And this will complicate matters greatly for an American President who wants to talk to the terrorists and their Iranian sponsors:

The latest poll predicts Likud receiving 27 mandates, Kadima 23, and Labor 17 on election day, but with the Likud-led Center-Right bloc far in front of the Center-Left bloc led by Kadima and Labor. Yet Netanyahu isn’t resting easy these days as another right-wing party — Yisrael Beiteinu — led by Avigdor Lieberman, a nationalist and Russian immigrant, continues to gain on him, coming in with 17 mandates in the poll.

Indeed, on Tuesday, Netanyahu made an impromptu visit to the site of the rocket strike in Ashkelon and spoke with a nationalistic ring, averring that, “A government under my leadership will overthrow the Hamas rule in Gaza and bring about a cessation of rocket fire. The policy of blindness followed in the past years has brought us to this situation. When action was finally taken, the IDF performed wonderfully. But the Livni-Kadima government did not allow the IDF to finish the job….”

Political wrangling aside, Netanyahu and Lieberman are both doing well because the approach represented by Kadima and Labor — based on restraint in the face of terror, reliance on foreign forces and monitors (Egyptian, European, Lebanese) to look out for Israel’s security, and a diffident, apologetic mindset — no longer persuades the majority of Israelis amid ongoing attacks. Netanyahu, who has implied that Israel will go it alone against Iran if necessary, also warned Obama against relying too much on dialogue with the mullahs. Israel knows there isn’t that kind of wiggle room.

Netanyahu, as well as many others in Israel, realize that Iran’s government poses an existential threat to the lives of all Israelis. As long as the mullahs rule Iran, the Israelis will not be able to live in assurance that tomorrow they’ll still be alive. Israel’s immediate neighbors – Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia – have come to the realistic conclusion that Israel’s conventional military force would be prohibitively expensive in lives and treasure to defeat in open battle and that with Israel having nuclear forces at her disposal, any attempt to build such weapons to destroy Israel at a blow would be suicidal. Iran’s government doesn’t seem to have such a rational view of things.

It must be kept in mind that Israel is a tiny country – even just two or three nuclear weapons detonated in Israel would effectively destroy the nation. Meanwhile, those who have the capability of seriously hitting the United States with nuclear weapons are rational – Chinese and Russians leaders don’t believe God is on their side and thus know that a nuclear exchange with the United States is insane. North Korea’s leaders are a bit insane, but they don’t have the actual capability of hitting us, and even if they do it would only be with one or two missiles, which can be intercepted by our SDI system. We’re pretty safe from a nuclear attack – except from some terrorists bringing nukes into America, which is something we do have to be concerned with…but, even then, one or two such nukes won’t destroy America. Its all different for Israel.

Their life – as a people, as a nation – is at stake here. And its not a matter of Iran having a nuclear weapon atop a missile in Iran capable of hitting Israel…its Iran having several nuclear weapons in southern Lebanon or in Gaza which could hit Israel in seconds, destroying the whole nation. Israel’s submarine force would then destroy Iran, but good would that do for the Israeli nation, now destroyed? Would Iran do such a thing? If you were the Prime Minister of Israel, how far would you gamble on the rationality of the mullahs?

President Obama wants to talk to Iran – presuming that contacts, dialogue and the prospect of normalized relations will lance the Iranian boil. Could be – hope it is so; but that is me, an American, sitting here safe and dry. Israel can’t be so calm and hopeful about matters – shortly will come the time of decision: does Israel place its bets on President Obama’s ability to diplomatically convince Iran to mend its ways, or does Israel place its bets on the IDF?

It is to be hope that President Obama is keenly aware that whatever time he has to make a deal with Iran, it is short – and it had better be iron-clad for Israel’s security.

Mark Steyn nails it:

In The Washington Post, E.J. Dionne tried to break it gently to us:

“No occupant of the White House has ever been able to walk on water.”

Yeah, sure, no previous occupant of the White House has been able to walk on water – your Eisenhowers and Roosevelts, your Chester Arthurs and Grover Clevelands and whatnot. But Barack didn’t run as just another of those squaresville losers. He was gonna heal the planet and lower the oceans. So, even if he couldn’t walk on water, he should at least be able to paddle in it. “He is a community organizer like Jesus was,” said Susan Sarandon, “and now we’re a community, and he can organize us.”

So how’s that going? Jesus took a handful of loaves and two fish and fed 5,000 people. Barack wants to take a trillion pieces of pork and feed it to a handful of Democratic Party interest groups. Jesus picked twelve disciples. Barack seems to have gone more for one of those “Dirty Dozen” caper-movie lineups, where the mission is so perilous and so audacious that only the scuzziest lowlifes recruited from every waterfront dive have any chance of pulling it off.

The trouble here is that it gets worse every day – who is the person in the Obama Administration of sterling character? Who is the person universally recognized for sobriety and judgment? Where is the program or policy commanding strong majority support?

Seems we made a rather large mistake last November…

Anyone who backs this plan is essentially driving a stake through the heart of the American economy:

CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul

President Obama’s economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.

CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. [The House bill] would have similar long-run effects…

We don’t have the money, boys and girls, to pay for this boondoggle. Grasp the reality: we’re broke.

Retrenchment – spending cuts, for you liberals out there – coupled with tax cuts and regulatory easements are the only way we’re going to get out of this. We have to create new wealth in order to pay off the debts we’ve already got – don’t do this, and all we’re doing is moving money around with, perhaps, a short term boost to the economy, but with a long term death knell for growth.

The President is condemning us for having tired, old ideas…what we’re actually having is a gigantic attack of common sense. The President needs to listen to us – he needs some of that humility he said he’d govern with.

UPDATE: And Reid still doesn’t have the votes for cloture, it would seem.

Desperate to shut down that which is currently being the major roadblock to making us an Obamination:

This morning, radio host Bill Press brought up the recent closing of liberal station Obama 1260 when speaking with Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, and talked about whether there needs to be a balance to right-wing talk on the radio dial.

BILL PRESS: Yeah, I mean, look: They have a right to say that. They’ve got a right to express that. But, they should not be the only voices heard. So, is it time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine?

SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else — I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.

BILL PRESS: Can we count on you to push for some hearings in the United States Senate this year, to bring these owners in and hold them accountable?

SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that’s gonna happen. Yep.

Although Obama has been publicly opposed to reinstating the fairness doctrine, conservative radio has talked nonstop about the fear of it returning (or perhaps something like it with another name) while there’s a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic majority in Congress.

UPDATE: A commenter points out that Stabenow is married to Tom Athans, a liberal talk radio executive.

First off: There was a station called “Obama 1260”?

Anyways…

How do we bring “accountability” to the airwaves? According to liberals – like Stabenow – we find it nearly impossible to define what pornography is, but we’re going to define what is being a properly “accountable” radio station? Were this suggested by a GOPer against any liberal media outlets, our liberals would be screaming bloody murder. But as its directed against conservatives (no one is talking about bringing accountability to liberal talkers, ya know? I guess they already are accountable…either that, or everyone knows no one listens to them, so who cares?) liberals see this as a reasonable measure to stop Rush from being so unfair…

Face it, liberals, you’re just afraid of debate and you want us to shut up and go away…

A complete horror:

Eighteen and pregnant, Sycloria Williams went to an abortion clinic outside Miami and paid $1,200 for Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique to terminate her 23-week pregnancy.

Three days later, she sat in a reclining chair, medicated to dilate her cervix and otherwise get her ready for the procedure.

Only Renelique didn’t arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl.

What Williams and the Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate: One of the clinic’s owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant’s umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.

Police recovered the decomposing remains in a cardboard box a week later after getting anonymous tips.

“I don’t care what your politics are, what your morals are, this should not be happening in our community,” said Tom Pennekamp, a Miami attorney representing Williams in her lawsuit against Renelique and the clinic owners.

Despite any protestations of horror on the part of pro-abortion people, one does have to ask: what did this “doctor” and his staff do wrong? The point was to wind up with a dead baby, and a dead baby is what they wound up with. All abortions are this – a baby is killed. This one just happened to be killed in public, as it were.

What of it, you “pro-choice” people?

Abortion is the enemy of hope – and the enemy of basic, human decency.

UPDATE: From the Vatican, it is being made ever more clear – be pro-choice, or be Catholic. You can’t be both.

From Senator DeMint, via NRO’s The Corner:

Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) made the following statement after Democrats voted 43-54 against his amendment to strike language from the economic stimulus bill that discriminates against students of faith. Senator DeMint’s amendment would have eliminated a provision that bans any university or college receiving funds to renovate buildings, from allowing “sectarian instruction” or “religious worship” within the facility. This would in effect bar use of campus buildings for groups like the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Campus Crusade for Christ, Catholic Student Ministries, Hillel, and other religious organizations.

“This is a direct attack on students of faith, and I’m outraged Democrats are using an economic stimulus bill to promote discrimination,” said Senator DeMint. “Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for siding with the ACLU over millions of students of faith. These students simply want equal access to public facilities, which is their constitutional right. This hostility toward religion must end. Those who voted to for this discrimination are standing in the schoolhouse door to deny people of faith from entering any campus building renovated by this bill.

“This is now an ACLU stimulus designed to trigger lawsuits designed to intimidate religious organizations across the nation. This language is so vague, it’s not clear if students can even pray in a dorm room renovated with this funding since that is a form of ‘religious worship.’ If this provision remains in the bill, it will have a chilling effect on students of faith in America.

“It is in hard times that our society most needs faith. It provides the light that no darkness can overcome. This provision is an attempt to extinguish that light from college campuses, from the lives of our youth.

A tip of the hat to Democrat Senators Bayh and Conrad who voted with the GOP on this amendment – and shame on the rest of the Senate Democrats for allowing themselves to be bamboozled into essentially backing anti-religious discrimination.

In the end, what this really highlights is the need for openness which Obama alleged he would bring to DC. Of course, Obama isn’t responsible for whomever inserted this provision into the “stimulus” bill, but he is the guy trying to rush things through…and a rushed bill is a bill where you get these sorts of provisions which wouldn’t see the light of day if they were given a full public hearing. Here is yet another reason to delay matters – we do need to ensure that if our tax dollars are going to schools that these schools don’t discriminate against students of faith.

NRO has a break down. Some low-lights:

$4.2 billion for “neighborhood stabilization activities” (Ok, liberals, please define this)

$88 million to help move the Public Health Service into a new building (Why do they need a new building? Can’t they carry their stuff over to the new one themselves?)

$448 million for constructing a new Homeland Security Department headquarters (What’s wrong with where they are now?)

$87 million for a polar icebreaking ship (But Al Gore says we’re warming up, so why do we need this?)

$55 million for Historic Preservation Fund (History can preserve itself at least until the recession is over)

$7.6 billion for “rural community advancement programs” (Ok, liberals, please define this)

$8 billion for innovative-technology loan-guarantee program (Who gets to decide what is an “innovative-technology” and how do we differentiate such from some Congressman’s brother-in-law tinkering in his garage?).

$2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects (Why demonstrate it? It either works, or it doesn’t)

$79 billion for State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (Ok, so we’re going to stabilize the States which have profligately spent themselves into de-facto bankruptcy…who’s going to stabilize Uncle Sam?)

The reason why all House GOPers and 11 heroic House Democrats voted against this dog of a bill is because it is, pure and simple, garbage…and while we all expected it to sail through the Senate, it appears that the courage shown in the House has stiffened some Senate spines, including – it must be noted – among some Democrats. We might have the making for a genuine coalition in Congress to ensure that we do actually get some change over the next four years – not the bogus change of Obama and his Democrats, but some real change which might even bring a bit of morality and common sense in to the way we conduct business. Right now, I don’t see this bill passing as it is – by a large measure, Obama’s first big effort is coming apart at the seams, though whatever comes through will have Obama’s name on it, and he’ll get credit – however undeserved – if sensible GOP and Democrat Congressmen craft a worthwhile bill in spite of Obama’s insistence on pushing this lousy “stimulus” bill.

If we pass the Obama-Pelosi-Reid plan, we’re doomed to years of economic depression…if we can at least take out the worst of the pork and add some genuine stimulus, we might crawl out of this hole in 2010 or 2011. It looks like we might dodge the worst of Obama’s plan – but only if we stand firm.

And you Obamabots out there who were insisting, per your messiah, that we had to move quickly: Shame on you!

Sorry, boys and girls, just don’t have the “oomph” right now to put up something good for the morning.

Discuss amongst yourselves whom you think will be the next Obama Administration official to quit over taxes, or what have you…

And, naturally, given that he’s got zero real world business experience, he’s going about it entirely the wrong way.

We all have a strong justification for being angered over business leaders of failing firms getting large salaries and passing out bonuses to themselves. Keeping in mind that the (rather absurd, but there it is) justification for the fabulous salaries and bonuses paid to senior executives is that this is the only way to get them to take a proprietary interest in the firm’s success. With this justification, the logical outcome for executives of firms losing money is that they should be paid little, or nothing. Paid high to make a company a success, paid little or nothing if the company tanks.

Obama’s plan, from what I gather, is that there will be an upward ceiling on executive salary (500k is what I’ve heard) and that any stock options will be in stocks restricted from sale until the firm has paid back the money provided by Uncle Sam. To put a generous spin on this, we’ll say that Obama is just clueless about how slick executives will just work their way right around Obama’s plan by paying themselves vast amounts of stocks and just sitting on it for as long as necessary…they are already rich, so they can wait ten years to cash in…and as the stocks of these firms are low priced right now, such executives stand to reap a massive windfall (ie, pay themselves a hundred thousand dollars worth of stock valued at $10 a share today, sell it when permitted 5 years from now when those ten thousand shares are going for $25 a share). To put a negative spin on it, Obama is giving us populist eyewash, fully aware that he’s not really limiting anyone’s salary…and he’s expecting loyalty in return for this from the executives. I’ll leave it to you, dear reader, to decide which one you like best.

But we do want to fix things up, right? I mean, heck with a bunch of CEO’s who’ve made a hash out of things. The solution? Make executive salary a fixed percentage of the pre-tax profit of the firm. No profit, no salary…high profit, high salary. Who will go for this? Real business leaders who are willing to stake their time and energy for no pay today in hopes of a massive payday down the road when they’ve turned Failing Enterprise X around. We won’t have corporate time-servers who get by on a old-boy (and girl) network where actual decisions are not taken for fear of failure and when things go in the tank its always the hourly employees and the public who have to feel the hardest pinch.

Our fundamental problem here, friends, is moral – for CEOs to promote each other and pay themselves astronomical salaries as if they really earned the money is shortsighted greed at its worst. For Congressional overseers to be willing to allow corrupt practices in return for a junket and a donation or two is, also, shortsighted greed at its worst. If we really want to fix the practices of the firms, we need to change the way things are done so all of the incentives are on courageously doing the right thing. We keep this current system and tack on to it Obama’s asinine plan about executive pay and all we’re doing is making things worse…now it will be a matter of greasing palms in DC in order to get the best executive package in Detroit and there will be an even larger disconnect between CEO salaries and company performance.

If we are to step back in time and gain insights to repair our economy, we don’t have to stop with FDR:

In the first half of last century two presidents inherited recessionary economies from their predecessors. Both campaigned on smaller government, and both blamed the profligate ways of the previous president for their economic problems. One ended the recession in less than three years; the other lengthened it by seven. One responded with laissez-faire capitalism; the other with unprecedented government expansion. Scholars rank one among the worst presidents ever; the other they rank as one of the best. These two men are Warren Harding and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Warren Harding was elected president in 1920 at the end of World War I, directly following the popular Woodrow Wilson. Harding inherited an economy transitioning away from wartime production as well as decreasing international demand for many American goods that had driven economic growth during the war. American factories were retooling and soldiers were coming home looking for work. The nation’s output, by some measures, fell as much as 24 percent and unemployment more than doubled between 1920 and 1921. Between 1919 and 1921, farm income had dropped by 40 percent. The country was falling deep into recession.

Instead of bailing out failing businesses, expanding government, and redistributing taxpayer money with a “stimulus” plan, Harding responded by cutting spending and removing burdensome regulations and taxes. During his campaign, he argued, “We need vastly more freedom than we do regulation.” In stark contrast with the Bush-Obama response of ever-more government spending and debt, Harding had federal spending cut in half between 1920 and 1922 and ultimately ran a surplus.

As a result, the recession that started in 1920 ended before 1923. Lower taxes and reduced regulation helped America’s economy quickly adjust after the war as entrepreneurs and capital were freed to create jobs and push the economy to recover. Harding’s free market policies lead to the Roaring Twenties, known for technological advances, women’s rights, the explosion of the middle class, and some of the most rapid economic growth in American history.

Harding ran afoul of personal failings and was tainted by the horrific “Teapot Dome” scandal…but given that Obama is already has a taint of scandal to his Administration, lets not get too particular here. What we want right now is a road map out of our economic morass…and cutting spending and taxes is just what the economic doctor ordered. Its really just as simple as the Harding quote makes it – more freedom will result in more prosperity. There are, right now, millions of American champing at the bit for a chance to start their own business, or expand the one they already own…but they are held back not so much by economic uncertainty (even in the best of times starting a small business is the definition of “uncertainty”) but by concerns over taxation and regulation. No one knows what tomorrow will bring in the form of new government imposts and regulatory fiats, and you can’t plan if you are that uncertain about what may happen, government-wise.

If, on the other hand, Obama could assure the American people that he’ll spend less each year he’s in office and that he’ll at the very least keep President Bush’s tax cuts, that would be enough to get the economic ball rolling again. There would be enough certainty about government that people would feel comfortable risking their capital and their sweat equity in new ventures. This isn’t rocket science, boys and girls; its just economics. Allow people to produce and consume and, hey presto!, they will produce and consume…stick a government monkey-wrench in there, and you’ll seize the whole thing up. Will Obama be our new Harding, or our new monkey-wrench?