I double dog dare Obama to actually get in front of a genuinely random group of 1,000 Americans and open the floor to questions – he won’t do it, of course, because that is not in the script:

…while the online question portion of the White House town hall was open to any member of the public with an Internet connection, the five fully identified questioners called on randomly by the president in the East Room were anything but a diverse lot. They included: a member of the pro-Obama Service Employees International Union, a member of the Democratic National Committee who campaigned for Obama among Hispanics during the primary; a former Democratic candidate for Virginia state delegate who endorsed Obama last fall in an op-ed in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star; and a Virginia businessman who was a donor to Obama’s campaign in 2008.

This is the change we need? A President so afraid of having to answer a tough question that he doesn’t dare put himself in a position where one might come his way?

The Teleprompter Presidency, boys and girls; that is all Obama is…someone who can read a speech.

Getting rather Great Depression-y out there:

As the operations manager of an outreach center for the homeless here, Paul Stack is used to seeing people down on their luck. What he had never seen before was people living in tents and lean-tos on the railroad lot across from the center.

“They just popped up about 18 months ago,” Mr. Stack said. “One day it was empty. The next day, there were people living there.”

Like a dozen or so other cities across the nation, Fresno is dealing with an unhappy déjà vu: the arrival of modern-day Hoovervilles, illegal encampments of homeless people that are reminiscent, on a far smaller scale, of Depression-era shantytowns. At his news conference on Tuesday night, President Obama was asked directly about the tent cities and responded by saying that it was “not acceptable for children and families to be without a roof over their heads in a country as wealthy as ours.”

No, Mr. President, that isn’t it at all – what is wrong here is that people are living out in tents at all, whether it be in a rich or poor nation. It should be no comfort to us were we able to house every single American and yet still have our brothers and sisters living in tents and shacks in other lands. What this represents is not so much poverty as social breakdown.

Now, to be sure, the bulk of the homeless are either shiftless or mentally deficient – in other words, people you can’t so much ask to come off the street as people you should take off the street because they have proven themselves incapable of taking an adult’s place in the world. But especially as our economy has declined more and more people who are hard-working find themselves living out of doors. For a moment, you should put yourself in their shoes – you’ve lost your job due to the plant shutting down, lost your house because the landlord went bankrupt, lost your savings because the stock market crashed…you are out on the streets with your wife and two children and, really, its not your fault. If you suddenly found yourself in this position, how would you feel if someone came up to you and said, “brother, you’re in need – come to my house; it will be a tight fit, but if we all cooperate we can live together until you are back on your feet”?

I think, in that situation, you’d be mighty pleased – but, now, think about it from the point of view you have now: you’re the person with the house and you’ve got that extra bedroom since the kid went off to college. You’d like to turn it into that game room you’ve always wanted…but now you know about homeless people who really are caught in a jam not of their own making. What are you willing to do?

I realize that I’m being entirely unfair here – I mean, some random family off the streets might be a family of thieves or who knows what. To just take someone in on faith that God will provide what is needed and ensure that, come what may, good will emerge from your act of generosity is a bit of a leap – especially in 2009, after we’ve been conditioned for a century to believe we don’t have a direct responsibility for our brothers and sisters and that, really, its better to not get involved and doesn’t Catholic Charities and such take care of these things? But it is our problem – and it is all part of our social breakdown.

And therein lies the fundamental flaw of Obamunism – he’s just going down the same path to social destruction we’ve been following for far too long. We need to pull together as a community – Obama pays lip service to this, but his real goal is the naked individual being ministered to by an all-powerful government. He doesn’t want people who are well off heading to the poor areas to help out – if people do that, they’ll start becoming a solid, functioning (and, by the way, self organized) community. And then where is the need for Obama and the government?

Out there in our increasingly impoverished America grow these shanty towns – called “Hoovervilles” in the 30’s, but rightly called “Obamavilles” today because it is what Obama wants: people suffering and with only the government to help them. Fear not, says Obama, all will be taken care of – and like braying asses, his liberal followers are thrilled that the poor will be helped…and without liberal asses actually having to get out there and deal with those icky poor people who are unfashionably dressed and smell funny and aren’t nearly as cool close up as they are in a heart-rending documentary.

Wake up, people – your brothers and sisters need your help; don’t leave them to the misbegotten ministrations of Big Government. Help them, yourselves.

Next time, Hill old gal, lets not skimp on the preliminary briefing:

During her recent visit to Mexico, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made an unexpected stop at the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe and left a bouquet of white flowers “on behalf of the American people,” after asking who painted the famous image.

A hundred points for leaving the flowers, minus a thousand, however, for not knowing that we Catholics believe that God painted the image – its all part of the miracle of Mexico’s conversion. Details can be read here.

A small error, to be sure, but one in a series of foreign policy mis-steps by the gang which was supposed to be oh, so much better than President Bush.

UPDATE: And then Hillary leaves the shrine of the Protectress of the Unborn…to go get the Margaret Sanger “Kill-A-Baby-A-DAY” Award.

And to think I was just going to turn on every light in my house at 8:30pm:

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a leading free-market think tank, plans to recognize “Human Achievement Hour” between 8:30pm and 9:30pm on March 28, 2009. The new one-hour holiday coincides with Earth Hour, a period of time during which governments, individuals, and corporations have agreed to dim or shut off lights in an effort to draw attention to climate change.

“We are so proud that millions of people plan to show their appreciation for human achievement by doing things like eating dinner, watching television, going to the movies, and brushing their teeth,” says Human Achievement Hour Founder and CEI Policy Analyst Michelle Minton. “Never before has a new holiday caught on so quickly.”

The new one-hour holiday, unknown prior to this press release, has already received overwhelming support from many of Washington, D.C.’s leading institutions. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, for example, tells CEI that it does not plan to shut down all of the city’s bus and rail lines for the “Earth Hour.” The Kennedy Center, likewise, has scheduled a performance of the long-running play Sheer Madness, a jazz concert, and a dance performance to coincide with the Human Achievement Hour. Washington, D.C.’s Target store, furthermore, will remain open until 10:00pm on the evening of the 28th. The Smithsonian Institution also plans a film showing that will extend into Human Achievement Hour.

“We salute the people who keep the lights on and produce the energy that helps make human achievement possible,” says Myron Ebell, CEI’s Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy.

Now, with all lights blazing, I’ll be joining my fellow Americans in celebrating this wonderful, new holiday.

Thank you, Governor:

Governor David Paterson said next year’s record budget gap may be $3 billion greater than the $16.2 billion he announced earlier this week and hinted a tax increase on higher incomes is possible.

The newly estimated gap for the year beginning April 1 was 25 percent more than projections six weeks ago, he said.

“We are right now on the verge of cuts and service reductions that I would have to describe as life threatening,” Paterson said. “With situations like that, everything is on the table,” he said in response to a question about increasing the state’s income tax for high earners.

Paterson and legislative leaders said earlier this week that the deficit continues growing because of falling tax collections in a shrinking economy with rising unemployment. If next year’s deficit exceeds the $16.2 billion estimate, the spending plan would be amended, as lawmakers did twice in the current year.

What is so insane about all this is that our tax and spend liberals are noting the decreased revenues from the wealthy and their response to to try to tax them some more…there seems to be zero realization that if you tax them some more their wealth will further erode and you’ll thus get even less revenue at the higher tax rate. And, naturally, the Democrats are raising the specter of death and destruction if they don’t raise taxes. Spending can be cut – but to do so means that large numbers of liberals will have to get real jobs. Just a quick browse through the NY State government reveals these areas of questionable activity, ripe for cuts:

Buffalo Fiscal Stability Authority; Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning and Policy Commission; The Office of Community Renewal; Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; Erie County Fiscal Stability Authority; Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Clearinghouse; Commission on Local Government Efficiency and Competitiveness; Nassau County Interim Finance Authority; Olympic Regional Development Authority; Governor’s Office of Regulatory Reform; South Shore Estuary Reserve Council…if anyone can provide a reason why any of these agencies are life and death matters for New York, I’d like to hear it. And this was just a skip-through on the State directory. Imagine what we’d find if we went through it with a fine tooth comb.

But, we know the Democrats won’t – because the vital thing about this spending is that it puts people on the public payroll and thus provides a class of people with a vested interest in the maintenance and expansion of government power. These people know who is keeping them employed, so the votes and the donations flow mostly one way: to the Democrats. But there is a limit – and raising taxes during a massive recession just might do the trick to allow a conservative or two to win in New York.

The good, old US of A under Obama, et al:

…Many economists and analysts are worrying that the United States might go the way of Japan, which suffered a “lost decade” after its own real estate market fell apart in the early 1990s. But I’m more concerned that the United States is coming to resemble Argentina, Russia and other so-called emerging markets, both in what led us to the crisis, and in how we’re trying to fix it.

Over the past year, I’ve been getting Russia flashbacks as I witness the AIG debacle as well as the collapse of Bear Sterns and a host of other financial institutions. Much like the oligarchs did in Russia, a small group of traders and executives at onetime venerable institutions have brought the U.S. and global financial systems to their knees with their reckless risk-taking — with other people’s money — for their personal gain.

Negotiating with Argentina’s top officials during their multiple financial crises in the 1990s was always an ordeal, and sparring with Domingo Cavallo, the country’s Harvard-trained finance minister at the time, was particularly trying. One always had the sense that, despite their supreme arrogance, the country’s leaders never had a coherent economic strategy and that major decisions were always made on the run. I never thought that was how policy was made in the United States — until, that is, I saw how totally at sea Treasury Secretaries Henry Paulson and Timothy F. Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke have appeared so many times during our country’s ongoing economic and financial storm.

The parallels between U.S. policymaking and what we see in emerging markets are clearest in how we’ve mishandled the banking crisis. We delude ourselves that our banks face liquidity problems, rather than deeper solvency problems, and we try to fix it all on the cheap just like any run-of-the-mill emerging market economy would try to do.

We are, as I’ve said before, broke. And I mean that – we’ve not got a cent left to our national name. Blame it on Bush, if you like. Heck, blame it on the banks; on the government…blame it on little, green men from Mars, if you’ve a mind. Doesn’t matter whom you blame – the fact still remains: we’re broke.

What does it mean to be broke? It means we have obligations in excess of our assets. In our case, our obligations are massively larger than our assets – and Obama wants to increase the obligations in the hopes that by spending money we don’t have, we’ll end up to the good at the end of the day. Yes, I know its stupid – but its in line with the most brilliant liberal thinking. No, really – the people liberals consider geniuses swear by this. If we’re flat busted now, we’ll be squishy flat busted if we go with Obama’s plan.

What to do?

Stop spending more than we make. I know, who would think of such a radical, untried idea? But, bear with me here: there is method to my madness. You see, if we spend less than we make, then each year we’ll owe less and less money and, eventually, our assets will exceed our liabilities and we’ll no longer be broke. Might take a while and it might take a lot of hard work and sacrifice, but it can be done – we can live on our income, if we just try.

How do we spend less than we make? By stopping all spending not necessary for the safety and health of the American people. Sorry, NPR. Sorry, NEH. Sorry, Department of Commerce. Sorry, Department of Education. Sorry, Department of Labor – but some things just have to be laid aside for a while. We’ll also have to do without grants to ACORN and we won’t be able to afford the Obama Jugend. I know, its disappointing we won’t have mindless, leftist robots around to spy on us, but it is just one of those sacrifices we’ll have to make. We’ll also not be able to go into socialized medicine, and welfare will have to be tightened up considerably to ensure that its only going to those who are unemployable or unemployed through no fault of their own. In short, we’ll just have to get by with defending ourselves against foreign and domestic threats as well as ensuring that no one starves, is un-housed, is un-clothed or lacks the very basics of medical care. Trust me on this, boys and girls, we can tough it out.

If we do this, then we’ll eventually be a quite rich nation, again – you see, we have vast resources, most of which remain untapped. We must get going on making, mining and growing things and by so doing build up the wealth to pay off the debt we accrued during those years we figured that shuffling paper around was a worthwhile activity. If we don’t do it? Then we’ll end up in complete economic collapse and perhaps political breakdown.

Apparently he really didn’t mean transparency of government; no, silly little man–he meant that our private affairs would be more transparent–to the government!:

I suppose he had to pay back his big donors in Hollywood, didn’t he?

Don’t get me wrong. I’m no fan of online piracy. But paying fines up to and beyond a hundred grand for downloading a movie is a bit disproportionate to the crime. Hell, OJ walked after hacking two people to death. Will I need my best Orlando criminal defense lawyer on retainer because I let my 15 year old daughter use the internet… Really?

Beyond that is the road to the “big brother” police state that Obama and his fellow-travellers appear to be more than willing to walk. Oh, the libs wailed and gnashed their teeth during the Bush administration’s supposed warrantless wiretaps of phone conversations that took place in international-to-domestic communications between terrorist elements; but even that had a national defense rationale. This, on the other hand…

If they have the ability, without probable cause and warrants, to seize laptops for music, then they have the ability to seize your laptop for any reason.

The Dover Ban is the executive order signed by President Bush that the media were exempt from taking pictures of flag-draped coffins of service men and women as they made their final journey home to their families via Dover, Maryland, after making the supreme sacrifice.

The Obama administration, being sensitive, kind, and caring to military families, moved to end the Dover ban, saying that media pictures could once again be taken of the flag-draped coffins, but only with the permission of the fallen’s family.

Sensible, right?

Think again.

Gold Star Mom Knottie makes the best case why this decision to reverse the Dover Ban is about as compassionate as salt in an open wound.

Read the whole thing.

He’s disappointed:

President Obama has just spoken on AfPak. I closed my eyes and listened closely to his words, coming via the BBC from the other side of the world.

The President’s words were disappointing. He talked about our goal to reach a force level of 134,000 Afghan soldiers and 82,000 police by 2011. This is not even in the neighborhood of being enough. Further, the increase of 21,000 U.S. troops is likely just a bucket of water on the growing bonfire. One can only expect that sometime in 2010, the President will again be forced to announce another increase in U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

If there were not people like Gates and Petraeus up there, my gut would say to pull out. It is only my faith in the military, and what I saw them accomplish against heavy odds in Iraq, that gives me hope.

Others would disagree with me. A well placed and very experienced British officer just emailed me his impressions, to whit:

“An impressive statement of intent – I particularly liked the bits about bearing down on Afghan corruption and corruption in how USAID money is spent. The speech inspires confidence and, as he is not Bush, it could encourage others to come to the party in a more meaningful way.

I don’t mean any offence about Bush as I for one see history judging him more favorably than contemporary commentators it’s just that the Europeans might follow Obama in a way that they never would Bush.”

And so my views clearly are not held by everyone. Most British and American officers – especially American – have been far more positive about Afghanistan than I have been. My confidence in them is great, and before publishing this I called London to talk about this. There is more confidence coming from the British Army than meets the public eye.

As an aside, I’d like to note the thunderous silence from the anti-war left over this – nothing in recent memory has painted them better as the hypocrites they are. That said…

I, too, hope that the British officer is correct and that the mere fact of Obama being President will pull in more support for the Afghan campaign…I hope this because I’m worried that all Obama has done is send enough troops to ensure that we lose slowly. We have learned – to our sorrow in Vietnam, to our glory in Iraq – that you can’t do war by halves – its all the way in, or all the way out.

In late 2006, President Bush was faced with the choice of either surrendering Iraq to the terrorists, or putting such a powerful force into Iraq that the terrorists would be crushed. President Bush decided to double down, and we – and the Iraqi people – have reaped the benefit. While even many of President Bush’s erstwhile allies were calling for half measures such as the absurdly stupid Iraq Study Group program, he decided that in war there really is no substitute for victory. Here in early 2009, President Obama is facing a similar choice and while the announced goal is all one can hope for, the means provided don’t seem to meet the needs of the moment.

What will happen if, a year from now, President Obama is facing a lengthening US casualty list and an ever more brutal enemy? Will he announce, a few short months ahead of the 2010 mid-terms, that he is sending more troops into the war zone…or will he strike some sort of deal with Iran and other terror masters in order to allow a “decent interval” between US withdrawal and terrorist triumph? What may be won relatively easy with 30,000 more troops today might not be retrievable with 130,000 troops my April of 2010 – to send 21,000 today might prove the largest folly of all.

The news story:

“Roberts didn’t tell us the truth. At least Alito told us who he was,” Reid said, referring to Samuel Alito, the second Supreme Court justice nominated by President George W. Bush. “But we’re stuck with those two young men, and we’ll try to change by having some moderates in the federal courts system as time goes on — I think that will happen.”

Why should Reid make such a wickedly false statement? Could be one of two reasons:

1. Reid is setting up a situation where Obama nominees will be excused from tough questioning on their judicial philosophy.

2. Reid is setting up either the eventual impeachment of Roberts and/or setting up a bid to put term limits on Supreme Court Justices.

The former is more likely than the latter, but we can’t ignore the prospect of Obama and his Democrats attempting to entirely re-cast the Supreme Court. The four liberal Justices are likely to retire, and no problem – Obama will appoint people even more ignorant in their leftist fanaticism than the current four liberals. But how to get around those four young conservative Justices? Rather difficult – each of them is almost certain to outlast an Obama Administration, even if Obama is re-elected. So, lay the ground work to force the conservatives out at some point.

As I said, it is more likely that Reid is just preparing the ground for kook leftist Obama nominees to skate by without any intense questions – all of a sudden, intense Senatorial scrutiny will not be needed, ya know? But we must be on our guard as the people who lead our nation are people who are entirely unaware of what liberty actually is, and thus they will violate law and precedent with complete indifference.