Michael Barone notes an odd retirement announcement. This is just the sort of thing we started to see in late 2005 on the Republican side.

When your own side is having trouble swallowing the pill, you’ve got some trouble:

Republican governors are not alone in being concerned about what the proposed health care legislation might mean for their already overstrained budgets: Democrats share the same worries.

“We’ve got concerns,” Gov. Jack Markell of Delaware said in an interview Wednesday, hours before getting elected as the chairman of the Democratic Governors Association. “And we’re doing our best to communicate them. We understand the need to get something done, and we’re supportive of getting something done. But we want to make sure it’s done in a way that state budgets are not negatively impacted.”

The issue here is that Reid, et al are lying through their teeth on the budget impact of Obamacare – and one of the ways they lie is by attempting to pass all sorts of new costs on to the States, and thus off the federal government’s books. The “Louisiana Purchase” was all about this – a special deal for which would offset the costs being piled on a State in return for Landreiu’s vote (yes, its corrupt and dishonest – but when has that ever stopped a Democrat?).

For the Democrat governors who will have to deal with these massive, new spending requirements its another story – they can’t help Reid pass the legislation and the Democrat party won’t need any governors as Presidential material until 2016 (Obama being certain to be re-nominated in a walk over in 2012) – and thus the Democrat powers that be are more than willing to throw them under the bus. But that is not where they, the governors, want to be thrown. They’d all like to get re-elected, and thus, so they are worried about budget-busting federal requirements on Obamacare.

It’d be nice if we could get some principled, Democrat support for rationality on health care – but it looks like we’ll just have to concentrate on self-interest on the part of individual Democrats; peeling off as many as we can who feel directly threatened in their political future.

The scandal has a direct bearing on US policy:

The emails and computer files from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in Great Britain may prove to be of some importance to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) current attempts to control greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

This is because the EPA — perhaps at the urging of others in the Obama administration — has proposed to regulate GHG emissions on the basis of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports … and reports primarily based on the IPCC reports.

This is highly unusual for the EPA. I cannot think of any instance where the EPA depended so heavily on non-EPA synthesis reports to justify proposed regulatory action in their almost 39 years of existence.

As a result of this EPA decision, the EPA’s fortunes in regard to regulating GHGs are directly tied to the fate of the IPCC reports.

Which reports, of course, are bogus because the underlying data are bogus. The underlying argument in favor of regulating CO2 is the theory that human-caused CO2 emissions are a prime driver in increasing global temperatures in a disastrous manner. As global temperatures are not rising and human-caused CO2 is not the primary (or, even partial) culprit, the whole rationale for regulating things like CO2 disappears. However, the left doesn’t want to give up this leverage – this tailor-made “problem” which requires entire control of our lives by a leftist elite. So, we can expect a desperate fight on the part of the left to defend anthropogenic global warming and thus the need to regulate our emissions.

Its all about control, good people – that is all its ever been about since the left first raised its ugly head in the late 18th century. The self-absorbed, sophomoric dolts of the left are convinced that they, and only they, know what is best and are determined to force everyone else in to their mold. The battle is joined – and if we can kick out the support of global warming, we can start the process of entirely restoring our nation.

The story:

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Wednesday lashed out at President Obama for claiming the Bush administration rebuffed commanders’ repeated requests for more troops in Afghanistan.

In a rare break in his public silence since leaving the Pentagon, Rumsfeld rejected the claim as a “bald misstatement” and “disservice” that cannot go unanswered.

“Such a bald misstatement, at least as it pertains to the period I served as secretary of defense, deserves a response,” Rumsfeld said in a written statement. “I am not aware of a single request of that nature between 2001 and 2006.”

What Obama is still hoping is that he can shovel responsibility off for Afghanistan (and, indeed, everything else) to President Bush. Obama, you see, has nothing to do with the current state of Afghan affairs…that is all Bush; and if its necessary to shade the truth to make it so, then Obama is fine with that. Rumsfeld’s statement shows, however, that the truth of the matter is different.

At any event, Afghanistan is from now on entirely Obama’s – he’ll try to dodge the burden, but he can’t escape. Win or lose, its Obama on the line – and, Mr. President, as this is the case, you’d might as well do everything you can to win.

Vastly bloated government budgets:

Provincial spending on health care continues to grow faster than provincial revenues, with six out of 10 provinces projected to be spending half of all available revenue on health care by 2034, according to a new report from the Fraser Institute, one of Canada’s leading economic think-tanks.

Ontario and New Brunswick face the biggest crunch, where health expenditures are on pace to consume half of total provincial revenues by 2014 or earlier.

The study suggests that Prince Edward Island will likely reach the 50 per cent point within 10 years, followed by Nova Scotia in 15 years, Manitoba in about 17 years, and Quebec in 25 years.

“Health spending has increased at an unsustainable rate in the majority of provinces over the past decade,” said Brett Skinner, Fraser Institute Director of Bio-Pharma, Health, and Insurance Policy and lead author of Paying More, Getting Less: 2009 Report.

There is no way around this – it is impossible to control costs when the government is in charge of providing the service and everyone is covered. And its not just the patients who are driving costs. To be sure, when you de-couple use of medical care from cost of medical care (which is really what insurance – including and especially government insurance) you get vastly more usage of the system – but that isn’t all.

There is also the fact that the government employees – the non-medical employees, that is – will demand ever higher pay and benefits and politicians will give in because (a) they don’t want to cross the unions and (b) they don’t want anyone being able to say they weren’t willing to support health care. Additionally, the contractors who provide the materials and supplies for the health care system will be politically connected and will pad their contracts with the connivance of the politicians who, in return for such kickbacks, will get campaign cash. The whole thrust of a government-run health system is ever increasing cost – and that would be ok, if at least we got good health care, but you don’t get that. Why? Because there is no upside to providing good health care – in fact, all it does is cause problems because then you’re spending money which could be spent on unions and contractors on patients, who don’t provide a lot of campaign cash.

Every country with socialized medicine – including France, for those on the left who like to hold France up as a paradigm – is going bankrupt with the cost of it. Its just not workable. So, why doe the left want it?

1. Because leftists don’t think; they are slaves to ideology and leftwing ideology requires support for government-run health care.

2. Because leftist leaders want control of the population and there’s no better way than to be in control of health care; don’t make the government mad or you won’t get the health care you want, and so voters are disinclined to vote for anyone who wants to return to a private system.

Will we get this program? Only if we refuse to fight.

A disappointing event because it would have been the most fun race, ever:

A couple of weeks ago on Fox News Sunday, Liz Cheney set off a round of (somewhat far fetched) speculation about her father running for president when she blurted out “Cheney 2012” in the middle of a panel discussion on national security.

Today, in an interview with Politico, the former Vice President put the kibosh any talk of a 2012 run, saying, ““Why would I want to do that? It’s been a hell of a tour. I’ve loved it. I have no aspirations for further office.”

Cheney is one of the most accomplished and intelligent men in American politics – just the thought of Cheney having a debate with his fellow GOPers (and, even better, with the lightweight Obama!) is enough to give us conservatives a thrill. But, he’s also massively hated – because the left spent 8 years lying about him and Cheney was too calm and reasonable to hit back. A loss to American politics, and a shame to our nation that we can’t find further employment for a man like Cheney.

Mish points out just how stupid we’ve been:

…we bailed out Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Citigroup, and Bank of America bondholders while raping the GM bondholders (the latter so that Obama could appease the unions). In other words, Paulson, Geithner, Bernanke, Obama, and Congress effectively conspired to rob the poor to bail out the wealthy.

Supposedly this was done so that banks would start lending, and the economy would get the Fractional Reserve benefit (using the word benefit loosely) of debt expanding 10-1.

It did not work that way, nor will it because consumer and corporate debt remain, unemployment is high and rising, debt levels are intolerable, and consumer (and bank) attitudes towards debt and credit reached a secular peak and the pendulum to deleveraging has begun.

I recommend reading Mish’s whole post as well as the backup article he linked to. I’d like to assure one and all that I don’t lay blame for this entirely on Obama – I blame the system we built up from 1913 until today. A system based on usury and fiat money which is tailor made to benefit financial sharks at the expense of people who actually produce things – people who make, mine and grow things have been sacrificed on the altar of Faux-Capitalism. An economic system which apes the free market but which actually guarantees that our economy is increasingly unfree because wracked by debt and backed by fake money.

Now, Obama isn’t off the hook – if he’ll pay attention and start thinking about things, he’ll fire Geithner, figure out a way to replace Bernanke and start listening to genuine free market advocates who have all sorts of good ideas on how to both get rid of the debt and restart the process of wealth creation. Trouble is, Obama doesn’t seem to understand that the whole thing is falling apart and the stories about an improving economy are just so much smoke and mirrors put out by people who want to get more suckers in to the stock market before it crashes.

One thing certain, what we Americans will need to do is go back to a hard currency and encourage wealth creation rather than get-rich-quick usury. Until we do this, we’ll just continue to wallow in these economic doldrums – and don’t think it can’t go on forever: Japan has been stuck in this condition for 20 years and they still haven’t learned the lesson. Japan is set to pour yet more fake money in to the Japanese economy in order to “inflate” themselves back to prosperity – an idiotic idea which never had the least bit of merit to it (and thus, naturally, something liberals swear by).

A long, hard road back to prosperity lies ahead – and as long as Obama is in charge, we won’t even take the first step.

With “strongly opposed” nearly double “strongly support”:

The U.S. Senate is now formally beginning debate on a plan to reform health care in America, but most voters remain opposed to the plan working its way through Congress.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 41% of voters nationwide favor the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. Fifty-three percent (53%) are opposed to it. Those figures include 22% who Strongly Favor the plan and 40% who are Strongly Opposed.

The people don’t want it. Doctors hate it. Insurance companies are ok with it. You’d think by now rank-and-file liberals would grab a clue. But, no; intellectually stunted and easily lead by corrupt leaders, liberals just follow along. If Obama came out in favor of firebombing Sunday school, his followers would defend it.

Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) makes the GOP anti-war case for Afghanistan. The two salient points:

…We can win any war, Mr. President, but only with your full commitment to the mission. Absent such a commitment, our presence in Afghanistan does nothing more than endanger our troops, compromise our readiness, and waste our money…

…Mr. President, in my humble opinion I believe it is time to bring our troops home. The troops have fought valiantly and won. Yet, the fight is not over. For generations the United States must continue to hunt and kill terrorists around the world who want death and destruction for the American people.

Mr. President, if you believe we must continue to fight in Afghanistan with tens of thousands of our men and women, let’s do so with a full commitment to win by giving the commanders in the field everything they need so they can bring all of our troops home swiftly and safely.

There is no real argument against the assertion that if we’re to fight, we must fight for victory with every ounce of our being. But is there validity in the argument that we can pull out? Rep. Chaffetz offers up the prospect of using “hunter-killer” units to go after any manifestation of al-Qaeda, but asserts that the nation-building aspect of the Afghan campaign is not in our best interest – and notes that with the threats from Iran, domestic terrorist attacks and our increasing debt leading to national bankruptcy, we’ve got other matters which demand our attention. Does this state the unarguable case?

Not in my view.

Certainly, if President Obama is not willing to go all out for victory, then we’d better get out of there as swiftly as physically possible. But the only reason for this is that it is immoral to have a pointless effusion of blood. If we’re not fighting to win, then fighting shouldn’t be done at all. My largest concern about President Obama’s war policy is that he’s half-hearted – that he doesn’t want to have the stigma of military defeat, but that he also doesn’t have the plain guts to see a war through to victory. But supposing that President Obama’s plan does work out as a pledge to victory, is it still better that we leave?

I agree that Iran is a growing threat. But Iran is, also, an easily manageable threat at the moment. The trouble is that President Obama seems determined to go about Iran in exactly the wrong way – so there’s no point is saying that we should pull out of Afghanistan and concentrate on Iran: Obama will continue to get Iran wrong and thus I don’t see the policy benefit of surrendering in Afghanistan in order to concentrate on surrendering on Iran’s nuclear program. Better to win in both places, but if we can only possibly win in Afghanistan – and that is the case – then we should go for what victory we can achieve.

I agree that terrorism is a continual threat here at home – but I’m enough of a student of military history to know that the only thing which results from a purely defensive effort is defeat. We can’t sit tight here and believe we’ll be safe – any defense can be overcome by imaginative offense. No matter how tight we make our borders and how many security programs we implement internally, if we’re not striking at the enemy then he will strike at us, and with great success, in the by and by – he only has to get past our defense once, while we have to always catch him. Such is not possible. To me, fighting in Afghanistan is, among other policy desires, a means of not fighting here at home.

I agree that our debt is out of control – but Obama simply will not do anything to control our runaway spending. Any deficit reduction over the next four years will be mere happenstance – something which happens because Obama simply can’t think of something new to spend a lot of money on; or because an increasingly fearful Democrat Congress simply won’t go along as election years approach. To terminate the Afghan campaign in the hopes that the saved money will go towards deficit reduction is to live in a fantasy world. Its just not going to happen – any savings in military spending will just be spent elsewhere. I’d prefer that we did pay for the war as we go along – I’d even agree to tax increases if I could get some massive cuts in non-defense, discretionary spending…say, two dollars in spending cuts for each dollar in new taxes (it’ll still work out best for the economy – better to be taxed than to be borrowed in to oblivion; best if we can cut taxes and spending, but we’re never going to get anything like that past Obama and the Congress).

Finally, any American withdrawal from Afghanistan will be viewed – correctly – by the enemy as a crushing American defeat. The whole purpose of the asymetric warfare of our enemies is to wear down and discourage the stronger force until it just gives up. A US withdrawal would fit perfectly in with the Islamists campaign model – we’ll have proven to them that if they can endure us for years, we’ll eventually throw in the towel. This will, in turn, encourage them to try again – remember, to them it doesn’t matter how many people die or how many years it takes to get us to quit…if they can get us to quit, they win and as long as they’re winning, they’ll keep right at it.

Any withdrawal from Afghanistan will eventually be paid for in blood and treasure – and far more blood and treasure than fighting for victory would cost (but its still better to get out, now, rather than fight half-heartedly…the bad stuff will still follow, but we’ll at least have saved some lives and some treasure and thus the ability to fight down the road when the enemy over-provokes us, once again – Obama offers the prospect of years of killing, then a withdrawal/defeat – I’m willing to take the horrible course rather than the horribly bad course). And don’t think that hunter-killer units will dismay the enemy – they’ll consider that just part of the cost of doing business.

We have entirely lost sight, I think, of what this war is about. It wasn’t that 19 Moslems just got it in their head one day to drive planes in to our buildings. Those men, and the men who currently fight us, are the result of a complex series of historical events churned up by the horrific politico-economic morass of the Moslem world. Only a fundamental change in Islam will end this war – and this change cannot come from within, it must come from without. If we refuse this task, then all we’ve done so far will be fruitless and, eventually, we’ll pay a high price for our unwillingness to fight for victory. We’re all tired of the war – but wars don’t just “end”: they are won or they are lost. If we pull out now, we will have lost no matter how much we try to sugar-coat it. The question all Americans must ask themselves – from President Obama on down is: do you want to win, or to lose?

I want to win.

The news story:

Swiss voters Sunday approved a ban on the construction of new minarets on mosques, defying appeals from the government to reject the proposal and raising the specter of a new round of tensions in Europe concerning the role of Islam on the Continent.

The vote highlights the persistent conflict over the integration of Europe’s growing Muslim population into civil society. Earlier this month, France considered whether to bar Muslim women from wearing full-face veils, sparking a heated debate in which one French politician described burqas, the head-to-toe veils worn by some very devout Muslim women, as “walking coffins.” The government issued a recommendation against wearing burqas, but stopped short of an outright ban.

European governments also have struggled in recent years with popular opposition to the construction of mosques, as well as with a backlash to the murder of a filmmaker in the Netherlands by a Muslim extremist, and the reaction in some Muslim countries to the publication in Danish newspapers of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad.

The central issue is whether or not Moslems can be part of the Judeo-Christian west, or whether they are an indigestible morsel. Once upon a time there were only a few Catholics in the United States; starting in the 1850’s, massive numbers started to arrive and continues right through in to the 1920’s. Much nativist fear was generated about all these Catholics pouring in but, in the end, Catholics completely integrated in to American culture and trying to imagine America without its vibrant Catholic community is impossible. Are Moslems just the latest wave, akin to the successive waves of immigrants who have flooded in to America since the start?

To be sure, no Catholic ever shot up a group of his fellow soldiers; nor did any Jewish immigrants plot flying planes in to American buildings; and we’ve yet to see a Hindu immigrant murder his daughter about family “honor”. But because non-Moslem immigrants have not done these things while Moslems have, should we be concerned about the very existence of Moslems among us? I’ll have to give a qualified “yes” to that question.

I know Moslems and I’ve never felt the least threat from any of them. In fact, in my view the people who best demonstrate what it means to be a lady or a gentleman are Iranians; extraordinarily well-mannered and civilized people our increasingly barbarized society can learn a lot from. But with the Ft Hood incident, I’ve had to reflect upon the fact that here was a man who grew up in my nation, was given all manner of benefits – including, it seems, preferential treatment simply because he is Moslem – and yet he still became a mass murderer. What gives? I don’t know – and thus I have this growing concern.

It seems to me that Islam must demonstrate to us its good intentions. If there were loud, public Moslem statements against the Ft Hood massacre, I didn’t hear them. And then there’s the fact that people of my religion who live in Mecca practise our faith at the risk of their lives. Are we Catholics such a pollution to Islam that their city of Mecca is too good for us? We have mosques in Rome; why isn’t turn about fair play? And God help the Moslem who seeks to convert to Christianity – death is the punishment for such an action. How am I to conclude that Islam is my friend, when it shows itself the face of an enemy at almost every opportunity?

I do not wish to war on Islam – but until Islam shows itself friendly to me, I can’t help but keep up a defensive barrier. The vote in Switzerland is symbolic – its not like Moslems will be kicked out of that country, nor prohibited to worship as they like. The people of Switzerland have, from what I can tell, just laid down a marker – they don’t want to become second class citizens in their own nation. They don’t want political correctness and a fear of Islamic violence to result in the murder of a politician or the massacre of soldiers at the hands of a Moslem they nurtured.

The ball is in the court of Islam. Things are going in a certain way and disaster threatens. There is only so many times the people of the west will tolerate Islamist violence before the reaction becomes general. Eventually, either Islam changes its ways and accords due respect for we non-Moslems, or there will be war between Islam and the west. Our political elites are cowardly, but we, the people, are not. The elites might wish to bend the knee for another few months of peace, but we don’t want any more of our sons and daughters gunned down by someone who thinks he’s doing God’s will.