twelve hours after he was captured. We learned that the FBI interrogated Abdulmutallab for just 50 minutes before he was told he had the right to remain silent and chose to exercise it.

That's an impressive record of incompetence. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs made it worse on Sunday. In an interview on Fox News Sunday, Gibbs was asked about the quick decision to Mirandize the al Qaeda operative. His first response was false, and his second, absurd.

Read the entire post.

Got hope?

This is Good

2009-12-11T20:30:00.001-05:00

Worst. Bill. Ever.

2009-11-07T11:02:00.003-05:00

From the Wall Street Journal:

In a rational political world, this 1,990-page runaway train would have been derailed months ago. With spending and debt already at record peacetime levels, the bill creates a new and probably unrepealable middle-class entitlement that is designed to expand over time. Taxes will need to rise precipitously, even as ObamaCare so dramatically expands government control of health care that eventually all medicine will be rationed via politics.

Yet at this point, Democrats have dumped any pretense of genuine bipartisan "reform" and moved into the realm of pure power politics as they race against the unpopularity of their own agenda. The goal is to ram through whatever income-redistribution scheme they can claim to be "universal coverage." The result will be destructive on every level—for the health-care system, for the country's fiscal condition, and ultimately for American freedom and prosperity.

Please read the entire article. Here's one of the concluding paragraphs:

As Congress's balance sheet drowns in trillions of dollars in new obligations, the political system will have no choice but to start making cost-minded decisions about which treatments patients are allowed to receive. Democrats can't regulate their way out of the reality that we live in a world of finite resources and infinite wants. Once health care is nationalized, or mostly nationalized, medical rationing is inevitable—especially for the innovative high-cost technologies and drugs that are the future of medicine.

Got hope?

1989

2009-10-21T22:38:00.001-04:00

From Jeff Jacoby's column, The year the dominoes fell:

1989 exemplified with rare power the resilience of Western civilization. In our time, too, there are brutal despots who imagine that their power is unassailable: that their tanks and torturers can keep them in power forever. But the message of 1989 is that tyranny is not forever - and that the downfall of tyrants can come with world-changing speed.

Wish Away Enemies

2009-10-15T21:04:00.001-04:00

Paul Mirengoff:

Suddenly, Obama is, in the words of his spokesperson, "prepared to accept some Taliban involvement in Afghanistan's political future." I'm sure the Taliban thinks that's big of Obama. But one wonders whether, given Obama's apparent lack of appetite for the fight, the Taliban is prepared to accept his involvement in Afghanistan's political future.

Got hope?

Brilliant

2009-10-15T19:01:00.002-04:00

From Peter Schweizer's Forbes.com column, A Poisonous Cocktail:

As we try to shake off the financial crisis, here's a bright idea. Take a law that has led to the writing of an enormous amount of bad mortgages and expand it. Then take enforcement away from bank examiners and give it to housing activists.

Sound like a poisonous cocktail? Well, it is what the Obama administration and Democrats are currently stirring up on Capitol Hill.

The White House and Congress want to expand a 30-year-old law--the Community Reinvestment Act--that helped to fuel the mortgage meltdown. What the CRA does, in effect, is compel banks to seek the permission of community activists to get regulatory approval for bank expansions and mergers. Often this means striking a deal with activist groups such as ACORN or unions like the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and agreeing to allocate credit to poor and minority areas that are underserved.

In short, the CRA encourages banks to make loans they would not ordinarily make. What's more, these agreements often require that banks offer no-money-down mortgages and remove caps on how much debt a borrower can take on. All of this is done in the name of "financial democracy."

Change we can believe in!

Watch What You Say

2009-10-15T18:34:00.002-04:00

Byron York writes about the Democrats' hate crimes bill here.

John Hinderaker's reaction:

Needless to say, the First Amendment does not contain a "compelling governmental interest" exception. Legally, of course, no statute can trump the Constitution. But that doesn't mean the Democrats can't try, and it doesn't mean that Barack Obama's intensely politicized Justice Department won't try to bring criminal prosecutions against the administration's political opponents. Indeed, that appears to be the destination the Democrats have in mind when they continually try to demonize opposition to left-wing policies as "hate speech."

Ultimate Test

2009-09-18T15:22:00.002-04:00

John Hinderaker:

This would seem to be the ultimate test of whether our political system is so hopelessly corrupt that anyone--absolutely anyone, however useless and criminal--can sign up to steal your money, via the federal government. Right now, the spigot is open, and ACORN is getting your money. If you don't like that, tell your Congressman.

Another New Campaign Slogan?

2009-08-08T20:43:00.001-04:00

John Hinderaker:

Barack Obama is an arrogant would-be machine boss who fundamentally fails to understand representative democracy, perhaps because of his below-average knowledge of history, which we've noted on a number of occasions. Fortunately, "shut up" is not yet a winning political argument. Not in the United States of America, anyway.

Change we can believe in!

A New Campaign Slogan?

2009-08-07T11:36:00.001-04:00

John Hinderaker:

You could paraphrase the Democrats' complaints, "democracy's a bitch!" They are in a panic, obviously, because most Americans don't believe the falsehoods the Democrats have used to promote their health care takeover--like Obama's absurd claim that "If you like your insurance or your doctor, you can keep them." That is not what any version of the Democrats' plan says. The Democrats need to learn that repeating a lie over and over won't always snow a majority of voters.

Fishy

2009-08-06T11:36:00.002-04:00

Scott Johnson is turning himself in:

As a student of history, I think I know how this works. I want to spare my family and friends the pressure they may feel they are under to turn me in. I confess. I harbor a number of thoughts the Obama White House and Ms. Douglass deem highly fishy. I'm turning myself in.

Please read Mr. Johnson's entire confession.

Australia Next?

2009-07-30T19:59:00.001-04:00

Paul Mirengoff:

It was the Godfather who said "keep your friends close and your enemies closer." Though President Obama seems to be following the second part of this dictate, assuming he understands that Hugo Chavez and Russia's leaders are our adversaries, he is not keeping America's friends close. Instead, he seems to be going out of his way to alienate them.

Summing Up Gibbs

2009-07-30T19:44:00.001-04:00

John Hinderaker:

It's hard to tell, sometimes, whether Gibbs's incoherence is deliberate.

What Pork?

2009-07-21T22:52:00.000-04:00

Change we can believe in!

Do the Math

2009-07-20T20:58:00.001-04:00

John Hinderaker:

I say this in all seriousness: why should we take direction on any complex issue of public policy from a group of people who literally do not know what a square foot is? They are not smarter than we are. They are dumber.

Thank You Mr. Vice President

2009-07-18T23:00:00.002-04:00

Jim Geraghty:

Far and away, the elected official making the strongest, clearest, most easily understood case against the Obama agenda is Joe Biden.

Great Post Title

2009-07-08T15:32:00.002-04:00

From Jim Geraghty:

This Kirk Doesn't Believe in the No-Win Scenario, Either

Ignorance

2009-06-01T18:43:00.003-04:00

John Hinderaker:

I think President Obama's worst weakness is that he is ignorant, not only of economics as an academic discipline, but of business as it is commonly experienced and understood by those in the private sector. This lack of understanding promises to be an endless source of bad policy.

Got hope?

Backward

2009-05-24T14:08:00.001-04:00

Hugh Hewitt:

But there is no credit due the president on this Memorial Day Weekend for his incoherent approach to the treatment of the terrorists we already have in our custody and the precedents he is laying down for the next however many years we are obliged to fight this war. This is the first Memorial Day since 9/11 when it is possible to say that we are quite obviously returning to a 9/10 mentality when it comes to Islamist fanatics in our custody. Our guard is being lowered even as our extraordinary servicemen and women fight on in Afghanistan, Iraq, and scores of other places that don't make the headlines. It is impossible for the fecklessness of the policies concerning interrogation of prisoners and the custody of terrorists at Gitmo and elsewhere not to impact over time the situation on the battlefield, if only because our enemies watch the news and see in these moves by President Obama a slow-motion stand-down.

Change we can believe in!

Clueless and Dangerous

2009-04-19T21:06:00.003-04:00

John Hinderaker:

Does Obama really not understand that hostile foreign leaders are making a fool of him and of the country he purports to lead? Apparently not. I don't think Barack Obama is a stupid man, but he is in so far over his head that every time he ventures onto the international stage he not only embarrasses himself--and us--he damages, if ever so slightly, our national security.

Got hope?

Math Problem

2009-03-18T18:19:00.001-04:00

What is 165,000,000 divided by 1,000,000,000,000? What is 165,000,000 divided by 2,000,000,000,000?

Yeah, That's a Problem

2009-02-23T23:23:00.001-05:00

John Hinderaker:

Barack Obama is a smart guy, in the fashion of a lawyer, and it isn't necessary that a President be a scholar (although quite a few have been). But there are two subjects, ignorance of which in a President is dangerous: economics and history. Unfortunately, those are the very topics in which Obama's knowledge is below average.

No Thanks, I Like the Original One

2009-01-18T13:30:00.001-05:00

President-elect Barack Obama: "What is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives - from ideology and small thinking, prejudice and bigotry..."

Not just in our nation? Huh?

Merry Christmas!

2008-12-25T11:48:00.003-05:00

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
- ISAIAH 9:6

Scary

2008-11-02T22:54:00.000-05:00

From A closing argument for John McCain by John Hinderaker and Scott Johnson:

If he wins, Obama will take the oath of office, in which he'll swear to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Yet the record shows that Obama isn't particularly fond of the Constitution. In a 2001 interview on Chicago public radio, Obama noted that the Warren Court had "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society," and "to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical." Obama asserted that the Constitution "reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day."

He also noted that the Court "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted." Obama seemed to think the Constitution deficient, because it provided only a guarantee of negative liberties – what the government can't do to citizens – rather than a positive right to welfare. The Founding Fathers would be shocked by Obama's attitude toward this cornerstone of American principles.

Remember the Court

2008-11-02T22:40:00.000-05:00

From Edward Whelan:

With its five living-constitutionalists, the Supreme Court is well to the left of the American public and threatens to engage in yet more wild acts of liberal judicial activism. The Court urgently needs to be transformed into an institution that practices judicial restraint. If Barack Obama is elected president, he will drive the Court further in the wrong direction, and the liberal judicial activists that he appoints will likely serve for two or three decades. Our system of representative government, already under siege, would be lucky to survive an Obama presidency.

(Via Power Line)

"McCain the Stalwart"

2008-11-02T13:58:00.001-05:00

Charles Krauthammer makes the case for John McCain.

The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.

Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the last year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?

Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts, but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?

Read the whole thing. He concludes:

Today's economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I'm for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb.

It's About the Money

2008-11-02T01:11:00.000-04:00

Check out Obama Shrugged for the latest news on the Obama campaign's online donation "issues".

Maybe the mainstream media will get around to covering this story sometime after November 4th. Well, probably not. If The One wins, he will need to be re-elected in 2012.

A Warning

2008-11-01T22:16:00.000-04:00

John Hinderaker:

Our last vacation from history ended when the enemies who had steadily been gathering strength struck in New York and Washington, D.C. The vacation which is about to begin may come to an end in much more dramatic fashion.

Brace Yourself

2008-10-22T20:04:00.000-04:00

Michael Barone discusses "The Coming Obama Thugocracy" in this column.

Here's his conclusion:

Obama supporters who found the campuses congenial and Obama himself, who has chosen to live all his adult life in university communities, seem to find it entirely natural to suppress speech that they don't like and seem utterly oblivious to claims that this violates the letter and spirit of the First Amendment. In this campaign, we have seen the coming of the Obama thugocracy, suppressing free speech, and we may see its flourishing in the four or eight years ahead.

That Would Be Nice

2008-09-28T18:51:00.000-04:00

Ed Morrissey:

We would have no problem with tough questioning to hold Republican candidates accountable if the media would perform the same task with Democrats. Yet no major media outlet has reported on Barack Obama’s long association with and defense of William Ayers, an unrepentant domestic terrorist, nor have they pressed him on his lack of executive experience or the absence of any significant political accomplishments except his own elections. We await that interview with great anticipation and no hope whatsoever of it ever occurring.

Judgment

2008-09-11T13:52:00.000-04:00

John Hinderaker:

There are few places where bad judgment is so routinely tolerated as Washington. There is perhaps nowhere in the world where there is so little accountability, where bad judgment goes so routinely unpunished, as the U.S. Senate. This is why Joe Biden can be wrong about every major foreign policy issue for decades, and still be regarded as an "expert" in the field.

Spokes in Space

2008-09-04T18:05:00.001-04:00

An incredible image of the Helix Nebula...

Nice Summary

2008-09-03T00:40:00.001-04:00

From Jim Geraghty:

In 72 hours, the media has subjected Bristol Palin to more scrutiny than they've given to Barack Obama in two years.

Perhaps if Governor Palin and her family would associate with terrorists, racists, and slumlords, the mainstream media would lose interest.

Like the DMV

2008-08-25T21:23:00.001-04:00

Sally Pipes takes on socialized medicine in this Examiner editorial. Here are the opening paragraphs.

With Democrats convinced 2008 is their year, the campaign trail is awash with promises to make universal health care a reality by the end of the next president’s first term.

The basic argument of those who support a government takeover of the health care system is familiar. As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman once put it, “America’s health care system spends more, for worse results, than that of any other advanced country.”

Krugman’s line has been repeated so often it’s considered gospel truth in most public debates — people rarely check to see if it matches the facts. As the American humorist Josh Billings quipped, “the problem with the world ain’t ignorance, it’s the things people know that just ain’t so.”

If they did, they’d probably be surprised. Socialized health care isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

Read the whole thing.

(Via Power Line.)

Offer

2008-07-03T11:04:00.000-04:00

I'm heading into Chicago today. If anyone would like a "community organizer" application, just let me know and I'll pick one up.

Do As I Say...

2008-06-28T10:44:00.000-04:00

John Hinderaker of Power Line on the goal of the Obama energy "policy":

What Obama really stands for is managed decline--a government-supervised lowering of Americans' standards of living. (That would be your standard of living, of course, not his.) In this, he is Jimmy Carter redux.

A Good Question

2008-05-20T14:49:00.000-04:00

John Hinderaker asks:

Can someone explain why it is, exactly, that Barack Obama is not a laughingstock?

So, It's Not Like Energy Conservation

2008-04-30T00:14:00.001-04:00

John Hinderaker provides a list that details several instances of cooperation between Sunni and Shia extremists. This may shock those who push the idea that Sunni and Shia terrorists would never work together as if it were some fundamental law of nature.

Mr. Hinderaker concludes,

One might say that when it comes to promoting terrorism, cooperation between Sunni and Shia extremists is the rule, not the exception.

Generals

2008-03-29T14:54:00.001-04:00

This Weekly Standard article is a bit old, but it's still worth a careful read:
The Patton of Counterinsurgency by Frederick W. Kagan and Kimberly Kagan

That Pretty Much Sums It Up

2008-02-14T17:25:00.003-05:00

From Hugh Hewitt:

A vote for Obama in November will indeed bring about change: The U.S. will go from hunter to hunted, will go from the offense that has been part of the Bush Administration's policy since 9/11 back to the Clintonian fecklessness that dithered as the enemy nested and metastasized.

Shifts

2008-01-31T11:00:00.000-05:00

Check out these two fascinating articles:

Stopping Iran: Why the Case for Military Action Still Stands by Norman Podhoretz

And,

How Bush Decided on the Surge by Fred Barnes

Good reading.

And with His blood mankind has bought

2007-12-31T11:32:00.000-05:00

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!!

They looked up and saw a star
Shining in the East beyond them far
And to the earth it gave great light
And so it continued both day and night.
Noel, Noel, Noel, Noel
Born is the King of Israel!

-- The First Noel

I Suspect We Will See More of This

2007-11-30T14:41:00.000-05:00

From Power Line:

Though unmoved by our success, Murtha isn't above taking credit for it. Murtha says he's not surprised by our military success, and that he sent a letter to President Bush early in the war stating that the U.S. needed a much larger ground force to pacify Iraq.

Yet in 2006, Murtha wrote on his blog that "our military has done everything it can do militarily." They don't call him "honest Jack Murtha" for nothing.

Clearly, They've Earned It

2007-10-15T12:14:00.000-04:00

Rice: Now is time for Palestinian state

The Eighteen Percent

2007-09-19T15:26:00.000-04:00

John Hinderaker makes the following point about a response to a recent Rasmussen Poll:

One more thing about the Rasmussen poll: thirty-seven percent of respondents have a favorable opinion of General Petraeus, while eighteen percent expressed an unfavorable view. Think about that for a moment: how in the world could anyone have an unfavorable view of David Petraeus? Whatever one thinks of Iraq, the man has devoted his life to serving his country. He is a brilliant soldier as well as a brave one. The eighteen percent that disapprove of Petraeus must define the portion of the country that has gone stark, raving mad. One might say that they have progressed beyond Bush Derangement Syndrome to a Generalized Derangement Syndrome.

Accident-Free Workplace: 27 Days and Counting!

2007-09-19T13:36:00.000-04:00

According to The Jerusalem Post:

Proof of cooperation between Iran and Syria in the proliferation and development of weapons of mass destruction was brought to light Monday in Jane's Defence Weekly, which reported that dozens of Iranian engineers and 15 Syrian officers were killed in a July 23 accident in Syria.

According to the report, cited by Channel 10, the joint Syrian-Iranian team was attempting to mount a chemical warhead on a Scud missile when the explosion occurred, spreading lethal chemical agents, including sarin nerve gas.

Via Power Line.

Overdue Action

2007-08-15T23:46:00.000-04:00

U.S. to Label Iran Revolutionary Guard 'Terrorists'

Why has this taken so long?

Making Americans

2007-07-01T19:13:00.000-04:00

Peter Schramm was recently honored as an "Outstanding American by Choice" by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. He reflects on the meaning of American citizenship in a piece for the Daily Standard. Here are his concluding paragraphs:

In recent weeks, there has been much talk about immigration, but very little informed discussion about what it means to be an American--about what is necessary to make Americans. Yes, there needs to be a sensible policy for accepting new citizens, and for ensuring that those who come here do so legally. But what happens once they are here? I hear frequent conversations about failures in integration and assimilation, even among recent legal immigrants. This is not new. What is new is that America's own natural citizens increasingly have forgotten what it means to be American. Some do not know the basics principles of this country, and still others have embraced the ideology of multiculturalism and self-loathing to such a degree that they can no longer recognize, let alone proclaim, that ours is a great nation built on lasting principles. If we no longer understand or believe in that which makes us Americans, then there is nothing substantive to assimilate into. We become many and diverse people who share a common place, rather than E Pluribus Unum.

We cannot forget who we are. We are Americans. This is a great nation. We Americans insist on holding to the connection between freedom and justice, courage and moderation. We think that equality and liberty have ethical and political implications, and, as we have shown time-and-again throughout our history, we are willing to fight and to die to make men free. We need to impart these principles to succeeding generations.

We Americans correctly demand respect for our rights but, in getting that respect, we must continue to demonstrate that we continue to deserve it. We have to exercise our intelligence and develop our civic understanding so that we may preserve our liberty and pass it on, undiminished to the next generation. If government "of the people, by the people and for the people" is to endure, its endurance can only come from the devotion of Americans--born here and away--who have been so made.

I highly recommend listening to Peter Schramm's podcasts accessible at No Left Turns, or you can sign up to download them from the iTunes Store.

Step Out of the Shadows

2007-06-26T23:11:00.000-04:00

Mark Steyn discusses how the West has allowed itself to be continually intimidated by Islamist threats. His conclusion:

In 1989 Salman Rushdie went into hiding under the protection of the British police. A decade later he decided he did not wish to live his life like that and emerged from seclusion to live a more or less normal life. He learned the biggest lesson of all – how easy it is to be forced into the shadows. That's what's happening in the free world incrementally every day, with every itsy-bitsy nothing concession to groups who take offense at everything and demand the right to kill you for every offense. Across two decades, what happened to Rushdie has metastasized, in part because of the weak response in those first months. "Death is perhaps too easy"? Maybe. But slow societal suicide is easier still.

Good News from Afghanistan

2007-05-13T11:59:00.000-04:00

Top Taliban Commander Killed in Afghanistan:

Mullah Dadullah, a top lieutenant of Taliban leader Mullah Omar, was killed Saturday in the southern province of Helmand, said Said Ansari, the spokesman for Afghanistan's intelligence service. NATO confirmed his death, calling it "a serious blow" to the insurgency.

PC (Re)education

2007-04-30T20:55:00.000-04:00

William Otis has posted the first entries from his Dictionary of Political Correctness. Here's my favorite entry so far:

Verbal violence - Verbal violence is a statement a liberal doesn't like but has trouble refuting analytically. Thus, if you say that hard-edged feminism is at odds with traditional families -- the kind in which children usually do best -- this is "verbal violence" against women, and you have to sit in the corner (or sit out the next semester, or attend the sensitivity class, etc.).

(Via Power Line)

VP States the Obvious

2007-03-25T21:43:00.000-04:00

From the AP:

Vice President Dick Cheney on Saturday accused the Democrat-led House of not supporting troops in Iraq and of sending a message to terrorists that America will retreat in the face danger.

Can questioning their patriotism be far behind?

Well, yeah...

2007-02-04T14:07:00.000-05:00

Glenn Reynolds: "Because it's only a civil war if you can blame Bush, apparently . . . ."

Opening the Envelope

2007-01-28T10:32:00.000-05:00

The winner of the coveted Ranger Post Title of the Year Award for 2006 goes to...

Charles Johnson!

For: UN Hits Bottom, Finds Jimmy Carter Waiting

And the Corruptocrats Smiled

2006-12-04T15:00:00.000-05:00

The news of John Bolton's resignation does not make me happy.

Apparently, Democrats thought he wasn't nice enough to the tyrants and thugs at the UN.

Election Post Mortems

2006-11-08T18:53:00.000-05:00

Fred Barnes and Hugh Hewitt.

Read them if you care about winning back the House and Senate in the near future.

Election Scoreboard

2006-11-07T15:36:00.000-05:00

Keep track of election news and results at The Truth Laid Bear.

Trick or Trigger

2006-11-02T22:53:00.000-05:00

This is just great:

University of Pennsylvania president Amy Gutmann threw her annual Halloween costume party at her home Tuesday night. Among the guests was Saad Saadi, who came dressed as a suicide bomber, complete with plastic dynamite strapped to his chest and a toy automatic rifle. Worse, Gutmann posed with Saadi!

MN-06

2006-10-29T22:19:00.000-05:00

Vote for Michele Bachmann! Here are some of Captain Ed's comments on a dishonest ad from Sen. Bachmann's Democratic opponent, Patty Wetterling, and the DCCC:

So let's recap. Bachmann and the Republicans wanted a crime bill that actually addressed ... crime. The DFL, however, wanted a crime bill that they could pork up with a lot of spending that had to do with everything but ... crime. When the spending bill came up for a vote, the Republicans rejected it, and for good reason.

The DCCC and the Wetterling campaign want voters to believe that this represents Bachmann's views on crime and punishment. Instead, it's a great example of how Democrats exploit crime and other legislation as an excuse to throw money at all sorts of welfare programs, while extorting votes by attaching them to legislation important to voters. Bachmann refused to cooperate with their blackmail, and this is their resultant smear campaign.

Wetterling and the DCCC are honest in only one aspect of this issue. It shows how they will operate when they have a majority in Congress. If conservatives still feel inclined to sit out the midterms, this is what that abstention will buy them.