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.

From the AP:

The Obama administration said Wednesday that the government will lose about $14 billion in taxpayer funds from the bailout of the U.S. auto industry…

But, don’t fret, Barry and the boys are telling us that it could have been worse…we could have lost even more money. Heck, for a Democrat to cause a mere $14 billion loss to the taxpayer is actually the height of fiscal probity.

Yeah, we want four more years of this! I mean, if we only lose $14 billion every time we bail out a union-dominated industry, we’ll only lose hundreds of billions on the deal…and what is that when compared to the amount of campaign donations and hired goons Democrats will get in return? Geesh, this is a no-brainer…

How we know that Weinergate has become a big issue – the MSM is saying the GOP did it:

Ok, guys, I need everyone to check their Republican Weiner and make certain it is accounted for…’cause the MSM is convinced that it is one of ours which has escaped!

HAT TIP: Jammie Wearing Fool

UPDATE: Iowahawk strikes again:

…The Weinergate facts, as we so far know them: on May 28, @RepWeiner, the verified Twitter account of US Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY), posted a tweet of a y.frog photo of a slightly-built white male straining to pitch a pup tent in a pair of grey Hanes Underoos. Within seconds, Congressman Weiner arrived at the scene of the cybercrime and instantly recognized it as the work of a hacker who had simultaneously broken into his Twitter, Facebook and y.frog accounts. Working quickly, and without regard to his own safety, Congressman Weiner used his elite law school-honed internet security coding skills to wrest back control of his accounts, delete the offending tweet and photo, as well as unfollow a Seattle coed to whom it was sent. His Twitter perimeter once again secured, the intrepid Congressmen sent out a new tweet explaining how he was victimized by an Internet criminal mastermind…

The original Weinergate:

Now that I’ve just re-watched that, I have to say it is still one of the funniest scenes ever put in a movie.

Too bad it is a theologically unsound song…but for pure Americana, it can’t be beat…

What is wrong with our legal system, demonstrated:

Rescue workers in Alameda, California were forced to watch as a man drowned after they realized they could not save him because they did not possess the proper certifications for water rescue required to legally do so.

Had the workers attempted a rescue without the legal certifications, they could have faced lawsuits leading to massive fines and career ending rulings.

The victim was a suicidal man who waded into the waters to take his own life. Onlookers, including police, firemen and other rescue workers were forced to watch from the water’s edge hopelessly.

In fact, because of certifications and laws, rescue workers could not even legally enter the water to retrieve the body after the man had died. The police asked an onlooker to do it for them…

Forced to watch? No, not really – but when you know there are lawyers out there just waiting to sue, it takes a great deal of moral courage to just do the right thing. These are people who watched a man die because they feared a lawsuit…and you know what may happen, now? There is probably already a lawyer out there wondering if he can sue these people for failure to rescue.

Our liberals keep insisting that we dare not provide any tort reform – that if we in any way, shape or form clip the wings of the lawyers then people will lose their rights. How about their right to be rescued when dying? Or the right of people who act in a humane manner when they see suffering? Don’t help that person you’ve found on the street – you’ll be sued! We’ve been warped – normal actions of human beings have become impossible because someone one there will try to make a buck off the tragedy.

Tort reform, now. Most important part – loser pays. I also suggest jail time to any trial lawyer who loses more than two cases a year…if he loses that much, he’s clearly filing frivolous lawsuits and that should be illegal. Really, its a matter of whether or not we’re going to keep allowing ambulance chasers to get rich, or will we have a decent, moral society?

From Rasmussen:

…The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that in a hypothetical 2012 presidential matchup, a generic Republican candidate earns support from 45% of Likely U.S. Voters, while the president attracts 43% of the vote…

The Rasmussen survey here has kind of bounced around of late – Obama a little ahead, Obama a little behind…but no matter how you slice it, Obama is right on the edge were a President can head straight for loser. All it takes is a little more bad news or another Obama screw up, and he can tip over in to “anyone but Obama” territory.

From Bloomberg:

Mark Mobius, executive chairman of Templeton Asset Management’s emerging markets group, said another financial crisis is inevitable because the causes of the previous one haven’t been resolved.

“There is definitely going to be another financial crisis around the corner because we haven’t solved any of the things that caused the previous crisis,” Mobius said at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Japan in Tokyo today in response to a question about price swings. “Are the derivatives regulated? No. Are you still getting growth in derivatives? Yes.”

The total value of derivatives in the world exceeds total global gross domestic product by a factor of 10, said Mobius, who oversees more than $50 billion. With that volume of bets in different directions, volatility and equity market crises will occur, he said…

You see, we really did need financial reform in the wake of the 2008 meltdown. Unfortunately, liberals are running our government so all we got is a lot of hot air about hitting the fat cats while those same fat cats (who are, often, heavy donors to liberal causes) wrote a financial reform bill which did nothing to address the underlying problems.

There is nothing wrong with buying and selling stocks and bonds. Nothing wrong with trying to work out an investment strategy to maximize returns. There is something wrong, however, in a nauseating mish-mash of government, quasi-government and private actors working together to create financial instruments of no known provenance or worth and then selling and re-selling them in a game of “greater fool” until some piece of financial chicanery called “derivatives” is worth more than all the GDP of the world. I think Mobius is right – we’re going to have another crash. I had thought it would have happened, already. I am astounded they’ve held it off as long as they have…but it will crash. It can do nothing other.

Now, what should we do? Not much we can, at present. With Obama in the White House and Reid running the Senate, genuine reform cannot be enacted. But we should come up with a plan for financial reform which we can run on in 2012…and it would tremendously useful if, come 2012, we have both “I told you so” and “here’s the fix” if the crash happens between now and November of 2012.

The most important part of the fix is to shut down the casino on Wall Street and return it to investing. You might have noted that the economic news was garbage today – and yet the Dow rose 1%. Why? Because the European Union is working out a way to screw the taxpayers and bail out the bankers over Greece’s financial crisis…this pretty much means, at the end of the day, more money printing and this, in turn, caused people to bet on stocks today in hopes of an even higher rise as this goes forward. But we need investors, not gamblers. Investors carefully weigh risks – both long and short term – and try to figure out the way to protect and grow assets. Gamblers look for a quick killing – and they can do it, for a while. Eventually they bet wrong and the whole thing falls apart.

My solution to this aspect of the problem is not to get down in the weeds and, say, ban derivatives or what not. Anyways, even if you did them some gambler would just invent something else to gamble on. The best thing, I think, we can do is to punitively attack the up-and-down, all-through-the-day buy and sell like mad aspect to the markets. Lay a punitive tax on capital gains if a financial instrument is held, say, less than 24 hours. Progressively lower the tax on capital gains the longer it is held. Essentially, you’d force people to think…force them to cease being gamblers and start being investors.

Other things would help. Don’t allow mortgages to be sold; this would force banks to actually underwrite loans because they wouldn’t be able to push the bad paper off to a “greater fool” (which, as it turns out, almost invariably winds up being Uncle Sam). Forbid interest rates greater than 20% on credit cards; this would price out “non prime” consumers…they simply wouldn’t be able to borrow money on credit cards; might piss them off a bit as they can’t buy the new TV, but in the long run it protects them and protects the rest of us. Break up investment and regular banking, as we used to. Also, break up the big banks…a little good, old fashioned Populist GOP trust-busting would be a good thing, here.

The main thing is to understand that our problem is not the free market, nor is it in the fact that some people get rich buying and selling stocks. Our problem is that people were permitted – nay, encouraged! – by government to create all sorts of economic scams which led to the 2008 crash and which are leading us right back there. In order to just pile up personal wealth, some in the financial industry and in government took us for a ride…a ride which ended up at the poor house. If we want to get out of it, then we’re going to have to think about what we want, and then demand it be done…because you can lay bets on it that the banksters and bureaucrats will never do it voluntarily.

HAT TIP: Zero Hedge