Seems that Mark Levin has had enough of conservative criticism of Sarah Palin – especially that being leveled by Charles Krauthammer. The DC Caller has the story:

…”The gentleman points out that Charles Krauthammer who is extremely thoughtful and measured in his words, even-tempered and so forth is all but that when it comes to Sarah Palin and very few of his arguments are substantive.”

However, Levin asked where she is wrong on the issues.

“Maybe there is one or two, but off the top of my head, I can’t think of any significant issue where Palin is not a conservative and where I disagree with her,” Levin said. “Can you?”…

I’ve long been an admirer of Krauthammer. He is one of the most intelligent and perceptive observers we have…but he does seem to have this blind spot about Sarah Palin. And he’s not the only one – plenty of people on the right, especially in the punditry-class, make objection after objection to Sarah Palin. But I’m with Levin on this – there aren’t any substantive criticisms being offered.

The only thing they can really hang their hat on is that Palin is, supposedly, “un-electable”. Well, so was Ronald Reagan. For that matter, so was Barack Obama. Think about it. Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton? Both needed a split opposition in order to have their political carcasses dragged across the finish line. Only a relative few Presidential candidates have ever been “electable” in the sense of there being no particular objection to their election – Dwight Eisenhower, Ulysses Grant, George Washington…everyone else had to have a series of lucky breaks and a lot of opposition errors to get in there. Sarah Palin is no more un-electable than anyone else out there.

This doesn’t mean that Sarah Palin can do it – or that she’ll even try. There is a possibility that she’ll opt to be a political king-maker in 2012 and beyond. There is a lot of advantage for her in such a role – great deal of power and influence without the burdensome responsibility of actually being President. But if she tries then whether she will win or lose won’t be based on a pundit’s estimate of her “electability” but upon how well (or badly) she campaigns combined with how well (or badly) the other side does…and, of course, with a backdrop of the course of events (if we’re sitting at 15% unemployment in October of 2012, Obama is pretty much done no matter what…5% and he’s pretty much re-elected).

If you don’t want Sarah Palin to be President, then tell us why – tell us what policies she is advocating which will be detrimental to the United States. Tell us precisely why you think the voters – 17 months from now – will certainly not decide to award her 270 electoral votes. Tell us why you know she can’t win – don’t just tell us she can’t. And if you can’t build a rational argument against her, then maybe the problem isn’t with Palin, but with you?

From Detroit Free Press:

Dr. Jack Kevorkian — embraced as a compassionate crusader and reviled as a murderous crank — died early this morning.

Known as Dr. Death even before launching his fierce advocacy and practice of assisted suicides, Kevorkian, 83, died at Beaumont Hospital in Royal Oak, where he had been hospitalized with kidney and heart problems…

If he was in any way sincere about what he did, he would have hooked himself up to one of his own infernal machines and offed himself when it became clear there was no cure…but, no, he died in a hospital, which is where you go when you go when you want someone, some how, to keep you alive. Life being precious, after all.

Kevorkian was a serial killer who worked out a way to do his murders in broad daylight…and received plaudits from the rest of the Culture of Death for doing it. I hope a lesson has been learned here – anyone peddling death and despair is being a wicked mad man, not a hero.

Please offer prayers for the soul of our departed brother – while it may seem impossible that such a man can enter in to glory, with God all things are possible.

From Reuters:

Employers hired far fewer workers than expected in May and the jobless rate rose to 9.1 percent, raising concerns the economy might be stuck in a painful slow-growth mode…

Painful slow-growth mode? How about heading back in to recession? And that is because you can’t borrow and print your way in to real prosperity. Oh, sure, you can make the statistics look like there’s growth going on – but only for a while, and only at the cost of much worse economic times down the road. Government cannot create wealth because anything government does involves the use of wealth already created – depending on how it is used it can be a either an even exchange or a loss, but it can never be a net positive.

Unless and until we institute pro-growth policies – balanced budgets, low taxes, reduced regulations; ie, the creation of a free market in the United States – we will fundamentally get nowhere.

UPDATE: Are we already experiencing Great Depression levels of unemployment?

UPDATE II: For us to return to 2007 levels of employment we will have to create 250,000 jobs per month…until January, 2017. This can, actually, be done – if we go on a bender of making, mining and growing things. Here’s why, as long as Obama is President and liberals have power, we won’t: by “fracking” we’re finding massive, new deposits of oil to exploit in the United States. This falls under both the “mining” and “making” aspects of what we need…we’ll “mine” for the oil and then “make” oil-based products…naturally, liberals are aghast at this and are already working up complaints and lawsuits to stop “fracking”.

Until we get rid of liberalism, we’ll never get going.

The only way we can win in 2012 is to fight an aggressive – heck, hyper-aggressive – battle for the soul of America. Obama and his people have nothing – their hope is that a combination of fear-mongering and goody-dangling will convince a majority to stay with them. In order to break through these blandishments, we need someone who will just relentlessly attack the underlying assumptions of liberalism – someone who will point out that government debt is immoral, that merely passing out welfare checks is immoral, that the whole concept that government can make us happy and good is immoral. That if we wish to be decent, generous and good people we need a society of sobriety, hard work and thrift. A go-along-to-get-along, let’s work across the aisle Republican won’t be able to do it…because he will then be accepting the underlying premise of liberal governance: that government is what makes the world go ’round.

And that means, what? Well it means that our eyes should currently be moving towards Palin, Santorum, Cain, Bachmann and Pawlenty – each have, in their own ways, shown they both know what needs to be done and have the guts to try it. We can add in the possibilities of West, Ryan and Christie…while we dare not, unless they show some real fighting grit very soon, risk ourselves on a Romney, Gingrich or Huntsman. The future of our nation is at stake here. While we have it within us to revive and build ever higher, a nation can choose to decline and die – re-electing Barack Obama or electing a Republican who won’t be a revolutionary will be a choice to decline and die. Do we want America to be the most generous, powerful and richest nation in 2112? Then 2012 is the year we’ll decide it.

Remember, the Ruling Class – mostly Democrats but including a large number of Republicans – has already chosen: they just want to manage our decline and stay on top of the heap while we die. They choose this course of action, when you get down to it, when they found that they couldn’t win the Vietnam War the way they wanted…since they failed then, they assumed that America had failed, for good. Since about 1970, the Ruling Class has envisioned a world in which the United States becomes not just relatively weaker, but absolutely weaker…ever more international agreements to hamstring us; ever more of our State and personal sovereignty consigned to the central government or to international bodies; ever more welfare and government dependency to ensure we don’t rock the boat…ever more sociological drugs in the form of enervating popular culture. If we keep going as we have, we will finish as a nation – our grand children, at the tricentennial, will live in a world dominated not by the United States, but by dregs of a corrupt, dying international order. You want that? Then vote Obama – or RINO – in 2012.

I don’t know which of the fighters I’ll back in 2012 – but it will have to be a fighter, or no one. I don’t want any pussy-footing around. I want someone who will beat them until the fall, and then kick them while they’re down. I want someone who isn’t just hoping to put together an electoral college majority, but someone who is thinking of just how we can even win in the Democrat-heavy areas of the country. I want someone who will work on winning a dozen Senate and 25 House seats. I want someone who is in it not just to be President, but to utterly crush the enemies of liberty in the United States. Once that person firmly emerges from the field, that is the person I’ll back.

A warning shot across the bow – from Bloomberg:

…“It will be more challenging this time than it was last time to motivate our members,” Trumka, 61, said in an interview today at Bloomberg’s offices in Washington.

Trumka, head of the largest U.S. labor organization, said union members are frustrated by “wasted energy” in Washington on issues that he said don’t help workers: “hysteria” about the federal deficit, a White House review of regulations and Obama’s support for free-trade agreements.

Labor leaders said in recent weeks that they would withhold financial support in next year’s election from candidates who haven’t sided with unions consistently…

I remember how in 2008 the unions were convinced they were going to entirely get their way after the election. A Democrat Congress, a Democrat President…”card check” (which would allows unions to legally bully workers in to unionizing) was just the tip of the labor iceberg. They wanted it all – and were sure they were going to get it. What was to stop them? Only the fact that union policies are radioactive and even with a big majority, Democrats were afraid to go out on a limb for the unions. Now the unions have lost their Democrat House, have no ability to pass union legislation through the Senate…and aside from a few absurdities like Obama trying to stop Boeing from opening up a non-union factory in South Carolina, Obama isn’t really doing much to advance the union agenda at the executive level.

I guess Trumka has found out what he was really for – just to provide donations and muscle for the Democrat part of the Ruling Class. Now he’s trying to get conditions on his continued support. Fat chance – once you’ve sold your soul, it is very hard to get it back. Perhaps if Trumka and the rest of the union bosses had concentrated on being pro-worker, things would be different…but as tools of the Democrat party, all they’ve done is tied themselves to a losing cause.

I do wonder – what made anyone on the really think that leftist policies were popular? No, don’t try to tell me “Obama won”: Obama won in spite of his (mostly hidden) socialist views…anyone with any sense at all knows that 2008 was an effort to find the man most unlike President Bush, and Obama turned out to be him. There was no vote in favor of Obamunism…but they all came in to power with dreams of the socialist dawn. Now they’re about to find out just how badly they miscalculated…

Gotta be one of the most transparent attempts to influence politics I’ve ever seen:

Moody’s Investors Service warned Thursday that it might review the government’s Aaa debt rating for a possible downgrade as early as next month if there is no progress toward a deal in Washington to increase the $14.294 trillion federal borrowing limit and cut deficits…

I mean, come on – other than the economic “experts” who are routinely flabbergasted when economic data “unexpectedly” comes in bad, does anyone buy this line? We’re supposed to believe that if we don’t agree to pile on more debt then our debt rating will get worse? This is akin to saying we’ll never sober up unless we have another drink. Moody’s – a charter member of the bankster/bureaucrat gang of idiots – is just trying to stampede the GOP caucus in to voting for more debt.

The biggest worry our banksters have is that the free money will be cut off – that they’ll actually have to deal with their balance sheets rather than just “extend and pretend” their way in to fat, annual bonuses. The massive infusion of cash since late 2008 has allowed the “too big to fail banks” to act as if they’re not insolvent…stop that flow and their bankruptcy will be revealed. No more being the boss; no more fat paychecks, no more moving and shaking with the elite… it is a nightmare which cannot be borne. So, they are trying every trick in the book to keep the money flowing…and if that means suckering us in to agreeing to run up our debt to 120% of GDP, they’re ok with it.

And don’t think the banksters are in this by themselves. Oh, no – they’ve got their politicians, too. My goodness, do you know what might happen if the free money stopped and the banks failed? Economic recession, that’s what! And right in front of an election. Don’t you know what that would do to re-election prospects? For crying out loud, such an event could see Palin/West taking office in January, 2013…and those two clowns not only don’t know the right people in DC, New York and San Francisco, they don’t even care who the right people are! So, we gotta get that debt ceiling raised…and if that means we’ll have to tell people that granny will die of starvation if we don’t, then that lie is worth it.

Don’t fall for it, good people – we don’t need to raise the debt ceiling. Not now, not ever. All we need to do is control spending. Yes, I’m terribly sorry but we’ll have to spend less than we planned. In fact, if we just dialed back to the horrendously profligate budget year of 2004, we’d be running a surplus…not only not borrowing any more money, but paying off debt. No need for a debt ceiling increase there.

From now until 2012 just expect more and more of this – the Ruling Class is going to try and scare a majority in to thinking that if the Ruling Class goes, so goes the nation. But we know better – we know that if all the Bernankes, Soros’, Pelosis and Obamas in the world dropped of the face of earth tomorrow, it wouldn’t harm us in the least. And in 2012 we’re going to prove it by getting rid of all of them.

From The Hill:

A House Republican is gathering fast support for a resolution expressing disapproval of the U.S. military intervention in Libya, raising the possibility of a rare congressional rebuke of President Obama on foreign policy.

Rep. Michael Turner (R-Ohio) introduced a one-page bill Thursday that says the House “does not approve United States intervention in Libya.” Turner, a member of the Armed Services Committee, has already garnered 63 co-sponsors, he told The Hill, making the legislation a possible alternative to a measure offered by anti-war Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) that would mandate an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces…

I disagree with this as well as with the Kucinich proposal – both in the fact that I am a supporter of intervention in Libya and also because once we engage in hostilities, the only wise course of action is to fight on until complete victory is secured. Both Kucinich’s bug out and Turner’s expression of disapproval will tend to encourage the enemy to fight on and thus they should not be agreed to. On the other hand, the fact that we’re building up a genuinely bi-partisan desire to end the Libyan campaign is a result of Obama’s muddleheaded leadership.

We intervened much later than we should have and then with much less force than was required – and we took ground forces off the table. By doing this we ensured there would be no swift end to the campaign. Compounding these massive tactical and strategic errors there is the fact that Obama has not sought Congressional approval for the venture – even ignoring that exemplar of liberal policy, the War Powers Act. By doing all these things, President Obama has stripped away the primary political underpinning of any American war effort – that it be an act of the people, via their representatives.

The end result of all this will be bad. We’ll either have a complete scuttle in Libya or an unending, low-grade conflict. Obama has proven himself incapable of exercising the powers of the Presidency. He simply doesn’t know how the system works – and he doesn’t seem to care to learn. Once again, 2012 cannot get here fast enough.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Frontrunner? Sure – but he’s got a very high mountain to climb in order to secure TEA Party support…we’ll see if he can do it.

George Weigel writes a timely article about the application of Catholic social teaching to government policy – a genuine must-read. Why, you ask? Because there is a pride of place for Catholic voters in 2012 – in large measure, how Catholics vote will decide who will be elected in 2012. The unbelievers are largely in the Democrat camp. Evangelicals are pretty solid for the Republicans. Catholics can go either way…and in 2004 when we swung heavily for President Bush he won, in 2008 Catholics awarded a majority of their votes to Obama, and he won (and, yes, as a Catholic I apologize for that – especially given Obama’s record on life issues, no properly instructed Catholic could in good conscience vote for him). So it will be in 2012, and thus Catholic social teaching is something everyone should be familiar with.

Obama and the Democrats will do everything in their power to keep their 2008 Catholic votes. As we saw in the liberal Catholic’s letter to Speaker Boehner last month, the chosen instrument is to claim that Catholic social teaching essentially requires Big Government liberalism. To nutshell it, if you don’t support large amounts of spending on Medicare, welfare and other socialist policies, then you aren’t being a good Catholic. In the weird world of the left, the desire is to make devoutly Catholic Boehner less acceptable than oddly Protestant Obama.

The problem with our liberals, Catholic or otherwise, is the usual problem – they keep getting it wrong. Weigel neatly explodes the core, liberal critique of Catholics like Boehner:

The Church’s concern for the poor does not imply a “preferential option” for Big Government. The social doctrine teaches that the problem of poverty is best addressed by empowerment: enabling poor people to enter the circle of productivity and exchange in society. The responsibility for that empowerment falls on everyone: individuals, through charitable giving and service work; voluntary organizations, including the Church; businesses and trade unions. Government at all levels can play a role in this process of empowerment, but it is a serious distortion of the social doctrine to suggest that government has exclusive responsibility here. On the contrary: In the 1991 social encyclical Centesimus Annus, Blessed John Paul II condemned the “Social Assistance State” because it saps welfare recipients of their dignity and their creativity while making them wards of the government.

Catholic social teaching does go on and on about our duty to the poor – and make no mistake about it, we have a moral obligation to help the poor, even if they are poor because they made lousy choices in life. But also make no mistake about it, the “cure” for poverty isn’t to be found in a Big Government bureaucracy passing out welfare checks. It is to be found in gearing our lives, our work and our government towards rewards for hard work – and protecting the private property which accrues from hard work. We are to help the poor – by helping him to enter in to the economy and teaching him to work, live frugally and build up sufficient wealth to care for himself. Only those who are completely helpless (a very tiny percentage of the poor) can claim unending support from us without any requirement to reciprocate. God gave the world to Man for our sustenance and enjoyment – but we are required to work to ensure the world produces what we need. If we don’t work, we die; it is immoral to sit idle and expect others to provide for you if you can in any way provide for yourself.

What is really amazing about this is how the liberals are going to try and conscript a Catholicism they despise in order re-elect Obama. But, a win is a win, right? Doesn’t matter how you do it, does it? Not for liberals. So, be on your guard in 2012…don’t fall for it. And this goes for my fellow Catholics as well as everyone else. It is easy to feel the tug of charity, and it is normally a good thing…but don’t allow a sense of charity to blind you to the facts: and the fact is that charity to the poor is only one part of Catholic social teaching, and that none of it works unless all of it is applied…including that tedious bit about having to work and protecting private property.

It should, though, be all good in the end. While this attempt by liberals to put on the garb of a Franciscan is annoying, it does show the level of desperation on the left. They can’t run on what they are, so they have to pretend to be something else. In this case, they will pretend to be more Catholic than the Pope…until the subject of gay marriage, women ordination or abortion comes up. Liars are by lies undone, and so it will be in 2012…

From CNN:

Saying it is “unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction,” Gov. Rick Scott on Tuesday signed legislation requiring adults applying for welfare assistance to undergo drug screening…

…Under the law, which takes effect on July 1, the Florida Department of Children and Family Services will be required to conduct the drug tests on adults applying to the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. The aid recipients would be responsible for the cost of the screening, which they would recoup in their assistance if they qualify. Those who fail the required drug testing may designate another individual to receive the benefits on behalf of their children…

Pretty short and sweet, right? I mean, if we’re going to pass out the cash to the needy, we want to at least ensure that funding for children goes for the children (rather than, say, being exchanged on the black market for drugs) and, also, we should provide every incentive for people on drugs to clean up. Where is the problem with this common sense bit of legislation? Well, here is how Democrats view the matter:

…”Governor Scott’s new drug testing law is not only an affront to families in need and detrimental to our nation’s ongoing economic recovery, it is downright unconstitutional,” said Rep. Alcee Hastings. “If Governor Scott wants to drug test recipients of TANF benefits, where does he draw the line? Are families receiving Medicaid, state emergency relief, or educational grants and loans next?”…(report edited to indicate just what sort of person Hastings is)

To which question we reply: why aren’t such recipients already required to undergo drug testing? If your taking taxpayer cash then we have a duty to ensure that at the minimum it will be used properly. Just to make it clear to Hastings, it is unlikely that a person addicted to drugs will properly use welfare or Medicaid or educational grants. This is not a move against providing aid, it is a move against wasting aid.

But that isn’t the point – Democrats live and die by the number of people they can pass the taxpayer cash to. The more on welfare, the better and if a portion of it goes up in crack smoke, then that is ok. As long as the money keeps flowing, as long as Democrats can preen themselves over being generous, as long as highly paid government union workers keep donating to the Democrats, all is well. And how dare any Republican try to stop this gravy train!

Well, enough is enough – it is time for a bit of morality, not just syrupy “caring” as a masquerade for pillaging the Treasury.