I recently came across a graph being put out by Barack Obama’s Organizing for America, which tries to graphically demostrate the success of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and suggest the under the Bush Administration job losses increased, while under Obama job losses decreased:

Look convincing?  Maybe to people who want to believe what it claims to say, but let’s really look at what’s going on.

These are job loss numbers… No matter how you slice it, these are negative numbers. The graph has some accompanying text that references the same CBO report that I recently proved was a flawed analysis.

Now, one thing to consider is that the cyclical nature of the economy means that  in a recession job losses will start off larger and slow down. The stimulus wouldn’t change that. and clearly, based the graph, the rate of decrease in the job losses hasn’t come any quicker that the rate of increase. Of course, if a double-dip recession occurs, as is feared, Obama’s minions will have a hard time using charts to paint the blame on Bush.

So, with job losses naturally declining, what numbers are more telling to look at? Well, let’s look at a chart of the unemployment rate for the same period of time in the graph above

The above chart, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, shows an increasing unemployment at the same time the Obama graph shows a decreasing rate of job losses. Of course, the unemployment was supposed to stay below 8 percent and not hit double digits because of the stimulus… but Obama’s graph doesn’t say anything about that.

Another aspect of the Obama chart worth addressing is the misleading nature of the labeling. In other words, by simply saying pre-2009 in Bush and and post-2009 is Obama does not tell the story accurately in any way, shape or form. The facts are that Democrats have controlled Congress since January 2007. When they control legislation and the budget process, to ignore that when talking about the economy is foolish.

So, I thought it be interesting to look at the unemployment numbers from 2005 to 2010, to see the trend and compare it to when power changed in Congress…

Interesting, isn’t it?  The economy appears to be quite stable and with low unemployment before the Democrats took over.  In fact, after the Democrats had power, unemployment slowly started trending upward, only to get worse in 2008. Democrats, once in power, made Republican spending look restrained, and one of their first big pushes was for an increase in the federal minimum wage, which, contrary to their claims, sent unemployment in the wrong direction, and in particular sent the unemployment rate of working age teenagers skyrocketing

So, Obama-bots ought not to read too much into the graph put out by Organizing for America… the millions of people who have lost their jobs under Obama probably aren’t comforted by meaningless statistics that offer no proof of success for legislation that he promised would keep them working.

UPDATE: This is another tellling graph. And be sure to keep this in mind.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Fannie Mae seeks $15.3 billion more in bail out funds.

I don’t know if you are watching the Health Care Reform Summit today…  But, just to show you how much of a sham it is, I’d like to bring up how Obama suggested he cut Republicans “some slack” by allowing  Senator Alexander to apparently go over his allotted time for his opening remarks. Obama said, “Both I and Lamar went a little bit over our original allocated time. I — not wanting to be a hypocrite — wanted to give you some slack.”

Let’s see just how much of a hypocrite Obama is…

Senator Alexander’s opening remarks lasted 13 mins, 10 seconds
Barack Obama’s lasted 14 mins, 36 seconds                        
Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s lasted 7 mins, 57 seconds
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s  lasted 8 mins, 13 seconds

So Democrats’ opening remarks lasted 30 mins, 46 seconds compared to the GOP’s 13 minutes, 10 seconds. Democrats needed more than double the time to grandstand about a bill that the American people don’t want.

For Lamar Alexander’s remarks, see the extended entry: Read the rest of this entry »

It really does look like the child of the Obama campaign logo and the Islamic flag. In fact, the Obama logo was the first thing I thought of.

+ =

We all expected this explosion of spending under Obama, but could we really have predicted that he’d spend away the future while simultaneously pontificating about fiscal responsibility?

After he signed a law last week authorizing the U.S. Treasury to borrow an additional $1.9 trillion, President Barack Obama delivered a characteristically sanctimonious speech. It was about his deep commitment to frugality.
 
“After a decade of profligacy, the American people are tired of politicians who talk the talk but don’t walk the walk when it comes to fiscal responsibility,” he said. “It’s easy to get up in front of the cameras and rant against exploding deficits. What’s hard is actually getting deficits under control. But that’s what we must do. Like families across the country, we have to take responsibility for every dollar we spend.”

To put Obama’s Olympian hypocrisy in perspective, one need only examine the federal budget tables posted on the White House website by Obama’s own Office of Management and Budget.
 
They reveal these startling facts: When calculated by the average annual percentage of the Gross Domestic Product that he will spend during his presidency, Obama is on track to become the biggest-spending president since 1930, the earliest year reported on the OMB’s historical chart of spending as a percentage of GDP. When calculated by the average annual percentage of GDP he will borrow during his presidency, Obama is on track to become the greatest debter president since Franklin Roosevelt.

It’s amazing, isn’t it? How can someone so blatantly say one and do another and get away with it? One has to conclude that either Obama is a pathological liar, or insane.

Hell, I say he never deserved a first.

52 percent of Americans said President Barack Obama doesn’t deserve reelection in 2012, according to a new poll.

44 percent of all Americans said they would vote to reelect the president in two and a half years, less than the slight majority who said they would prefer to elect someone else.

Obama faces a 44-52 deficit among both all Americans and registered voters, according to a CNN/Opinion Research poll released Tuesday. Four percent had no opinion.

It is unfortunate that he ever got to where he is in the first place. But it is somewhat comforting that American realize that Obama is just another fraud who talked the talk during the campaign, but has zero leadership skills, no bipartisan bones in his body, and an unpopular agenda.

ConservativeGal explains:

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases. For FY 2009, though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009

And, if you didn’t know this already, Obama was still a member of the Senate when Congress passed those spending bills… and ultimately signed the omnibus bill after taking office.

The truth hurts sometimes, and the truth is, Obama voted for and signed into law the current deficit, which he continuous to expand to this very day.

Gotta love it.

Internet chatter had led to speculation that it might be an urban myth — nothing more than clever digital trickery spreading via the Web.

But our friend Bob Collins at Minnesota Public Radio assures us he’s seen it with his own eyes:

There is a billboard along I-35 near Wyoming, Minn., with a huge photo of former president George W. Bush and this question: “Miss Me Yet?”

Now, the push is on to find out who paid to have it put up.

Bob says there’s no readily apparent claim of ownership on the billboard, so he’s heading back to the scene to see if he can find out who’s behind the message. He’s also got some local politicos looking into it. He’ll keep us posted.

At first glance, it would seem to be from some person or group who isn’t thrilled by President Barack Obama’s performance so far — unless it’s a more ironic message from those who didn’t think too much of Bush and want to remind voters about him.

I wish I could say it was me.

Can you see me smile?

A year into his tenure, a majority of Americans would already vote against Pres. Obama if the ‘12 elections were held today, according to a new survey.

The Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor poll shows 50% say they would probably or definitely vote for someone else. Fully 37% say they would definitely cast a ballot against Obama. Meanwhile, just 39% would vote to re-elect the pres. to a 2nd term, and only 23% say they definitely would do so.

Obama’s first year in office has been marked by an unemployment rate that surged to 10%, an increased commitment of troops to Afghanistan and a health care battle that has taken a serious political toll on the WH.

A year ago, I would have never guessed that the Obamabots who put that dumbass in office would come to their senses so quickly. There is hope. Obama is on the road to being a one-termer.

How can I be so confident? Well, the good faith some had in Obama, once lost, is either lost for good, or will be so hard to get back, I don’t see Barry being able to win it back, given his arrogance.

How many of you want to take Barack Obama’s “forgiveness” of Harry Reid for his past offensive comments as legitimate forgiveness? Perhaps we ought to look at how he and other Democrats have treated other controversial comment made by a Republican. The Trent Lott incident comes to mind.

Back in 2002, Obama said of Trent Lott:

“The Republican Party itself has to drive out Trent Lott. If they have to stand for something, they have to stand up and say this is not the person we want representing our party.”

How about Harry Reid?

“As a Democrat, Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada will not have a vote when Republicans determine Lott’s fate next month. ‘As closely as I’ve worked with him, I don’t know how in the world I could condone, support or understand his statements,’ said Reid, the Senate Democratic whip. ‘I think what he said is not good for America; it’s repugnant what he said.’ ‘If Republicans think it’s best for Democrats to keep him there, maybe they’ll get rid of him,’ Reid said.” (Tony Batt and Jane Ann Morriso, “Ensign Continues To Back Lott As Majority Leader,” Las Vegas Review-Journal, 12/17/02)

And when Lott resigned his leadership position, Reid said,

“Sen. Harry Reid said Republican Senate leader Trent Lott’s decision to relinquish his post Friday came as no surprise. ‘He had no alternative,’ the Nevada Democrat and Senate minority leader said. ‘Senator Lott dug himself a hole and he didn’t dig it all in one setting. He dug it over the years. And he couldn’t figure out a way to get out of it.’” (“Nevada Lawmakers Not Surprised By Lott Resignation,” The Associated Press, 12/20/02)

How about other Democrats? Here’s a sample I received in my inbox this morning.

Senator Mary Landrieu:

“U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., said she doubts a censure motion would ever reach the Senate floor, but would vote for such a measure if it did. ‘I think the remarks could not have been more hurtful and more direct and more out of place,’ Landrieu said. But the Senate doesn’t ordinarily censure members for distasteful speech, she said, reserving that rebuke for ‘actions.’ Landrieu said it’s up to Senate Republicans to decide whether Lott should give up his leadership job. ‘I can tell you if a Democratic leader said such a thing, they would not be allowed to keep their position,’ Landrieu said.” (“Bush Condemns Remark, Accepts Lott’s Apology,” The Advocate [Baton Rouge, Louisiana], 12/13/02)

Then-Senator Joe Biden:

“‘What he said was insensitive as hell; it’s very offensive,’ said Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., who read about the furor after returning Tuesday from a trip to the Middle East. ‘Race is serious stuff. It’s not something you kid about.’” (Erin Kelly, “Del. Lawmakers, Civil Rights Leaders Condemn Lott’s Comments,” Gannett News Service, 12/13/02)

Senator Evan Bayh

“Democrats, who had spent much of the last two weeks criticizing Lott’s statement, praised his decision to resign and pledged to work with the next Senate Republican leader. ‘There is a standard for all of us in public life that must be met, and his ability to lead was severely damaged. The American people expect and deserve leaders who share their values,’ Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana said in a statement. ‘As we move forward, I hope we can use this unfortunate incident as a springboard to continue the civil rights progress that we have made over the last forty years.’” (Craig Linder, “Ceding To Controversy, Lott Says He Will Not Be Majority Leader In Next Congress,” States News Service, 12/20/09)

Senator Barbara Boxer:

“More typical were comments from Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who stopped short of calling for Lott to leave. ‘His apology does not take away the sting of his divisive words, nor the pain inflicted on millions of African Americans under segregation,’ she said.” (Edward Epstein, “Bush Calls Lott’s Remark ‘Wrong,’” The San Francisco Chronicle, 12/13/02)

Senator Maria Cantwell:

“Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said Lott’s remarks at a birthday party for 100-year-old Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., ‘were disturbing and hurtful. Our country needs unity, not division. He (Lott) must show through his actions that he understands the importance of his apology.’” (Gregg Herrington, “State’s Two Democratic Senators And Gop Chairman Take Lott To Task For Remarks,” The Columbian [Vancouver, WA], 12/14/02)

Then-Senator Hillary Clinton:

“One Democrat, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, said the GOP must decide whether Lott ‘represents the views of the majority of Republicans in the Senate and in our country.’” (Ron Kampeas, “Some Republicans Say Lott’s Apology Should End Controversy,” The Associated Press, 12/14/02)

Senator Dick Durbin:

“‘We need political leaders who are healers, not dividers,’ Durbin said. ‘I hope that Senator Lott’s apology will translate into action and that he will advance policies that bring us together as a nation rather than pull us apart.’” (Dori Meinert, “Fitzgerald, Simon Support Lott In Racial Controversy,” Copley News Service, 12/13/02)

Senator Russ Feingold:

“Sen. Russ Feingold Thursday called on Sen. Trent Lott to resign as GOP leader over comments Lott made last week about Strom Thurmond’s pro-segregationist 1948 presidential campaign. ‘Given the tragic history of race relations in this country, and the role the 1948 campaign played in it, his statement was especially hurtful,’ Feingold, D-Wis., said in a statement.” (“Feingold Calls On Lott To Resign As GOP Leader,” The Associated Press, 12/12/02)

Senator Dianne Feinstein:

“‘When connected to past comments and votes, this statement casts a dark shadow over Sen. Lott’s ability to be a credible party leader,’ Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said in a written statement. Feinstein, the state’s senior senator, said she condemns any statement that holds segregation as anything but morally repugnant.” (Chris H. Sieroty, “California Lawmakers, Analysts Scold Lott,” Inland Valley Daily Bulletin [Ontario, CA], 12/28/02)

Senator Tom Harkin:

“Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa issued a blistering condemnation Thursday night of controversial remarks by Republican Sen. Trent Lott, saying it is ’shocking’ that the White House has not urged Lott to step down as the incoming majority leader. ‘Or is this a not-too-subtle message to closet bigots and Southern white supremacists that their true political home is the GOP?’ Harkin asked in a prepared statement. . . . Said Harkin: ‘Senator Lott may utter apologies and explanations, but where is his outright condemnation of exactly what Strom Thurmond stood for -segregation and white supremacy?’ Harkin added that ‘it’s in unguarded moments like these we see past the polished veneer.’” (Jane Norman, “Harkin Shocked GOP Is Willing To Keep Lott As Majority Leader,” Des Moines Register, 12/13/02)

Senator John Kerry:

“Sen. John F. Kerry yesterday demanded that Senate GOP Leader Trent Lott resign his powerful leadership post for making racially charged comments praising Sen. Strom Thurmond’s segregationist 1948 presidential campaign. ‘I simply do not believe the country can today afford to have someone who has made these statements again and again be the leader of the United States Senate,’ said Kerry (D-Mass.), wading into a national controversy as he prepares his 2004 White House bid.” (Andrew Miga, “Kerry: Lott Must Resign,” Boston Herald, 12/12/02)

Senator Blanche Lincoln:

“‘The sentiments expressed by Senator Lott’s words last week have no place in today’s America,’ Sen. Blanche Lincoln, a Democrat, said in a statement. ‘If he truly believes a Strom Thurmond presidency would have been good for the country, then he is out of touch with the U.S. Senate and certainly with a great majority of Americans. ‘Senator Lott owes the nation a thorough explanation of his words recorded in 1980 and again last week. Racism and bigotry once divided America and we cannot tolerate words that might send us back there.’” (Paul Barton, “Lott’s Remarks Draw Arkansas Reproach,” Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 12/12/02)

Senator Barbara Mikulski:

“Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski of Maryland said Lott’s comments ‘demonstrate a glaring insensitivity to the pain African-Americans suffered as a result of segregation and discrimination.’” (Julie Hirschfeld Davis, “Lott Repeats Apologies, Rejects Calls To Resign As Senate Leader,” The Baltimore Sun, 12/14/02)

Senator Patty Murray:

“Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said the comments by Lott, R-Miss., ‘were offensive, hurtful and wrong. Worst of all, they do not appear to be isolated remarks. At a time when our country should stand as one, (the comments) serve only to divide. Americans deserve leaders who will stand up for the civil rights of all citizens.’” (Gregg Herrington, “State’s Two Democratic Senators And Gop Chairman Take Lott To Task For Remarks,” The Columbian [Vancouver, WA], 12/14/02)

Senator Debbie Stabenow

“Sen. Debbie Stabenow, a Democrat, described Lott’s comments as ‘outrageous’ and ‘completely inexcusable.’ ‘Those kinds of comments have no place in our society and should be repudiated by every American,’ Stabenow said in a statement. ‘At this point, the Republican caucus in the U.S. Senate needs to think long and hard about the kind of values they want their leadership to represent.’” (Katherine Hutt Scott, “Mich. Delegation Members From Both Parties Criticize Lott Remarks,” Gannett News Service, 12/14/02)

You get the idea. Democrats must oust Harry Reid now if they want any credibility on racial issues.

GOP Chairman Michael Steele says it perfectly:

“There is this standard where Democrats feel that they can say these things and they can apologize when it comes from the mouths of their own. But if it comes from anyone else, it is racism,” Steele told “Fox News Sunday.”

Even Al Sharpton is defending Harry Reid. One has to wonder what kind of donation he’s getting in exchange for his support of Reid. As my friend Ali Akbar put it, “The only color Al Sharpton has chosen to value in this situation is GREEN.”

UPDATE: Will Martha Coakley, the Democrat hoping to replace Ted Kennedy, condemn Harry Reid?

Even though Democrats are being handed the opportunity to televise health care talks, they aren’t…

So much for transparency.

But what really stings is that Breitbart has clips of Barack Obama promising eight times to do televise health care talks… just goes to show you that they are liars, and have no interest in transparency..

Anyone care to defend this? Does anyone want to argue that transparency isn’t a good thing?

The DCCC is now claiming that Barack “Close Gitmo” Obama is ‘more aggressive in fighting al Qaeda’ than Bush… Have you ever heard anything so ridiculous and stupid?

They are saying that Barack Obama, who wants to close Gitmo? The same Obama who is letting the Christmas Day Bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab be tried in civilian court, not a military tribunal?

Obama’s terrorism-is-a-law-enforcement-issue attitude is the exact reason why former Gitmo detainees like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab  were let go, only to rejoin the fight against our country.

More at Parcbench.

UPDATE by Mark Noonan: And more on that roaring, Obama Economic Recovery – U.S. taking majority ownership of GMAC. But, but, but I thought Barry said we’re getting better?

Just as Democrats bribed their way to get the 60 votes needed to bring Obamacare to a vote in the Senate, a new poll by Quinnipiac finds Americans overwhelming disapprove of the plan, and more than 70% oppose using taxpayer dollars to fund abortions.

As the Senate prepares to vote on health care reform, American voters “mostly disapprove” of the plan 53 – 36 percent and disapprove 56 – 38 percent of President Barack Obama’s handling of the health care issue, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Voters also oppose 72 – 23 percent using any public money in the health care overhaul to pay for abortions, the independent Quinnipiac University poll finds.

And how about Independent voters? They ain’t buying the plan either.

Looking at the health care plan, independent voters “mostly disapprove” 58 – 30 percent, as do Republicans 83 – 10 percent. Democrats “mostly approve” 64 – 22 percent.

The situation only gets worse for Obama. Obama’s handling of the economy gets bad marks as well, even as Obama claims that this health care bill will reduce the deficit.

American voters also disapprove 51 – 44 percent of President Obama’s handling of the economy and disapprove 56 – 37 percent of the way he is creating jobs. But voters favor 52 – 42 percent his plan to use $200 billion left over from the bank bailout for a new stimulus package to create jobs rather than to reduce the budget deficit.

Only 31 percent of voters say Obama’s policies will help their personal financial situation, while 37 percent say his policies will hurt and 30 percent say his policies will make no difference. Among voters in households where someone has lost a job in the last year, 37 percent say Obama policies will help them personally, while 37 percent say they will hurt.

I guess the people aren’t buying Obama’s b.s. about the bill deficit-reducing nature. Of course, no thinking person would.

Click on the above photo, taken in May, 2008, in Bozeman, MT, to view it in full size. Pay special attention to Obama’s book of choice in the inset. The name of the book is “The Post-American World,” by Fareed Zakaria, who also happens to be the editor for Newsweek International (of the fatal Koran Flushing Non-Incident Incident fame).

And what, pray tell, is the subject matter of the “Post American World?” In part,

Zakaria describes with equal prescience a world in which the United States will no longer dominate the global economy, orchestrate geopolitics, or overwhelm cultures. He sees the “rise of the rest”—the growth of countries like China, India, Brazil,…

Is Obama’s choice of reading material in the picture any coincidence, given that Barack Obama is the only president in my lifetime who has never spoken of America’s greatness, nor advanced the ideal of American exceptionalism? Is the choice any coincidence, given that Barack Hussein Obama chose for two decades to attend a church whose pastor regularly engaged in anti-American rants?

Is his reading material of choice truly a mere happenstance, given that in his lifetime Obama chose to associate himself with terrorists who loved their country so much they decided it was best to literally blow up its institutions with impunity?

Most important of all, is our President’s choice of reading material in the photo really any coincidence, in light of Barack Obama’s perpetual apology tours, a domestic spending agenda and a “climate change” agenda that will surely bankrupt us for generations to come, not to mention the recently proposed windfall transfer of wealth to third world tinhorn dictatorships? For that matter, Obama’s feckless, half-hearted attempts to de-nuclearize Tehran speaks volumes, especially given his declaration in his much vaunted Cairo speech that “…No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons.”

In summary, one could certainly argue that the President’s agenda, nay, his very upbringing, breadth of experience and associations have rendered him a tailor-made instrument that would bring Zakaria’s vision of a “Post American World” into reality. As a matter of fact, given his choice of reading material, it’s not that much of a stretch to infer that it is Obama’s very intention that Zakaria’s vision of a neutered, feckless America, no longer a leader on the world stage, is nothing less than a foregone conclusion.

Have you ever heard anything so ridiculous?

Obama, in an interview that aired Sunday, gave himself “a good solid B-plus” grade for his first year in office.

Speaking with fellow Chicagoan Oprah Winfrey, the president claimed progress on economic and international fronts.

Obama said the only thing that stands in the way of giving himself a better grade is the fact that some elements of his agenda — health care reform and putting more Americans to work — remain undone.

“The biggest burden on me right now is that economic growth has happened, but job growth has not happened,” Obama told Winfrey on the ABC special.

Now, let’s be serious now. Obama can’t honestly believe he deserve that grade, even by left wing standards.

Let’s just consider the following.

• Several of his nominees have had to withdraw due to tax problems.
• Giitmo will not be closed in the timetable he promised.
• Unemployment has gone up to double-digits despite his promise the stimulus would keep it below 8%
• Despite majorities in both Houses of Congress, he can’t get his health care plan passed
• His approval ratings have declined at a historically fast rate, and are below 50% with Rasmussen and Gallup.
• Republicans won governorships in New Jersey and Virginia, two states Obama won last year.

Okay, I could go on… but you get the idea… Obama has been destroying the economy, his image, and his party. I can’t possibly explain how he thinks he deserve a B+ as a grade.

John Hawkins lists 20 other historic B+’s Like Obama’s. Sister Toldjah calls it denial.Alex Conant notes Obama’s self-grade is lower than the family goal.

So, let’s put it to you guys… what grade would you give Obama for his first year?

It just gets worse and worse:

New details on President Barack Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar” Kevin Jennings have emerged, as an eye-witness has finally broken her silence and says that Jennings was present at Tufts University during the infamous “Fistgate” scandal, and says that he bears personal responsibility for the event.

Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit reports that a Massachusetts teacher – who remains anonymous out of concern for herself and her family – told him that she saw Jennings in 2000 at the 10 Year Anniversary Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN)/Boston conference at Tufts University.

At that time Jennings was the executive director of GLSEN, an organization which he founded. The event, cosponsored by the Massachusetts Department of Education, featured a youth workshop on sex, specifically targeting 14-21-year-olds. During that workshop GLSEN presenters taught youth how to perform a dangerous sexual practice known as “fisting” – a practice so obscene that it cannot be described here.

This is just an outrage – first, that anyone like Jennings would ever be considered for a White House position. Second, that as soon as this comes out, he’s not forced to quit.

The man has a sick, twisted agenda of normalizing men having sex with boys – he’s a predator who has dressed himself up as an educator and liberals, naturally, have fallen for it. But rational people now have to take a stand – and Jennings has to go.

UPDATE, by Matt Margolis: What’s really sad is the way some on the left actually defend that sicko.

The decision by Obama to hold public trials for captured terrorists is undoubtedly stupid. On so many levels this decision is simply boneheaded. 

I’m sorry, but what message are we sending to the entire world, who will be watching, that American justice includes prejudged trials? We expect such things to happen in Iran, not here.

Obama allegedly taught constitutional law. So, perhaps he can explain the constitutionality of this situation? Obama has given terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the same constitutional rights as all American citizens. So, tell me, if you were ever on trial for something, how would you feel if everyone had already declared you guilty, and determined your punishment? Is that what America is about?

And if you were Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s lawyer, wouldn’t you take advantage of these blatant abuses and violations of civil rights to declare a mistrial?

An act of war merits a military trial. If these terror trials are allowed to continue, especially when being used as examples of American justice, no matter what happens we lose.

Aside from the safety concerns, and the potential for intelligence gathering methods being revealed in public, there is another aspect of this situation that is troubling: the potential damage to our country’s civilian justice system.

Nile Gardiner of the Telgraph (UK) calls it a shameful surrender… I have to agree.

I blogged a couple of weeks ago that the Obama administration was about to abandon its plans for Third Site missile defence installations in Poland and the Czech Republic. I wrote then that “if enacted, this would represent a huge turnaround in American strategic thinking on a global missile defence system, and a massive betrayal of two key US allies in eastern and central Europe. Such a move would significantly weaken America’s ability to combat the growing threat posed by Iran’s ballistic missile program, and would hand a major propaganda victory to the Russians.”

It now looks as though the president has surrendered to Russian demands to kill off Third Site.

Pouring salt on the wound, the announcement came on the anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland.

Well, President Bush was right,”This is a dangerous world, & [Obama] isn’t remotely qualified to handle it. This guy has no clue, I promise you.” 

Senator Mitch McConnell issued the following statement with regard to the news:

“The administration’s decision to abandon an important missile defense program for the defense of NATO and our allies in Poland and the Czech Republic, in my view, is both shortsighted and harmful to our long-term security interests.  We must not turn our backs on two loyal allies in the War on Terror.  Further, the administration has secured no apparent commitment from the Russians to work with us to reduce either the missile or nuclear threat from Iran.  More troubling will be if the administration has made these concessions to Russia in pursuit of expediting ill-considered arms control deals.”

True enough, The Wall Street Journal reported today that Russia “welcomed the news but said it saw no reason to offer concessions in return.”

So, Obama, what they hell are you thinking?

What also gets me about this whole thing is that Obama and the Democrats have claimed that Bush was the one alienating our allies and making us less safe. Ain’t that something? After such stupid allegations against Bush, Obama can insult our allies time and time again, end the war on terror, approve of the release of the Lockerbie bomber, and now this — without blinking an eye. Obama has done more to appease our enemies that protect this country and there is no reason why any American should stand for it.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: It makes no sense . Why do we even care what Russia thinks? Does anyone seriously contemplate war with Russia? We don’t need an arms control agreement with Russia…we don’t need anything with Russia.

We’re selling out superb allies in order to…what? What the heck are we doing? Is this just rote liberalism? Because liberals wanted arms control agreements with Russia in the 80’s, we must continue to want arms control agreements with them forever? Russia is a dying nation – Putin’s an arrogant ass, but one day he’ll be gone and Russia will face the stark fact that unless we support them, they won’t be able to hold their country against China and Islam. We need give them nothing – but we’re giving them this gift, on the 70’s anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Poland on conjunction with Hitler’s Nazi Germany.

Fool or idiot? More and more, “idiot” is coming to the fore in my view of Obama.

Is Obama an idiot?

…the flip side is I think that the United States and the West generally, we have to educate ourselves more effectively on Islam. And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslims Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.

We have 57 States and we’re one of the largest Moslem nations in the world…this from the supposed genius known as Barack Obama. Ok, I’ve played along for a while now, but I don’t want to play anymore – I want to know if Obama is just a moron who can read a speech well off the teleprompter. I want him given an IQ test, in public. I want to quiz him, personally, on some of the basic facts of history. I don’t trust this guy to know poop from shinola, anymore.

And I’ll bet that Obamunism just accelerates this trend:

My friend Eric Ostermeier at the University of Minnesota has been parsing 160 polls taken recently in Minnesota and the Upper Midwest, and found a surprising result. Despite having elected Barack Obama by wide margins in most of the states, voters in the region have become more conservative over the past two years. Self-identifying conservatives have reached their highest levels in at least four years:

In 2006, the percentage of Minnesotans identifying as conservatives plunged 5.3 points (15.9 percent) to just 28.1 percent of Gopher State residents. Self-identified conservatives in Iowa also declined by 5.1 points (13.9 percent) to 31.5 percent that year, with the largest drop occurring in Wisconsin, with a 6.1-point decline (16.9 percent) to 29.9 percent. In that November’s election cycle, Republicans lost control of the Minnesota House, the Iowa House, the Wisconsin Senate, as well as three U.S. House seats (MN-01, IA-01, WI-08).

The percentage of residents identifying as conservatives declined again in 2007, by 1.6 points in Minnesota (to 26.5 percent), by 3.0 points in Iowa (to 28.5 percent), and by 2.2 points in Wisconsin (to 27.7 percent).

However, during the last two years, conservatism seems to be mounting a comeback in the Upper Midwest, even though the 2008 election cycle saw Republicans lose control of the Wisconsin Assembly, and lose additional seats in the Minnesota House, Minnesota Senate, Iowa House, and Iowa Senate.

In Minnesota, those Gopher State residents identifying as conservative increased by 1.3 points in 2008 (to 27.8 percent) and by another 1.2 points to 29.0 percent in an aggregation of polling data through the first five months of 2009. This marks the largest percentage of Minnesotans viewing themselves as conservative since 2005.

In Iowa and Wisconsin, the conservative resurgence has been even more pronounced.

Obviously, that didn’t help much in 2008, but part of the answer for that may be in the candidates fielded by the Republicans.

We’re being fed a siren song by the left and by weak kneed GOPers that we have to mute our conservatism…to be less confrontational, to be more nicey-nice and, of course, be more willing to “accept” moderates (which means, of course, “pour out your sweat and treasure for nominal GOPers who will cut you off at the knees when it really matters”). This bit of advice from liberals is what liberals want very much for us to do – because anything which tends to allow them to appear moderate by blending in with the GOP helps them get elected by a center/right electorate. This bit of advice from weak kneed GOPers is what the weak kneed want because they prefer to be invited to the cool parties and have soft-ball interviews on MSM talk shows…makes ‘em look smart and important, ya know? Combined, this advice will allow the left to have a kept GOP minority and allow the left to rule the roost. This advice thus doesn’t commend itself to me.

We need to be more stark in our differentiation with the left – with Obama and his Democrats we must be clearly and absolutely different from them. When the wheels finish coming off the Obama Express, we have to be in a position where we warned it would happen, and have a clear alternate plan already in the public mind. Its like this – we screwed up and we lost; the liberals won…allow the liberals to run things and thus allow them to take full responsibility for how bad it gets. Enunciate a clear, conservative message and the people will swing back to us.

Lies. Lies. Lies.

“That wasn’t me,” President Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One.

It actually was him – and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years – who shaped a budget so out of balance.

And as a presidential candidate and president-elect, he backed the twilight Bush-era stimulus plan that made the deficit deeper, all before he took over and promoted spending plans that have made it much deeper still.

Sad.