He’s going to try and gerrymander the entire United States:

The U.S. Census is supposed to be free of politics, but one group with a history of voter fraud, ACORN, is participating in next year’s count, raising concerns about the politicization of the decennial survey.

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now signed on as a national partner with the U.S. Census Bureau in February 2009 to assist with the recruitment of the 1.4 million temporary workers needed to go door-to-door to count every person in the United States — currently believed to be more than 306 million people.

A U.S. Census “sell sheet,” an advertisement used to recruit national partners, says partnerships with groups like ACORN “play an important role in making the 2010 Census successful,” including by “help[ing] recruit census workers.”

What ACORN’s assignment will be is to ensure there is a large over-count of population in Democrat-heavy areas of the country so that in both the US House and in State legislatures, Democrats get more safe seats. Proof? If you don’t believe this assertion then you’re either a blind partisan, or a complete fool. ACORN is a leftwing tool of the Democratic party and its sole purpose is to increase the power of the left – it doesn’t do anything else, it never has done anything else, it won’t ever do anything else. Eventually, when we get a properly courageous GOP government in office, we’ll have to shut it down via criminal prosecutions – meanwhile, Obama is going to use it to corrupt the American political process just as he did in the 2008 campaign.

We’ll have to fight twice as hard in 2010 and 2012 because Democrats will use every dirty trick in the book to thwart us – we’ll need 60% of the vote just to counter-act the votes Democrats will manufacture. Get ready for the battle, fellow GOPers and conservatives.

Geesh:

While $58 billion of your tax dollars — or more accurately, your children’s tax dollars — are being used to pay foreign banks, a substantial portion of that money ($43.5 billion) is being used to pay American banks, including Goldman Sachs, Merill Lynch, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wachovia, Morgan Stanley, AIG International, and JP Morgan.

The following recipients of President Obama’s trickle-down-to-my-donors bailout plan rank among his top 20 contributors to his 2008 presidential election campaign, according to Open Secrets:

Goldman Sachs: $955,473

Citigroup: $653,468

JP Morgan Chase & Co.: $646,058

Morgan Stanley: $485,823

Three other banks that were significant contributors to Obama received money through AIG:

Bank of America: $274,493

Wachovia: $214,151

AIG: $112,170

Lehman Brothers, which did not survive long enough to join the list of banks leaching off the work of the American taxpayer, also gave the Obama campaign $276,088.

Individuals identifying themselves as working for the banks above gave Barack Obama’s presidential campaign $3,617,724. In other words, more than 3.6 million reasons for the president to help focus the media’s glare on the relatively minuscule $165 million in AIG executive bonuses, and away from their $43.5 billion portion of $100 billion of taxpayer dollars the administration, by design or incompetence, filtered to other banks through AIG.

In receiving $43.5 billion for their investment of just over $3.3 million, it looks like the banks that gambled on Wall Street certainly got their money’s worth out of their investment in Barack Obama.

And those executive bonuses which Obama is now complaining about? It was inserted into the Spendulus – an exemption which allow executive bonuses provided they were contracted prior to the Spendulus was passed. Obama signed the bill – and its clear he didn’t know what he was signing…or, perhaps he did?

Discuss how happy you are as you contemplate the coming melt-down of Obama and his Democrats. Alternately, you can discuss how miserable liberals must be now that even the densest of them are realizing they’ve been had.

Have at it.

Like a broken record:

Three years ago, Massachusetts enacted perhaps the boldest state health care experiment in American history, bringing near-universal coverage to the commonwealth with Paul Revere speed.

To make it happen, Democratic lawmakers and Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, made an expedient choice, deferring until another day any serious effort to control the state’s runaway health costs.

The day of reckoning has arrived. Threatened first by rapid early enrollment in its new subsidized insurance program and now by a withering economy, the state’s pioneering overhaul has entered a second, more challenging phase.

Thanks to new taxes and fees imposed last year, the health plan’s jittery finances have stabilized for the moment. But government and industry officials agree that the plan will not be sustainable over the next 5 to 10 years if they do not take significant steps to arrest the growth of health spending.

“Arrest the growth of health spending” means “health care rationing” – it is always the result of socialized medicine. When you undertake to promise everyone a thing, everyone will want that thing, and want it really well done. If you are offering people whatever free car they desire, how many people are going to choose the Kia and how many the BMW? As you don’t have an endless supply of BMWs, you’re eventually going to have to work out a system where some people get BMWs, and some get Kias…and as the guy who writes your budget wants a BMW, I think you can see what goes into which parking lot.

There are only so many doctors out there, and among doctors only so many who have a particular specialty. There is only so much money in the budget for overhead, and the budget director can buy another ultra-sound machine, or give a pay raise to the workers whose union is pestering him day in and day out for a raise. Meanwhile, seeing as a doctor or nurse gets paid the same whether they see one or ten patients a day, there’s really no incentive to squeeze that extra appointment in.

And so – you get waiting lists, substandard care, uncaring service providers and bloated administrative budgets, and a lot of people don’t get the care they need because if everyone who needed a kidney transplant got one, it’d bust the budget, even if there were enough staff and equipment to meet the need. But liberals consider this fair – especially liberal leaders, who are sure to set up the system so that they and their families and friends are very well treated by the health care system (in nations with socialized medicine, can any of you out there really imagine the local Prime Minister or even junior legislative back-bencher waiting in line with the unwashed masses for health care?).

Obama now wants to bring this thing nationwide – and he may very well have the votes to carry it through Congress. If we does, we’ll all have health care – if we don’t die before our turn in line comes up.

An interesting article about the “buyer’s remorse” being felt by some Christians who signed on to Obama during the campaign and are now finding that Obama’s talk about reaching out to Christians, pro-lifers and others on the center and conservative side of the social debate was just that: talk. Within the article is this quote from a pastor who is having second thoughts:

But this kind of calculation is precisely what has gotten Christian political activists in trouble in the past, not just for 40 years but for 1,600 years. We gain access to Caesar in order to affect policy; we hold onto access even if it involves compromising some of what we want in policy; in the end, we can easily forget what policies we were after in the first place. I think this definitely happened to the Christian right. It doesn’t need to be repeated by the Christian center or left.

The “Christian left” doesn’t have to worry about becoming the tool of one political party – it is a tool created by a political party and its sole purpose is to cast a patina of Christianity over operationally anti-Christian policies. As for the “Christian right”, we debate as to whether the GOP has captured it, or that it has captured the GOP. The “Christian center” I know not, but worry that any such thing is bound to eventually fall to the “Christian left” because anything which is not explicitly conservative winds up liberal in the long run. But Christians, right left and center, have a vital role to play – actually, they have the role to play because it is only Jews and Christians who provide a sturdy center for a society to revolve around. Given that Jews make up only a tiny minority of Americans, it is up to Christians to do, or not do, what is necessary.

What are we Christians to do? As the late, great John Paul II put it, “be not afraid”. Very important to understand this – we’ve been afraid, and afraid for far too long. Time to be a bit fearless. We’re either people of a faith which believes that Christ has redeemed us, or we’re not. If we’re not, then we might as well give up the whole thing – but if we are, and I am, then its time to fearlessly confront the world. Paul didn’t ask politely to be heard – he shouted from the rooftops, as it were, what needed to be done. Yes, he lost his head over it – literally; but he gained an Empire. What should we care what they might do to us? Especially from the cowards we for the most part face? But even if they are able, as some point, to cut off our heads, then so be it. We’ll win, in the End.

We must not fall into a debate about Christian left, right and center – we must be Christian, and demand the world bend to our will. Get out of the left/right dichotomy – we want a Judeo-Christian society; nothing more, nothing less. What does a Christian really care about the ability of a person to make money off pornography? Capitalism is fine, as long as we don’t take it too far – and it has been taken entirely too far. What does a Christian really care about when someone says their God-given individual rights mean they can sh** in our public square? Free expression is fine, as long as we don’t take it too far – and it has been taken entirely too far. A right to abort children; a right to become drug-addled; a right to pile up money far beyond any reasonable need; a right to live off the work of others, the demand to preserve a forest “forever”; the claim that one may do whatever one wants with one’s own, the claim that one’s property is actually the property of the group…such conceptions are contemptible and unworthy of a serious, adult human being. Unworthy, that is, of a Christian.

Love is not soft and mushy – that is what weak-kneed men say it is; but real men – and real women – understand that love is hard as diamonds, yet far more beautiful and precious. If you love a thing, do you allow it to be wrecked? If you love a person, do you wish for them to live in filth? In the name of love a person will allow himself to be killed for a place, to die for a friend. What is soft about that? Why do we expect the soldier to show his love by standing bravely against the enemy, while we allow a man back home to say his love means he has to divorce his aging wife to marry some younger woman? If the soldier runs away from the enemy, we might even go so far as to shoot him for cowardice – if a man runs away from his wife, we’ll say that it was better than being in a difficult marriage. Just what kind of nonsense is that?

Courage is what we need – the courage of our ancestors who called folly and wickedness what they were, and demanded that people stop being fools and criminals. Everyone can be forgiven and, indeed, we must be ever ready to forgive at the drop of a hat – but the sinner must crave pardon, or all the forgiveness in the world will be wasted on him. We must have the courage to say that everyone who is suffering will be embraced, while also saying that everyone who is suffering from personal folly will have to stop being fools. No more excuses, no more soft-peddling and for the love of God, no more refusal to judge actions.

We must call Caesar to repent, not beg for crumbs from Caesar’s table. And if Caesar, for a while, takes a hammer to us, then that is fine – eventually, like the Caesars of old, he will bow down before our God, and beg forgiveness.

Yep:

…the heart of the matter: the doubts about Obama himself. His famous eloquence is wearing thin through daily exposure and because his actions are often disconnected from his words. His lack of administrative experience is showing.

His promises and policies contradict each other often enough that evidence of hypocrisy is ceasing to be news. Remember the pledges about bipartisanship and high ethics? They’re so last year.

The beat goes on. Last week, Obama brazenly gave a speech about earmark reform just after he quietly signed a $410 billion spending bill that had about 9,000 earmarks in it. He denounced Bush’s habit of disregarding pieces of laws he didn’t like, so-called signing statements, then issued one himself.

And in an absolute jaw-dropper, he told business leaders, “I don’t like the idea of spending more government money, nor am I interested in expanding government’s role.”

No wonder Americans are confused. Our President is, too.

Obama can get past all this – but it will take a radical change of view; and therein lies our real problem: I doubt that Obama even realizes that he’s got a problem. Product of liberal education and locked within the liberal ivory tower, Obama seems entirely unaware that there is something other than liberalism in the world. If Obama lacks the courage and judgment to change course as necessary, then he’s just going to keep bulling ahead regardless of consequences, and that would be disastrous for us, and for the whole world.

This is what we get when we vote for “hope and change” rather than actual policies. The youngsters who so ardently supported Obama have the excuse of youth and ignorance – but for all of those who have taken an adult’s place in the world over the past 10 years, to vote for Obama was to vote for the man obviously unready to be President of the United States. This is not to say that Obama isn’t a smart man, nor to say that he doesn’t have the stuff of Presidents within him – its just to say that he wasn’t ready. Perhaps after a full term in the Senate, or maybe had he become governor of Illinois, or a cabinet secretary in someone else’s Administration – then he would have obtained that practical experience which would, if he’s as smart as people say he is, modified his worldview to admit that, just perhaps, what sounds good in a college lecture might not be entirely applicable to real life.

An unready, inexperienced man in the White House surrounded by political sharks who do, indeed, know how things work – a recipe for disaster, unless Obama finds some wellspring of strength and some people who will be unafraid to tell him the worst. It could get rather ugly over the next four years.

The MSM story on the Tea Party movement:

…McAlindon and others frustrated by the federal government’s decision to spend hundreds of billions of dollars financing public projects and shoring up failing companies are making their feelings known. As a result, McAlindon is leading a slightly different push to dump tea in protest.

She is behind one of a handful of protests around the country that aim to bombard the White House with tea bags and protest notes in time for the nation’s April 15 tax filing deadline. (emphasis added)

Handful? Michael Silence over at KnoxNews blog dissents:

Let’s count ’em: Cincinnati, Nebraska, Tampa, Lexington, Ridgefield, Conn., Raleigh, Orlando, D.C., Staten Island, Pasadena, Boston, Rochester, N.Y., Jacksonville, Minnesota, Cleveland, Columbus, Mo., Little Rock, Ark., Philadelphia, Kansas City, Harrisburg, Green Bay, Salt Lake City, Fullertown, Lafayette, Boise, Monterey, Maui, Yonkers, Utah, Tucson, Phoenix, Hoboken and Chicago, to name a few.

Yeah, that is just a handful…if you’re the Jolly Green Giant.

Quite a shock that this good man has been called home:

I am terribly saddened to report that the great actor and political activist, Ron Silver, died this morning at his home in New York. Ron was 62 and had been bravely battling esophageal cancer for the last two years. He leaves two children, Adam and Alexandra, his parents and his two brothers, as well as countless friends and admirers.

May God bless Mr. Silver’s family and friends and strengthen them in this time of trial.

Moving testimony:

I attended the annual March for Life in Washington, DC this year for the first time. I marched with the Silent No More Awareness campaign and gave my testimony with hundreds of other women in front of the Supreme Court building.

The Silent No More women led the march and were the first to arrive at the Supreme Court. When we got there, standing up against the black fence surrounding the building, I saw five women holding pro-abortion signs. I looked at these women. I wanted to see their faces. You see, I used to be one of them.

I was a militant, pro-abortion, anti-catholic feminist who had experienced two abortions of my own. I was a member of NOW, NARAL and I volunteered at Planned Parenthood. I participated in marches and protests wearing my “pro-choice” button. I screamed at pro-lifers who I believed were religious fanatics. I assumed these “religious fanatics” just wanted to keep women barefoot and pregnant. I also believed the Catholic Church (who in my opinion was the worst of the religious fanatics) was full of evil, misogynistic men who oppressed women. I would argue vehemently with anyone who disagreed with me.

A rush of memories greeted me as I watched those five women standing against that fence. While I gave my testimony and told the crowd a little bit about my former self. It struck me. Feminists groups do not care about women. They care about abortion…

…The feminist’s very identity is wrapped up in abortion, not women’s rights or welfare. For example, do you ever hear from a feminist group when women are being forced to have abortions against their will in China? Do you ever hear from NOW or NARAL when only baby girls are aborted in China or India? Do you ever hear from them when women here in this country are coerced or pressured by their employers, husbands, parents or boyfriends to have an abortion? Did you hear from one feminist group when Laura Smith of MA was killed by an abortionist?

It was some magnificent ladies from Silent No More who convinced me that I, as a man, have a bound duty to fight against abortion. While I have been pro-life most of my adult life (I was a bit pro-choice early on), I always shied away from getting too directly involved in it for fear that the fact of my male sex would paint me as some sort of hypocrite, or someone who just didn’t know enough to make a judgment. That is all over with for me, and has been for years – I was instructed in that part of being a man where a man will do everything he can to protect women and children, even if they aren’t his wife and child. Listening to the testimony of the Silent No More ladies, I was moved to the depths of my soul and at that moment became a man who would, also, be silent no more.

When our military commanders say that the situation in Afghanistan will get worse before it gets better, here’s why:

The Asia Times highlights the greatest proximate danger from fast-breaking developments in Pakistan. The truce between the Taliban and the fracturing Pakistani government has released thousands of fighters to begin an offensive in [Afghanistan].

In addition, after striking peace deals with the Pakistani security forces, the newly formed United Front of Taliban in the Pakistani tribal areas is ready to pump at least 15,000 to 20,000 fresh fighters into Afghanistan. These are expected to start crossing the rugged – and unmanned – border in April.

Bill Roggio describes how the fight seems to have drained out of some parts of the Pakistani armed forces, who have now resorted to try and buy the Taliban off.

The military ceased operations in Swat in February 2009 after it failed to dislodge the Taliban. … Javed and the military have refused to respond to the Taliban infractions. Javeed even went out of his way to praise Mullah Fazlullah. He described Fazlullah as a “good human being,” Daily Times reported.

Javed’s [the Malakand Division Commissioner] proposal to integrate the Taliban into the security forces comes as the US Congress is debating a $20 billion aid package to Pakistan. Senators John Kerry and Richard Lugar have proposed giving Pakistan a one-time $5 billion grant plus a 10 year aid package worth $15 billion. Some of this money is slated to improve the security forces in Paksitan’s Northwest Frontier Province and the Taliban-controlled tribal agencies.

As a side note and as illustration for how long this problem really has been going on, one of Winston Churchill’s first books was entitled The Malakand Field Force, describing a punitive expedition Churchill participated in back in 1897. The only difference between then and now is that the screwballs in the area can reach out and cause death and destruction in our area of the world, too. And any attempt we make to clean up the mess will be a long, drawn out and tediously difficult task.

But we must do it – we cannot permit Pakistan to disintegrate, at least not without careful control by ourselves and complete accounting of Pakistan’s nuclear program. So, what should we do?

Part of it we’re already doing – sending more troops to Afghanistan in order to prepare for battle against the greatly increased Taliban forces we’re likely to meet from Spring forward. We’re also, from what I understand, stepping up nation-building activities in order to improve Afghan government authority and control, as well as build up the Afghan national army. But sitting in Afghanistan and fighting the Taliban won’t do the trick – we’ll have to get at the source of the trouble.

As long as the government of Pakistan is working to defeat the Taliban and associated tribal forces, then we must apply ourselves, as difficult as it is, to the Pakistani government. But if, as it appears, the Pakistani government becomes unwilling or unable to assist us, we’ll have to do it on our own. And if the government of Pakistan disintegrates, then we’ll have to be ready to move into at least substantial areas of Pakistan in order to defeat our enemies and control those part of the Pakistani military arsenal which can be used by the terrorists to attack the United States and our allies.

If we fail to do our part, as necessary, then we can look forward to, at best, parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan becoming a safe-haven for terrorists where they can gather forces, plot attacks and launch them against us. At worst, Pakistan will become a completely failed State, easy prey to highly organized Islamist minorities who are willing to use whatever cruelty proves necessary to assert their control – including control over Pakistan’s nuclear force. Furthermore, we must pay close attention to the needs of India in this – the Pakistani government, of itself, is a difficult enough entity to deal with, but if India faces radical Islamists in control of nuclear weapons minutes away from major Indian metropolises, India might feel – very justifiably – compelled to act.

In order to preserve our allies and secure peace, we might have to steel ourselves to a protracted and bloody campaign in south central Asia – and the big question: does Obama perceive the risks? Does he have the courage to stick it out, should it all fall apart?