Blogs For Victory

Obama is confused:

It is extraordinarily dangerous to confuse the aggressor and the victim. It is extraordinarily dangerous to confuse the terrorist and the democracy. – Newt Gingrich

The shocking news:

The California Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that Proposition 8, the successful California ballot measure which defined marriage to be between a man and a woman, is constitutional. It also decided that the some 18,000 homosexual “marriages” contracted in the state should remain valid in law.

By a vote of 6-1, the state Supreme Court justices ruled Proposition 8 was constitutional. The court unanimously ruled that existing “marriages” would stand. Proposition 8 was put forward as a response to the California Supreme Court’s May 2008 decision which by a vote of 4-3 overturned a state ban on such unions.

The 18,000 marriages are to remain legal under the ex post facto part of the United States Constitution – though a case can be made that the CA SC had no business overturning the first ballot initiative banning gay marriage…a case for another day.

Be that as it may, I guess the California Supreme Court decided against having a revolution in California – the complete overturn of CA’s political class would have been the result of an overturning of this amendment.

While Obama and Co talk about signs of recovery, the real signs of of disaster turning into catastrophe:

U.S. home prices continued their multiyear tumble in March, according to the S&P Case-Shiller home-price indexes, as the downdraft shows no near-term signs of abating.

Meanwhile, U.S. consumer confidence improved sharply in May, especially in expectations for the economy six months from now, a report released Tuesday said.

For the first quarter, the S&P/Case-Shiller U.S. National Home Price Index posted a 19.1% drop from a year earlier, the biggest quarterly decline for the reading’s 21-year history. S&P Case-Shiller releases 10-city and 20-city indexes every month, but also releases a broader national index every quarter.

The highlighted part is the MSMs “we can’t report the straight news” bit of Obama cheer leading – as if consumer confidence will fix the collapse of the housing market. Its a reverse on the way it was during the Bush Administration – you know, when the MSM was forced, kicking and screaming, to report some bit of good news about Bush, they always inserted a bit of negative to ensure there wasn’t a chance people would feel good about things. Be that as it may…

A friend of mine relates the story of a friend who thought he got a house at a bargain for $150,000…until someone bought the house across the street for $75,000. As of right now, there is no bottom to the housing market – it can keep going down because there are simply too many houses on the market, too few people in the market to buy and all indications are that buyers will become fewer as unemployment rises and houses more plentiful as the next round of foreclosures hits. And even those who can buy will likely hold off for lower prices, thus putting further downward pressure.

What does this mean? That the “troubled assets” are even more troubled – that we’ve spent hundreds of billions propping up a financial industry which is completely doomed. One of the world’s allegedly healthier banks – HSBC – had an interesting news release:

HSBC Holdings PLC’s (HBC) Asian unit said Wednesday it will cut the interest it pays on Hong Kong dollar savings deposits of HK$5,000 or above to 0.001% effective Thursday.

Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp. said the new rate will drop from the current 0.01%. It didn’t explain the reason for the rate cut. It said its zero interest rate will remain for account balances below HK$5,000.

Don’t get confused here – that isn’t “US dollars in Hong Kong”, its Hong Kong Dollars; the currency of Hong Kong. Given inflation, HSBC has essentially said that if you deposit money in their bank, you’ll lose money by the end of the year. The Chinese people – likely wiser than us by a wide margin – save a lot of money; they don’t go on spending sprees and don’t buy useless nonsense they don’t need. They save, save, save…for a rainy day. Like today. Except it isn’t rainy for the Joe Average in China who has a fat bank account…it is, however, raining cats and dogs for financial institutions who are heavily invested in real estate, like HSBC. A very large amount of the world’s wealth is tied up in real estate investments of various types…and prices have been falling, and not just in the United States. HSBC might be just trying to get the Chinese people to disgorge their savings in order to keep the economy moving along (the Chinese government? Already pi**ing through their foreign reserves at an alarming rate…not too much left there).

This is not to pick on HSBC – but to show that there is a lot of screwy things going on out there as everyone tries to dodge the massive avalanche of economic collapse. The only way out of this is for the world’s leading economy to reduce spending – by whatever means prove necessary – to less than revenues and to spend whatever we can on new farming, manufacturing and mining enterprises. We’re going to have to work our way out of this – we won’t be able to spend our way out.

Lots to be discussed on this issue. More to come later, but do share your thoughts here.

QUICK LINKS:
Video: Sotomayor says court is “where policy is made”

Sotomayor: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male”

Five of six Sotomayor rulings reviewed by Supreme Court were overturned (one case is still pending).

1. Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) — reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)
2. Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) — upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted
3. Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) — reversed 8-0
4. >Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) — reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)
5. Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) — reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)
6. Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) — reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer)

Heritage Foundation’s Rapid Response.

THE NEW REPUBLIC: The Case Against Sotomayor

http://foxnews1.a.mms.mavenapps.net/mms/rt/1/site/foxnews1-foxnews-pub01-live/current/videolandingpage/fncLargePlayer/client/embedded/embedded.swf

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan:

Just to show how entirely unfit she is to be a Justice, here’s a modification of one of her racist statements:

“I would hope that a wise White woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latino male who hasn’t lived that life”

Bill Kristol asks:

For Republicans and conservatives, the temptation has been to attend to the home front and to focus on resisting Obama’s big government agenda — an agenda worth resisting, in my opinion. But the most successful conservative intervention in the first four months of the Obama presidency has been — counter to predictions by consultants and pundits — that of Dick Cheney on national security policy. He may be the only Republican so far who’s really forced Obama onto the defensive. And most conservatives and Republicans would, I think, agree that the other Republican who’s effectively — if episodically — challenged Obama on foreign and national security policy has been Newt Gingrich.

Both Cheney and Gingrich have the background and stature to address credibly national security issues. Here’s an interesting question: Will any Republican whose career lies mostly ahead of him — or her — step up to confront Obama on the foreign policy and national security front? Is any of them enough of a risk-taker to defy the conventional wisdom that if you’re a mere senator or congressman or governor or aspirer to office, you should focus on domestic issues, that it’s hard (and it is) to take on a president on foreign policy? Will any of them seek to join Cheney and Gingrich in the foreign policy fray?

Kristol goes on to suggest that by standing up to Obama, Gingrich and Cheney might be – intentionally or not – positioning themselves for a bid for the White House in 2012. An outside possibility; though one which will become much more plausible if Obama’s policies cause an American defeat and/or a serious attack upon the United States. But more important than Presidential politics is the need of our nation for an articulate counter to Obama’s warmed-over Carterism.

Unlike our leftwing foes, we are patriots through and through and thus there are things we simply won’t do – most importantly, in our critique of President Obama we won’t offer a handle to any foreign enemy to make anti-American propaganda. We know that it wasn’t President Bush the enemy hated, but the United States of America. Obama and his supporters want to think that now Obama’s in charge, things will be different. There will be a rude awakening from this fairy tale – and when it happens, we have to be prepared both with rational pre-disaster arguments for a different policy as well as a patriotic support to help the President help the nation out of whatever mess he lands us in.

Our job, as conservatives, is to try to keep Obama up on the rails, as it were – we have to help sustain the nation in the face of his foolish policies while at the same time advocating a different course which will mark out our path to victory in 2010 and beyond. But this will take some courage – and I hope that more senior GOPers start showing the guys Gingrich and Cheney have shown.

Remember what we’re fighting for:

We can be confident because freedom is universal. I strongly believe there’s an Almighty, and a gift of that Almighty to every man, woman and child on the face of the Earth is freedom. – George W. Bush

Per Rasmussen:

For nearly four-out-of-five U.S. voters, the problem is not their unwillingness to pay taxes. It’s their elected representatives’ refusal to cut the size of government.

Seventy-seven percent (77%) of voters say the bigger problem in the United States is the unwillingness of politicians to control government spending. Just 14% say the problem is that voters are unwilling to pay enough in taxes, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Now, to turn this in to electoral victory – that is the tricky part.

Of course, we can keep on with the negotiations, but we also have to spell out our bottom line position. And so, I suggest words to this effect:

“The United States will consider the transmission of nuclear know-how from North Korea to any other party, as well as any North Korean ballistic missile attack on any nation to be an attack upon the United States of America which will result in an immediate resumption of hostilities suspended in 1953.”

This is to let the North Koreans know that our intentions are serious and also to let North Korea’s master, China, know that we’re on to their game of using North Korea as a cat’s paw to distract us. We won’t be distracted, anymore. We won’t war on North Korea immediately because of the danger those lunatics will lob a nuclear device at South Korea, Japan or even the United States, but any attempt by North Korea to use its nuclear capability to threaten in any way, shape or form the United States and its allies won’t be tolerated but will, indeed, lead to immediate war.

That said, we can try to figure out some way to bribe the NK leadership into distancing themselves from China and dismantling their nuclear program under our supervision.

UPDATE: As an aside, a proposed response to the Iranian naval aggression – announce we are sending a destroyer to sink the Iranian vessels. Let them turn tail and run for hom.

Obama may be anxious to bring terrorists into this country, but even members of his own party aren’t jumping to make that happen.

President Barack Obama shouldn’t have assumed his Democratic allies in Congress were willing to pay for the shutdown of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. They weren’t, at least not without a plan.

Two top Obama allies called the approach a mistake. The president’s Republican critics called the rebuke a reason to keep open the detention facility for suspected terrorists. And Obama’s top military adviser called for more details.

What emerged for the White House was a clear choice: If Obama wants to close Guantanamo, he’d better come up with a step-by-step plan. Otherwise, the 240 suspected terrorists stay at the U.S. Navy-run base.

Once against, the leftist campaign promises of Obama meet the realities of the real world and find they just don’t mix.Congr

Really, Barry? Really? According to a White House pool report, posted on Drudge Report:

Subject: Pool report 5/25/09

POTUS is, reportedly, golfing with Marvin Nicholson. No actual glimpses of the presidential golf game. Aides say POTUS paused at 3 p.m. to observe a moment of silence.

The jerk won’t let Memorial Day get in the way of his golf… sounds like Bill Clinton, who passed up the chance to get Osama bin Laden so his golf game wouldn’t get interrupted.