Obama Shows Shocking Indifference To Islamist Murdered Ft Hood Soldiers

President Obama didn't wait long after Tuesday's devastating elections to give critics another reason to question his leadership, but this time the subject matter was more grim than a pair of governorships.

After news broke out of the shooting at the Fort Hood Army post in Texas, the nation watched in horror as the toll of dead and injured climbed. The White House was notified immediately and by late afternoon, word went out that the president would speak about the incident prior to a previously scheduled appearance. At about 5 p.m., cable stations went to the president. The situation called for not only his trademark eloquence, but also grace and perspective.

But instead of a somber chief executive offering reassuring words and expressions of sympathy and compassion, viewers saw a wildly disconnected and inappropriately light president making introductory remarks. At the event, a Tribal Nations Conference hosted by the Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian affairs, the president thanked various staffers and offered a "shout-out" to "Dr. Joe Medicine Crow -- that Congressional Medal of Honor winner." Three minutes in, the president spoke about the shooting, in measured and appropriate terms. Who is advising him?

Anyone at home aware of the major news story of the previous hours had to have been stunned. An incident like this requires a scrapping of the early light banter. The president should apologize for the tone of his remarks, explain what has happened, express sympathy for those slain and appeal for calm and patience until all the facts are in. That's the least that should occur.

Indeed, an argument could be made that Obama should have canceled the Indian event, out of respect for people having been murdered at an Army post a few hours before. That would have prevented any sort of jarring emotional switch at the event.

Did the president's team not realize what sort of image they were presenting to the country at this moment? The disconnect between what Americans at home knew had been going on -- and the initial words coming out of their president's mouth was jolting, if not disturbing.

It must have been disappointing for many politically aware Democrats, still reeling from the election two days before. The New Jersey gubernatorial vote had already demonstrated that the president and his political team couldn't produce a winning outcome in a state very friendly to Democrats (and where the president won by 15 points one year ago). And now this? Congressional Democrats must wonder if a White House that has burdened them with a too-heavy policy agenda over the last year has a strong enough political operation to help push that agenda through.

If the president's communications apparatus can't inform -- and protect -- their boss during tense moments when the country needs to see a focused commander-in-chief and a compassionate head of state, it has disastrous consequences for that president's party and supporters.

All the president's men (and women) fell down on the job Thursday. And Democrats across the country have real reason to panic.

New York writer Robert A. George blogs at Ragged Thots. Follow him on Twitter.

Ft. Hood Massacre Was Islamic Terror Plot

Fort Hood's 9/11

By RALPH PETERS

November 6, 2009

On Thursday afternoon, a radicalized Muslim US Army officer shouting "Allahu Akbar!" committed the worst act of terror on American soil since 9/11. And no one wants to call it an act of terror or associate it with Islam.

What cowards we are. Political correctness killed those patriotic Americans at Ft. Hood as surely as the Islamist gunman did. And the media treat it like a case of non-denominational shoplifting.

This was a terrorist act. When an extremist plans and executes a murderous plot against our unarmed soldiers to protest our efforts to counter Islamist fanatics, it’s an act of terror. Period.

When the terrorist posts anti-American hate-speech on the Web; apparently praises suicide bombers and uses his own name; loudly criticizes US policies; argues (as a psychiatrist, no less) with his military patients over the worth of their sacrifices; refuses, in the name of Islam, to be photographed with female colleagues; lists his nationality as "Palestinian" in a Muslim spouse-matching program, and parades around central Texas in a fundamentalist playsuit — well, it only seems fair to call this terrorist an "Islamist terrorist."

But the president won’t. Despite his promise to get to all the facts. Because there’s no such thing as "Islamist terrorism" in ObamaWorld.

And the Army won’t. Because its senior leaders are so sick with political correctness that pandering to America-haters is safer than calling terrorism "terrorism."

And the media won’t. Because they have more interest in the shooter than in our troops — despite their crocodile tears.

Maj. Nadal Malik Hasan planned this terrorist attack and executed it in cold blood. The resulting massacre was the first tragedy. The second was that he wasn’t killed on the spot.

Hasan survived. Now the rest of us will have to foot his massive medical bills. Activist lawyers will get involved, claiming "harassment" drove him temporarily insane. There’ll be no end of trial delays. At best, taxpayer dollars will fund his prison lifestyle for decades to come, since our politically correct Army leadership wouldn’t dare pursue or carry out the death penalty.

Maj. Hasan will be a hero to Islamist terrorists abroad and their sympathizers here. While US Muslim organizations decry his acts publicly, Hasan will be praised privately. And he’ll have the last laugh.

But Hasan isn’t the sole guilty party. The US Army’s unforgivable political correctness is also to blame for the casualties at Ft. Hood.

Given the myriad warning signs, it’s appalling that no action was taken against a man apparently known to praise suicide bombers and openly damn US policy. But no officer in his chain of command, either at Walter Reed Army Medical Center or at Ft. Hood, had the guts to take meaningful action against a dysfunctional soldier and an incompetent doctor.

Had Hasan been a Lutheran or a Methodist, he would’ve been gone with the simoon. But officers fear charges of discrimination when faced with misconduct among protected minorities.

Now 12 soldiers and a security guard lie dead. 31 soldiers were wounded, 28 of them seriously. If heads don’t roll in this maggot’s chain of command, the Army will have shamed itself beyond moral redemption.

There’s another important issue, too. How could the Army allow an obviously incompetent and dysfunctional psychiatrist to treat our troubled soldiers returning from war? An Islamist whacko is counseled for arguing with veterans who’ve been assigned to his care? And he’s not removed from duty? What planet does the Army live on?

For the first time since I joined the Army in 1976, I’m ashamed of its dereliction of duty. The chain of command protected a budding terrorist who was waving one red flag after another. Because it was safer for careers than doing something about him.

Get ready for the apologias. We’ve already heard from the terrorist’s family that "he’s a good American." In their world, maybe he is.

But when do we, the American public, knock off the PC nonsense?

A disgruntled Muslim soldier murdered his officers way back in 2003, in Kuwait, on the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Recently? An American mullah shoots it out with the feds in Detroit. A Muslim fanatic attacks an Arkansas recruiting station. A Muslim media owner, after playing the peace card, beheads his wife. A Muslim father runs over his daughter because she’s becoming too Westernized.

Muslim terrorist wannabes are busted again and again. And we’re assured that "Islam’s a religion of peace."

I guarantee you that the Obama administration’s non-response to the Ft. Hood attack will mock the memory of our dead.

Ralph Peters’ latest novel is "The War After Armageddon."

Today's Message For Leftard Congress Creatures

House Democrats have cleared an impasse over abortion that has been holding up a vote on sweeping health care legislation.

A vote is expected on Saturday - after President Barack Obama makes a late morning trip to the Capitol to make one final pitch for the legislation.

According to Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, he and other abortion opponents will be given a chance to insert tougher abortion restrictions into the legislation during debate on the House floor.

The leadership hopes that no matter how that vote turns out, Democrats will then unite to give the health care bill a majority over unanimous Republican opposition.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democrats have cleared an impasse over abortion that has been holding up a vote on sweeping health care legislation.

A vote is expected on Saturday - after President Barack Obama makes a late morning trip to the Capitol to make one final pitch for the legislation.

According to Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, he and other abortion opponents will be given a chance to insert tougher abortion restrictions into the legislation during debate on the House floor.

The leadership hopes that no matter how that vote turns out, Democrats will then unite to give the health care bill a majority over unanimous Republican opposition.

IT'S THE JIHAD STUPID!

MUSSOLINI THE YOUNGER AND MASS MURDERER



MUSSOLINI THE ELDER AND MASS MURDERER

If you don't think the traitor and Mussolini look alike who murdered at least 13 of his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood yesterday was on the Jihad warpath, you should read these articles at ATLAS SHRUGS:

Admired Homicide Bombers

Malik Hasan is Alive

Came To The Attention of Law Enforcement Six Months Ago

Seven Shot Dead At U.S. Army Base

A Briton relates on a message board:

You guys should have listened to what I have said before - Muzzies are a fifth column, a Trojan Horse. Their tactics include 'sleepers' which for years are trusted as 'good guys' and drink, smoke and generally appear friendly (permissible if for the greater aim of Jihad) and assimilated into the enemy or host country. At the clarion call, their deed will be done.

I don't think you take me seriously when I say Islam is a cult not a religion. Adherents are brainwashed from BIRTH - when they join the army/Afghan police etc. they are trained from when they joined, which comes after a whole lifetime of islamocrap and indoctrination. This will almost always outweigh any disciplines you believe you have taught them in their new positions.

I detest this government as much as he probably detested his army/colleagues, but I wouldn't murder them, because I'm not brainwashed into thinking it's right if I can find an excuse from a medieval jackanory story.

I said this before and will again. If I was still anything to do with the armed forces I would do all I could to avoid duties with Muzzies,and if forced to I would NEVER turn my back on them.

NEVER!

How many incidents like this do you need? We are fighting wars in Muzzie countries, and a Muzzie immigrant or US citizen will almost always be a Muzzie before he is a patriotic Briton or American.

In the coming years the American Muzzie population will grow by breeding prolifically plus further immigration, and you'll then get first-hand knowledge of the problems we have in Eurabia.

And I still ain't too sure about your new grinning president......

IT'S THE JIHAD STUPID!

Environmentalist Wacko Alert: The Battle Over Cap And Trade

While we're all focused on the health-care debate—as we must be—there is an even more important battle looming beyond that one: the battle over global warming and the "cap-and-trade" energy rationing scheme currently being pushed through Congress, as the next item on its agenda after the health-care bill.

I think cap-and-trade represents a much larger and more direct threat to our lives and liberty than socialized medicine, but the good news is that we don't face a trade-off between fighting one issue versus fighting the other. The more we bog down the health-care bill, the more we push back cap-and-trade—and the less likely it is to be passed. Already, congressional leaders have announced a five-week delay in the progress of the cap-and-trade legislation, and some are speculating that the bill might have to be shelved until after the 2010 elections—which is probably as good as killing the thing.

As I have been warning, there is still a very serious danger that the EPA will attempt to impose energy rationing by executive fiat, bypassing Congress altogether. But at least the pro-science, pro-industry side has begun to gain momentum in pushing back the global warming dogma.

Don't take my word for it. Listen to prominent global warming hack George Monbiot. Tom Minchin sent me a link to Monbiot's recent complaint about the rising rejection of global warming.

There is no point in denying it: we're losing. Climate change denial is spreading like a contagious disease….

A survey last month by the Pew Research Centre suggests that the proportion of Americans who believe there is solid evidence that the world has been warming over the last few decades has fallen from 71% to 57% in just 18 months. Another survey, conducted in January by Rasmussen Reports, suggests that, due to a sharp rise since 2006, US voters who believe global warming has natural causes (44%) outnumber those who believe it is the result of human action (41%).

A study by the website Desmogblog shows that the number of internet pages proposing that man-made global warming is a hoax or a lie more than doubled last year. The Science Museum's Prove it! exhibition asks online readers to endorse or reject a statement that they've seen the evidence and want governments to take action. As of yesterday afternoon, 1,006 people had endorsed it and 6,110 had rejected it. On Amazon.co.uk, books championing climate change denial are currently ranked at 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 in the global warming category…. What is going on?

Delicious, isn't it?

That brings me to a longer note I got from Tom, and anther from Jack Wakeland, on different aspects of the "intellectual climate change" at work here.

Tom addresses part of the economic cost of cap-and-trade, both in Europe and under a new global climate treaty being pushed at a meeting in Copenhagen in December. This is an important explanation for why views on global warming are changing, because it shows how the costs of regulation have given many people a direct interest in thinking seriously about the issue—and giving a hearing to those who reject the global warming hysteria. It's easy to sign on to the conventional global warming line, when it seems to have few concrete consequences and costs you nothing. When it threatens to make a sharp economic downturn deeper—and to make it permanent—then you start to subject the issue to more serious examination.

Well, Tom reports that the huge costs of energy rationing are beginning to come out into the open:

"Two events occurred in the last few days that act as flashing danger signals for the true costs of an Obama cap-and-trade scheme. The first is the release of a report by the British Taxpayer's Alliance on the European Emissions Trading Scheme, first introduced there in 2005. The key to the findings is not so much the substantial costs to households and businesses, but the identification of the government's intention to drive up those costs as a never-ending process. As the report's Executive Summary puts it:

This report presents new evidence that the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) has failed to perform [i.e., to reduce emissions] and is imposing serious costs on ordinary families. The main effect of the Scheme is to increase the cost of energy for households, businesses and other organizations. This increases household bills, but also increases business running costs and the cost of running public services such as hospitals.

The burden on consumers since the scheme was introduced on 1 January 2005 has been significant.

We estimate that the ETS cost British consumers nearly £3 billion in 2008, equivalent to around £117 per family, by increasing the cost of energy. From its introduction to the end of 2008, we estimate that the scheme has cost consumers across Europe between 46 billion (£33 billion) and 116 billion (£83 billion). Our central estimate is that the scheme has cost consumers 93 billion (£67 billion). That is equivalent to around 185 (£132) for every person in the ETS participating countries. That is despite the emissions price having collapsed several times for prolonged periods.

"Significantly, the report adds:

The British Government has not just accepted this significant burden on consumers, but has actively worked to increase it. Despite continuing rhetoric about reducing fuel poverty, the Government in fact used taxpayers’ money to assist the European Commission in legal attempts at the European Court of Justice to forcibly reduce the supply of emissions allowances and thereby increase the emissions price further.

"The second event was a meeting of European leaders that confirmed what Lord Monckton has warned—that the developed countries, particularly the US, will be hit with billions in annual subsidies to the "developing" world if agreement is reached at Copenhagen in December. The figures are so large it is necessary to repeat that they are annual figures, not 2020 totals. As the UK Independent reports:

Europe's leaders will present a £90bn [100 bn euros or $148 bn US] plan to cut the world's greenhouse gas emissions at the United Nations climate change summit in Copenhagen. After hours of wrangling at the EU summit in Brussels this week, they gave broad backing to Gordon Brown's calls for developed nations to put a price on tackling global warming.

The Prime Minister, who had warned that a failure to set out detailed figures would jeopardize the Copenhagen talks in December, hailed yesterday's agreement as a "breakthrough."

Under the plan, developed nations would pump between 22bn and 50bn a year into the fund by 2020, which is expected to include an overall EU contribution of 7bn to 10bn. The Prime Minister has already committed Britain to put £1bn into the fund.

"How much of the rest would come from the US? In fact, the Europeans have already settled the amount of US contribution. From The Guardian's report on the same conference:

Of the 100bn euros ballpark figure, the Europeans said 22bn-50bn should be public sector money in annual transfers to the developing world by 2020.

Although the Europeans refused to specify the European share, [German Chancellor] Merkel said it should be around one-third; the same amount should be supplied by the US, and Germany would foot around 20% of the European bill.

"These are the figures being openly discussed. But, in fact, the true figures may be higher. According to the draft treaty that will be considered at Copenhagen, the cost of adapting to the economic changes of cap and trade will be borne as a percentage of a country's GDP:

Mandatory contributions from developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in Annex II should form the core revenue stream for meeting the cost of adaptation in conjunction with additional sources including share of proceeds from flexible mechanisms.] [This finance should come from the payment of the adaptation debt by developed country Parties and be based principally on public-sector funding, while other alternative sources could be considered.] [[Sources of new and additional financial support for adaptation] [Financial resources of the “Convention Adaptation Fund"] [may] [shall] include:

(a) [Assessed contributions [of at least 0.7% of the annual GDP of developed country Parties]....

"As the GDP of the United States is now $14 trillion, that would mean an drain on US wealth of "at least" $98 billion every year. How much has the Obama administration briefed us on that as an end result of cap and trade?"

Meanwhile, Jack Wakeland sent me an overview of the progressive crumbling of the scientific underpinnings of the global warming hysteria, as a growing number of scientists rebel against the prevailing dogma. Jack writes:

"Dozens of top climate scientists have left the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) school since 2000. Two specific contradictions between the AGW hypothesis and reality were cited the most often by this group [in an article from earlier in the process, in 2007]:

"1. The tight correlation between cosmic rays and earth’s atmospheric temperature is holding up better and better as it is subject to closer and closer scrutiny.

"Henrik Svensmark’s 'cosmo-climatology' theory is proving to be very influential. It is the number one reason cited for becoming an AGW skeptic in the article in Canada Free Press from two and a half years ago. And it was a huge presence at the 2008 International Geology Congress.

"2. Ice core data turned out not to demonstrate that CO2 rises before temperature rises, despite the initial finding that it might have done so over the past 420,000 years according to analysis of the Vostok Ice Cores.

"Attempts to Confirm Vostok Ice Core Data (published in 1999) which indicated a nearly 1 to 1 correlation between CO2 and temperature (at the scale of 1000–2000 years) by Fischer, Wahlen, Smith, Mastroianni, and Deck (in 1999), by Mudelsee (in 2001), and Caillon, Severinghaus, Jouzel, Barnola, Kang, and Lipenkov (in 2003) found that CO2 levels rise 400–1000 years after beginning of a warm interglacial period, not before.

"The dramatic divergence of the actual temperature trend from that predicted in the global circulation models over the past 10 years is rapidly becoming a third issue that is driving climate scientists out of the alarmed AGW camp.

"Other contradictions (such as the Antarctic climate anomaly, the continued non-existence of the GHG-warming signature of particularly elevated air temperatures in the middle troposphere in the tropics, the non-correlation between CO2 proxies and temperature proxies during the Mesozoic and Paleozoic Epochs, etc.)

"Few have taken part in denouncing several instances (so far) in which it has been found that the AGW camp has been depending on large-scale academic fraud to support the most "politically relevant" aspects of their doctrine. But most who have changed sides have identified this issue by citing a shared philosophical reason why they quit the AGW camp: a "religious" adherence to the AGW doctrine regardless of evidence. Arguments from peer-review-authority, ad hominem attacks, and academic embargos against of top scientists who disagree with AGW doctrine play a very important role in why some climate scientists have become philosophically hostile to the AGW doctrine."

As I said earlier, I think there is no trade-off between fighting ObamaCare and fighting cap-and-trade. So I'll still be devoting most of TIA's focus in the coming weeks and months—if it drags out that long—to arguing against the health-care bill, in the expectation that the failure of that bill will also doom cap-and-trade for at least another year. In the meantime, consider this a preview of the shape of the battle over global warming, to which we can turn our attention in earnest after ObamaCare is defeated.—RWT

Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com. He is the editor of The Intellectual Activist and contributor to The Freedom Fighters Journal.

Krauthammer On What The Election Means for Democrats

This election may not be Waterloo for The Grand Obama Army, but it certainly was a bloody, indecisive and hard fought Borodino with the gales of winter already blowing across the frozen land while the Cossacks of the Right wait in the cold forests with glowing yellow wolf eyes and long knives posed for execution when the inevitable retreat from Moscow begins through a howling wilderness.

Fox Panel responds to the White House spin of the election...

Fred Barnes: "I know David Axelrod for a long time, he was a great reporter, he covered City Hall for the Chicago Tribune, he knows better, but his job is to spin and something quite different happened and Charles talked about it last night in fact that is, that the Obama star is expiring"

Baier: Charles, you look at the exit polls the people said coming out that President Obama didn't factor into their vote directly, however for Conservative moderate democrats in the House, who look to the election next year, how does this election translate for them?

Krauthammer: "It scares the hell out of them, because if you're a Conservative Democrat and you see the great swing between '08 and '09 you know that this idea that you could ride the coattails of Obama, there was a great realignment last year, is false and they are now extremely exposed...

In the end, I think what happened yesterday demolished the myth about the meaning of the '08 election. It had been read endlessly by the mainstream media and by Democrats as a great realignment, all these constituencies Mara had talked about, The Republicans were gonna become a rump party of the deep south and angry white men, and now we see the youth vote was cut in half this time as compared to '08...'08 was an anomalous election, it was not a trend, it was not a new era, it was a one shot, one off election where all the stars were aligned in the Democratic favor...'08 was an anomaly, '09 is the norm...

The Obama/Hitler Youth Sing Everywhere In Amerika

RUSH LIMBAUGH: Andrew Breitbart at his website, BigGovernment.com or BigGovernment.org, whatever, 11 more kid videos singing songs to Obama. Eleven more! It is apparently obvious now that this is not just a random thing that's happening. This is not random. There's a coordinated plan to this.



First you rape the child of his innocence...

Then you fill the child with...

DEAR LEADER

Yes, HE’S ALIVE AGAIN!

OBAMA UBER ALLES!

The Death Blow To ObamaCare And Other Leading News Stories With Commentary

It turns out that the Democratic candidate did win after all in New York's 23rd congressional district. The Republican vote simply remained too split after Dede Scozzafava's late withdrawal from the race. Indeed, if you add her 6% of the vote to Doug Hoffman's 45%, he would have won. But of course, that's not the way things work.

The result in Virginia, however, is rather stronger, with Bob McDonnell winning by roughly a 60-40 ratio—a huge blowout in a state Barack Obama won in 2008. And Chris Christie's win in New Jersey is perhaps even more shocking, given how tight the race was at the end and how little Christie did to differentiate himself from Corzine. The Democrats must really be unpopular if voters chose Christie as their protest vote.

There are some commentators who are already trying to dismiss the importance of these elections. Some are doing so dishonestly—see Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post trying to tell her readers, "move along, nothing to see here." Other objections are honest and more valid. At the Horse Race blog, Jay Cost lists some reasons why NY-23 was an unusual race whose implications may not hold for the rest of the country.

But I think Cost is looking at things from too narrow of a "horse-race" perspective and missing the crucial ideological factor: the right, and particularly the pro-free-market right, is energized and emboldened and is showing that it enjoys wider support among independents.

The Democrat's win in NY-23 means that the race will have its most direct implications for Republicans. Some are describing the lesson as a need for the party to respect its conservative "base." But again, I think that's too narrow and conventional. The small-government "tea party" types who have injected so much new energy into Republican politics are not necessarily part of the "base." Many are independents who could be won over by a Republican candidate who stands firmly for free markets. They just haven't seen one for a while.

And the independents are the big story of Tuesday's elections. Particularly in Virginia, the race was decided by independents who voted for Obama and the Democrats last year, who then switched their support to the Republicans this year. Michael Barone points specifically to a switch in loyalties in the suburbs:

From the 1996 election up through and including 2008, affluent counties in the East, Midwest, and West have trended Democratic, largely through distaste for the religious and cultural conservatives whom voters there have seen (not without reason) as dominant in the Republican Party. Now, with the specter of higher tax rates and a vastly expanded public sector, they may be—possibly—headed in the other direction.

As further evidence of a rightward trend—or at least, a trend against Obama—note that while Obama's overall job approval remains just barely above 50% in most polls, his approval rating on virtually every specific issue has collapsed:

Obama has lost a net of 19 points in support of his handling of health care; 17 points on his handling of the economy; 17 points on Afghanistan; 16 points foreign affairs; 16 points on the federal budget deficit; and 10 points on taxes.

I think it's inaccurate to talk about this as a "swing to the right," because I don't think there was actually a "swing to the left" in recent years. Polls have continued to show—right through Democratic victories in the Congress and White House—that Americans have not changed their basic views on the issues, and that most are more sympathetic with the right than the left.

The usual way of expressing this is to say that American is "a center-right country." But since recent events show that Americans are proving more sympathetic to the secular, small-government wing of the right, we can express that point a little more precisely: America is the country of capitalism.

In short, the pro-Democrat and pro-Obama votes in 2006 and 2008 did not represent an ideological shift toward socialism. They were a narrower protest against George W. Bush and against the lackluster candidacy of John "Me-Too" McCain. Now Obama is the one that voters want to register a protest against—and they just did.

Of course, the real significance of all of this is what it will mean for the health-care bill. The implication is not as strong as it would be if Hoffman had won in NY-23, but below Dick Morris concludes that the result in Virginia should paralyze conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats—and may well constitute the "deathblow" for ObamaCare.

"A Deathblow for Obamacare," Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, New York Post, November 3

Obviously, Christie's victory is a body blow to Obama after Corzine outspent the Republican by five-to-one and the president put on a serious push for the incumbent. Corzine's defeat sends a message that the nation is moving sharply against Obama.

But Virginia results are the most important. More than 80 Democratic congressmen and twenty senators come from states that John McCain carried in 2008. For them, the sudden switch in Virginia, a swing state that Obama actually carried, heralds tough political times ahead….

Until last night, Democratic moderates, the so-called blue dogs, could bask in the light of their candidate's success in 2008. But now they must hear hoof beats behind them. The party discipline on which Obama depends to pass a health-care program that Americans reject by 42 percent for, 55 percent against (Rasmussen again) will only work if beleaguered Democratic incumbents can wrap themselves in Obama's cloak and tough out the popular criticism….

But the votes in Virginia, in particular, show the limits of Obama's appeal…. That [McDonnell] coasted to so huge a victory in the swing state of Virginia now has to send a message to red-state Democratic congressmen: Obama may be able to survive in the deep water into which he is leading his party, but you can't.

2. Britain's Death Panels

I'm not a big fan of the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto, who often serves as a quasi-secular apologist for the religious right and who has been consistently, gratuitously hostile to Ayn Rand and Objectivism. But he occasionally makes a very sharp and creative observation, and recently he has done an excellent job of following an inexcusably neglected story: the recent flood of articles in the British press on the denial of medical care by Britain's National Health Service.

I have pointed out the irony of the fact that we are debating whether to give our government a controlling role in medicine, just as Britain is confronting the deadly consequences of doing so—yet hardly anyone in the mainstream media seems to be interested in reporting on those stories. But Taranto has been assiduously collecting them.

It was through him that I found the appalling story below, which reports that the NHS has deliberately withheld life-saving cancer treatments from patients over the age of 70—which is to say, precisely the age group most likely to get cancer. Note also from this story the continuing theme of how Britain's system has empowered bureaucrats to create arbitrary rules and limits on treatments. And Britain's doctors—reduced to civil servants—simply tick off the boxes on government forms rather than fighting for better care for their patients.

"Over 65? Why Some Doctors Think Giving You the Latest Cancer Drugs Is Just a Waste," Jane Feinmann, Daily Mail, November 3

Alarming research is showing that elderly cancer patients are missing out on the breakthroughs in chemotherapy and surgery that have dramatically improved the outcome of younger patients.

In fact, up to 15,000 elderly people with cancer in the UK are dying prematurely every year when compared to the rest of Europe and the US, according to a report published by the North West Cancer Intelligence Service (NWCIS) which compiles cancer statistics.

A major factor with breast cancer is that elderly patients frequently either have surgery only—or simply get a prescription for hormonal treatments such as Tamoxifen or Arimidex, which suppress the female hormone oestrogen and slow down the growth of the cancer.

These drugs are prescribed for younger women, but almost always alongside a regimen including chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery.

What's causing alarm is the extent to which an age-related double standard for breast cancer treatment has crept into hospital protocols.

"Older people are far more likely to be turned down for expensive new treatments," says Kate Spall, founder of the Pamela Northcott Fund, set up in 2007 to campaign to help thousands of cancer patients gain access to new drugs. "We always have a fight on our hands to get treatment for someone over 65," she says….

A major concern is that the NHS Cancer Plan, introduced in 2000 to improve cancer survival in the UK, has a cut-off point at 70. This results in hospitals having less interest in the elderly. "Yet half of all those diagnosed with cancer are over 70," says Dr Tony Moran, NWCIS research director.

3. Four More Weeks?

Even before the results were back from Tuesday's election, the schedule for the health-care vote was already slipping—again. I wrote a few weeks back about how resistance to the bill had bought us another eight weeks, pushing its potential passage back to mid-December. Now it looks like we've bought ourselves at least another four weeks, with congressional leaders saying the bill won't pass this year.

This is crucially important, because the longer the bill delays, the more people get to know about it. And the more they get to know about it, they more they hate it. They hate it because, as the Wall Street Journal's editorial board aptly puts it, this is "The Worst Bill Ever," ranking up with the likes of Smoot-Hawley as a deadly legislative disaster.

Please consider supporting TIA as we help sustain the pressure over this long, agonizing process. It looks like this is how we will eventually kill the health-care bill: it will just keep getting delayed a few more weeks, and then a few more, indefinitely into the future.

"Top Dems: No Health Care Bill in 2009," Jonathan Karl, ABC News, November 5

Senior Congressional Democrats told ABC News today it is highly unlikely that a health care reform bill will be completed this year, just a week after President Barack Obama declared he was "absolutely confident" he'll be able to sign one by then.

"Getting this done by the by the end of the year is a no-go," a senior Democratic leadership aide told ABC News. Two other key Congressional Democrats also told ABC News the same thing….

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has yet to release the bill he eventually plans to bring to the Senate floor. Reid is still waiting for the Congressional Budget Office to come up with an estimated cost of several possible variations of his bill before deciding which one to introduce in the Senate….

Asked directly by ABC News, "Will you pass health care reform this year?" Reid pointedly did not answer "yes."

Instead, he replied, "We are not going to be bound by any timetables," adding, "We are going to do this as quickly as we can."

4. "Obama, Are You With Us or Against Us?"

Iran's new revolution against theocracy continues to smolder, with the protesters taking advantage of yet another day of officially sanctioned mass public gatherings to take to the streets and express their rejection of the regime.

As usual, The Guardian offers a good roundup of the day's events. But Tom Minchin spotted an item—look for the entry under 10:51am—that quotes a weak statement from Obama about how he is "bearing witness" (which means standing back and doing nothing), along with a link to a video in which Iranian protesters chant "Obama, are you with us or against us?" The Wall Street Journal's report translates that slogan as "Obama, Obama, you are either with us or with them."

It is shameful that Iran's protesters should even have to ask where our president stands in a struggle for liberty. It is even more shameful when the answer is that he stands with Iran's oppressive regime. The article below, by two Iranian dissidents, catalogues how the Obama administration has systematically ignored the pro-freedom movement in Iran, refusing to provide either moral or material support.

Today's regime-sanctioned events, by the way, celebrated the 30th anniversary of the day radical students stormed the US embassy and took 52 Americans hostage. The protest movement responded, amazingly, by issuing an apology to America. Here is how one Iranian liberal put it:

"Thirty years ago in the turmoil of the revolutionary zeal an indefensible act of hostage taking was committed that the new generation of Iran are not proud of at all," he said. "We know very well how that deplorable action hurt the noble American people and how it led to three decades of unnecessary and painful bad relations between our two nations.

"Only a small and repressive minority who rule Iran today still insist on keeping Iran on a confrontation course with the US, Britain and the West and indeed they have now taken the Iranian people as hostage to their destructive policies."

An American president who can remain passive and indifferent in response to that is indifferent to America's interests and to our cause of liberty.

"The President Snubs Iran's Democrats," Akbar Atria and Miriam Memarsadeghi, Wall Street Journal, November 3

[C]ourageous and dignified overtures to the US by Green Movement activists have been snubbed by the Obama administration. The administration has avoided discussion about the prospects for liberalization in a country that exports radical Islamist ideology throughout the Middle East and beyond. In regressive realpolitik fashion, it has grown increasingly reticent about the Iranian people's struggle for human rights, apparently viewing it as irrelevant to US security interests. Rather than bolstering the opposition at a time when the Iranian regime is at its weakest, America is pursuing a policy of appeasement.

In response to President Obama's eagerness to strike a deal with the Iranian regime, Green Movement activists are offering a compelling alternative. Their slogan? "America! Obama! From us an apology, from you support!"

Many Iran experts have warned that displays of Western solidarity could taint Iran's democrats. Nonsense. Iranian cyberspace is brimming with anger at what the Green Movement sees as betrayal by the West. From legendary filmmaker Mohsen Makhmalbaf, presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi's representative in Europe, to Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi, Iranian democrats are expressing disappointment at what they see as the trading of their democratic aspirations for dubious progress toward the goal of preventing a nuclear Iran….

In practical terms, regaining the trust of young Iranian democrats will require: publicly pressing the Iranian regime to respect human rights; integrating discussion of the regime's treatment of its opposition in all formal negotiations; reviving US government funding to support the Internet, free media, people-to-people exchanges, and training on civic engagement; and leveraging the popular Voice of America and Radio Farda broadcasts to directly express American solidarity with the Iranian people.

5. On the Wrong Side of History

The protest movement in Iran is the most important popular uprising in defense of liberty in 20 years. I can state that figure with exactness, because Monday is the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. So it is fitting, I suppose, that president Obama will be voting "absent" for both events.

The man who was all to eager to jump on a plane to Copenhagen to pitch the Chicago Olympics can't find time in his schedule to fly to Berlin to help Europeans celebrate their liberation from Communism.

Jack Wakeland sent me a long and bitter note about this, which concluded:

"How is it that Barack Obama is entitled to snub us, the American people, denying us our legitimate expectation to be represented by our head of state at a major and joyous global celebration of liberty?

"Will the establishment press take note of Mr. Obama's very un-presidential absence and cringe on behalf of us, the hardworking American taxpayer and the brave American military servicemen who worked and fought and paid in blood and treasure for over 40 years for Europe's victory over Communism on November 9, 1989?"

Then after letting it sink in for a bit, Jack sent another note, which I heartily agree with:

"I'm not really upset that Barack Obama won't represent me at the 20th anniversary of the fall of the wall in Berlin.

"I'm glad I won't have to see Obama's faux-seriousness, conformist leadership, voluble nothingness, and empty presence in operation at the podium in Berlin next Monday.

"Better Americans—actual living, functioning grownups who aren't pretending to hate Communism—will stand for us at the celebration in Berlin."

But then he noted the combination of Obama's indifference toward the Fall of Communism and his indifference toward the new revolution in Iran.

"If you put the two stories side-by-side you get an alarmed and unsettled feeling: Barack Obama is so far left on foreign policy that he's not implicitly and functionally a friend of dictators; he is a friend of dictators."

That's why President Obama suddenly can't find time to go to Berlin. It's another one of his revealing psychological blocks. He can't bring himself to go because he knows that during the great struggle between freedom and Communism, he ended up on the wrong side of history—and he is still on the wrong side of history in the current conflict with Islamofascism.

"Behind Obama's Berlin Wall Snub," Rich Lowry, RealClearPolitics, November 3

Obama's failure to go to Berlin is the most telling nonevent of his presidency. It's hard to imagine any other American president eschewing the occasion. Only Obama—with his dismissive view of the Cold War as a relic distorting our thinking and his attenuated commitment to America's exceptional role in the world—would spurn German president Angela Merkel's invitation to attend.

Obama famously made a speech in Berlin during last year's campaign, but at an event devoted to celebrating himself as the apotheosis of world hopefulness. He said of 1989, "a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one."

The line was typical Obama verbal soufflé, soaring but vulnerable to collapse upon the slightest jostling from logic or historical fact. The wall came down only after the free world resolutely stood against the Communist bloc. Rather than a warm-and-fuzzy exercise in global understanding, the Cold War was another iteration of the 20th century's long war between totalitarianism and Western liberalism. The West prevailed on the back of American strength.

But Obama doesn't think in such antiquated, triumphalist terms. Given to apologizing for his nation abroad, he resolutely downplays American leadership….

Wouldn't Obama at least want to take the occasion to celebrate freedom and human rights—those most cherished liberal values? Not necessarily. He has mostly jettisoned them as foreign-policy goals in favor of a misbegotten realism that soft-pedals the crimes of nasty regimes around the world…. Why would Obama want to celebrate the refuseniks of the Eastern Bloc, when he won't even meet with the Dalai Lama in advance of his trip to China?...

An American president will skip events marking the end of a struggle to which we, as a nation—under presidents of both parties—devoted blood and treasure for 50 years.

6. The Washington Conundrum

The item below has no great significance, but I nearly spit out my coffee when I read it, and I had to pass it on. It is yet another one of those headlines from The Onion that suddenly leaps out as real news on the pages of a real newspaper. In this case, it's the 2000 Onion headline "Clinton Declares Self President for Life."

It is more evidence for the Washington Conundrum: anyone who is sufficiently motivated to seek the power of the chief executive and to scheme to keep it must be a driven by a lust for power—and is thereby disqualified from holding the office. That certainly describes Clinton.

Fortunately, there is a solution to the Washington Conundrum, and I named it after the first man to demonstrate that solution. The only person who is qualified to be president is a man who seeks the office out of a lifelong dedication to the cause and principles of liberty.

"Bill Clinton Says He Never Wanted to Leave Presidency," Reuters via Washington Post, November 3

Former president Bill Clinton said Monday that, without term limits, he would have stayed in the job "until I was carried away in a coffin, or defeated in an election."

"I loved doing the job," Clinton said at a conference in Istanbul. "I loved being president, but I like my current life, too.... I'll leave the politics to my wife and to President Obama."

Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com. He is the editor of The Intellectual Activist and contributor to The Freedom Fighters Journal.

"Yes, Robin, There Will Be Blood"

Interesting article by Robin of Berkeley this morning at AMERICAN THINKER illustrates well what I have said for the last five years to anyone who would listen to me: A very violent and bloody civil war is brewing in this country between the Right and Left. The election of the sociopath Barak Obama to the presidency puts violence on the fast track because of the hatred the Left has for the American institutions expressed almost daily in the Media, Academia, Government and on the Streets. At some point this vast army of sociopaths created by the Left will enter the arena of mass violence and in self defense the Right will respond with its own ruthless army of Radical Republicans almost as bad.

"YES, ROBIN, THERE WILL BE BLOOD!"

November 04, 2009
The Sociopathic Epidemic
By Robin of Berkeley

I'm amazed by the soothsayers: Ayn Rand, for instance, who warned us fifty years ago of the risk of dictatorship or civil war if collectivism persisted. Or economist Friedrich Hayek, who wrote in the 1940s that we'll become serfs if we move toward big government.

However, what feels most prophetic lately is an obscure movie from the l970s called Little Murders. The writer, Pulitzer-Prize-winning cartoonist Jules Feiffer, predicted that the '60s would unleash a feral, primitive society.

The movie has a checkered history. It started out as a play on Broadway in the mid-'60s that was such a bomb, it closed after seven performances.

Audiences were shocked and horrified by the apocryphal world presented. At the time, New York's elite were celebrating the sexual revolution and the loosening of social mores. In contrast, Feiffer envisioned an eventual train wreck -- a nihilistic world of little and big murders of the soul.

The failed play was relocated to England, where it became a big hit. It was produced for the big screen in 1971, starring some fledgling actors such as Elliot Gould, Donald Sutherland, and Alan Arkin.

A dark comedy, Little Murders depicts a society gone mad, replete with frequent homicides and crushing insults to the spirit.

The film's moral compass is Patsy, a young woman who still bubbles over with optimism and love amidst the madness.

(Warning: I'm going to spoil the ending.)

By the end of the film, when Patsy is killed, her family finally cracks. They, like so many others, degenerate into a violent, ape-like state.

I've been thinking about the movie this week and the nightmare-world Feiffer forecast after learning of a horrendous crime near me in Richmond, CA.

There's so much crime out here that most of the time, the residents are numb. We have waves of takeover restaurant robberies and you barely hear a peep.

And when a teacher was beaten and stoned a few months ago during her class at Portola Middle School in El Cerrito (minutes from Berkeley) a small article was buried in the local paper. Many in the leftist community defended the youths as victims of white privilege, and some even blamed the teacher.

But then, last weekend, there was a crime so evil that no one could brush it off.

At a homecoming dance at Richmond High School (in the same district as the middle school stoning), a fifteen-year-old girl was beaten and gang-raped for over two hours while a crowd from the dance watched, laughed, and photographed the scene. No one called the cops.

The girl was left unconscious, dumped under a bench. She had to be airlifted to a specialty hospital.

The so-called experts fault the usual suspects: absentee parents, indigence, drug-infested schools, and herd behavior. One teacher indicts the media's sexual exploitation of women. A parent of one of the arrested youths blames racism.

But there was hardship, alcoholism, bad parents, sexism, and teenagers fifty years ago without such mayhem.

And many other countries have worse poverty, but lower crime rates. Crime is scant in India because for one, most Indians are Hindus or Sikhs and believe in reincarnation. Also, as an Indian friend told me, once you're jailed in India, you make sure you never go back.

It's easier to blame society than face the deep, dark truth: we've created a nation filled to the brim with sociopaths (also known as antisocial personalities).

I recently read a book called The Narcissism Epidemic. It reports the high number of narcissists among the young and contends that their condition is aided and abetted by self-esteem training.

True, but the theory feels a bit dated. The biggest danger now is a sociopathic epidemic.

While narcissists are selfish, annoying people, their humanity is still in place. They possess a conscience and can feel guilt and shame. Most people in power have some degree of narcissism.

Sociopaths are a different breed entirely. Here are some common features: callous disregard for others, superficial charm, pathological self-centeredness, lying and manipulation, irritability and aggression, lack of remorse or guilt, cruelty, ingratitude, and antisocial behavior.

O.J. Simpson and Bernie Madoff are obvious sociopaths. But the callous and the cruel may also have antisocial tendencies, such as Mike Malloy, a liberal Talk Radio host who said on air that he hopes Glenn Beck will commit suicide like Beck's mom; or actress Sandra Bernhardt, who wished a gang rape on Sarah Palin.

What's the difference between a sociopath and a narcissist? It goes to intent. John Edwards wanted to indulge his sensual pleasures, and he made his own needs front and center. That's selfishness, narcissism. If he were purposely trying to destroy his wife, that's sociopathy.

How far up the ladder in DC does sociopathy go? It's anyone's guess since the Teleprompter controls how much we know about Obama.

But have you noticed the surge in antisocial behavior since Obama came on the scene, like the wilding of Hillary and Sarah and the emboldening of thugs, from SEIU to the New Black Panthers?

We do know that Obama had a closer relationship with two sociopaths -- Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn -- than he let on. The demented duo never recanted their actions in the '60s: bombing and maiming, telling white kids to go home and kill their parents, admiring Charles Manson. Ayers dedicated a book to Sirhan Sirhan, killer of Bobby Kennedy.

Then there's Obama mentor Frank Marshall Davis, who proudly detailed his sexual conquest of a young girl in a fictionalized memoir called Sex Rebel: Black. While pedophiles have protected status under the new hate crimes legislation, they're still sociopaths in my book.

I'm not saying that Obama has an antisocial personality. At this point, no one really knows.

However, there's reason for concern. I don't know about you, but none of my friends revered Charles Manson or bombed buildings. Given Obama's choice of compatriots, let's hope that birds of a feather don't flock together.

How did this happen, the metastasizing of an antisocial tumor?

Feiffer's Little Murders offered some clues over forty years ago, such as self-worshiping, moral relativism, and rejecting God and religion.

The movie also sounded an alarm about the resurgence of the Left. The film's most prescient moment is when Patsy's husband, played by Elliot Gould, recalls being a college radical who has a change of heart.

In a darkened room, he gravely says to Patsy, "You shouldn't destroy institutions until you know what will take their place. You might find that you will miss them when they're gone." Seconds later, Patsy is shot.

The progressives have destroyed the structures uniting this country since its founding. Now, the rules of morality that kept people's base impulses in check have gone AWOL. Cruelty is the new normal, while the sacred is mocked.

What has the Left unleashed? A quasi-autocracy where dissidents are silenced and the Constitution is trashed. A government that loves animals, the earth, and endangered birds, but not humans.

Everywhere we look, from the ghettos to the corporations to the pristine halls of the government, we can see people whose hearts and souls are empty.

Their antisocial behavior is enabled by a codependent society that gives aggrieved groups the green light to pillage and plunder.

The H1N1 virus will hopefully fade away soon. But sociopathy will not wane unless we create a nation of grown-ups. A country where people are expected to take responsibility for their actions. No exceptions.

As long as sociopaths have carte blanche, the U.S. will no longer be a beacon of hope to the world. We won't regain our standing until our lawmakers start following the law and our teachers can teach without being pummeled...

...and a fifteen-year-old girl can attend her big homecoming dance and not have her life destroyed in the process.

A frequent AT contributor, Robin is a psychotherapist and a recovering liberal in Berkeley.

SOURCE

'V' Obamamania Metaphor

Imagine this. At a time of political turmoil, a charismatic, telegenic new leader arrives virtually out of nowhere. He offers a message of hope and reconciliation based on compromise and promises to marshal technology for a better future that will include universal health care.

The news media swoons in admiration -- one simpering anchorman even shouts at a reporter who asks a tough question: "Why don't you show some respect?!" The public is likewise smitten, except for a few nut cases who circulate batty rumors on the Internet about the leader's origins and intentions. The leader, undismayed, offers assurances that are soothing, if also just a tiny bit condescending: "Embracing change is never easy."

So, does that sound like anyone you know? Oh, wait -- did I mention the leader is secretly a totalitarian space lizard who's come here to eat us?

Welcome to ABC's "V," the most fascinating and bound to be the most controversial new show of the fall television season. Nominally a rousing sci-fi space opera about alien invaders bent on the conquest (and digestion) of all humanity, it's also a barbed commentary on Obamamania that will infuriate the president's supporters and delight his detractors.

"We're all so quick to jump on the bandwagon," observes one character. "A ride on the bandwagon, it sounds like fun. But before we get on, let us at least make sure it is sturdy."

The bandwagon in this case is conspicuously saucer-shaped. "V" starts with the arrival of a couple of dozen ships from outer space, piloted by creatures who look like humans except a lot prettier. "Don't be frightened," says their luminously beautiful leader Anna (Morena Baccarin, "Serenity"). "We mean no harm."

The aliens -- who become known as V's, for visitors -- quickly enthrall their wide-eyed human hosts.

A handful of dissidents hold out against the rapturous reception given the V's. Some are simply uneasy, such as the youthful priest Father Jack (Joel Gretsch, "The 4400"), who sharply criticizes the Vatican's embrace of the V's as divine creations: "Rattlesnakes are God's creatures too."

With or without the political sheen, "V" is sweeping television storytelling at its best. Whether you choose to view it as a blood-and-guts war story, a spy thriller (unlike the original show, these V's are perfect replicas of humans, so you never really know who might be sitting beside you at the bar), a high-stakes family drama (as households divide over the intentions of the V's), a religious allegory (the V's make a crippled man walk, filling up churches again) or just a sci-fi throwback to the days of "Earth vs. the Flying Saucers" and "The Thing," "V" is irresistible. This bandwagon is definitely worth jumping on.

SOURCE

The Republic Strikes Back

Editor's Note: As this issue goes out, the results of today's elections are being announced. So far, Virginia is a strong win for the Republicans, with Bob McDonnell winning by a huge 59-41 margin. The Republican victory in New Jersey is also stronger than expected, with the Independent candidate's voters making a last-minute break toward the Republican, Chris Christie, who is beating Jon Corzine by 49 percent to 45 percent with most of the ballots counted.

When future books on military history are written, there will no doubt be a chapter, or part of a chapter, on the extraordinary example of military indecision offered by President Obama.

Obama campaigned by declaring that Afghanistan was a war of necessity, and that he would give it more resources, more attention, and a higher priority than the previous administration. Instead, he has been unable to make the most basic decisions about his strategy there and the number of troops he will authorize to implement that strategy. It is now one year from Obama's election, nine months from the beginning of his term, seven months from when he supposedly endorsed a counter-insurgency strategy for Afghanistan, and more than two months since General McChrystal sent the administration his request for more troops. Obama still doesn't know what he wants to do.

And he's no closer to a decision. The latest report in the Washington Post is that President Obama is asking the top military brass—who have already presented him with multiple options for Afghanistan—for yet another set of options about what they would do with a smaller "surge" than General McChrystal has asked for. And the Post reporter notes that the schedule of meetings to assess these new options would push a decision back to the second half of November.

I'm no Shakespeare scholar, but didn't the events in Hamlet move a little more quickly than this?

Future historians will note the milestones in this epic of indecision. They will note how General McChyrstal, a disciplined career military man, was driven by frustration to break with custom and make public comments intended to push the administration toward approval of his troop request—and how someone in his office leaked the troop request to the press in order to draw attention to the administration's dithering.

Historians combing through news reports may notice how Obama and his top aides keep making inaccurate predictions that a decision will be made "in the coming weeks"—for week, after week, after week. This indicates that the people at the highest levels within the administration, including the president himself, have no idea what's holding up his decision or what information he needs to make it.

They will note that European defense ministers went out of their way to publicly declare their support for McChrystal's recommendations, in a meeting with the general and with our secretary of defense, as their own way of publicly pushing the American president for a decision.

And now European newspaper editorialists are beginning to demand a decision. These are the same people who spent eight years complaining about an American foreign policy that was too decisive and forceful for their tastes—and their tastes are very weak indeed, if George Bush was their idea of a reckless, hard-charging "cowboy."

Jack Wakeland sent me a roundup of these reactions:

"Where is the President of the United States?

"Two months of no decision after General McChrystal's recommendations for Afghanistan, and European centrists are getting nervous. Fed up.

"On Friday, two of Europe's three top newspapers are wondering what the hell is going on in the Oval Office (and we may have not heard from Le Monde only because the translation isn't in yet).

"At Der Spiegel, a guest editorialist observes, 'The world has been waiting for clear words from the White House for months.... Europeans are...looking for one thing from the White House: leadership.... We're waiting, Mr. President.'

"The editors over at London's Times bluntly demand that the president 'Do Something.' They observe that while the president 'dithers,' 'people will continue to die without knowing why. The president must show at least as much resolve as his British allies. It does not seem a lot to ask.'"

But the explanation for this extraordinary spectacle is not simply dithering and indecision as such. President Obama clearly has no problem making snap decisions on other issues—whether to give a high-risk speech to a joint session of Congress touting his health-care proposals, for example, or whether to jet off to Copenhagen to make a pitch for the ill-fated Chicago Olympics.

And I don't think this is just a matter of Obama's priorities—the idea that domestic politics, or securing an international perk for his former political patrons back in Chicago takes precedence over national defense. That would explain why he is slower in making this decision than others—but not this slow.

This prolonged delay is the sign not so much of a mental block as of a psychological block. Obama is acting like an unmotivated high-school student procrastinating on a homework assignment for a class he doesn't like. He acts like a man looking for any excuse not to have to think seriously about the topic at hand.

In another note sent to me last week, Jack Wakeland described the overall pattern:

"Preoccupied with the conquest of the American medical system, the president didn't even look at General McChrystal's report for one full month. Only after the conservative press reported that he had spoken to his field general only once since taking office did the president acknowledge the report's existence: he promptly began White House discussions about McChrystal's deployment options.

"In opening the discussions, he allowed the leftist opinion championed by Vice-President Biden into the room—and in the Obama White House, that opinion immediately began to dominate the discussion. Supported by a chief of staff who was reading a bad work of military history, Biden argued that any escalation of the war effort would lead the US more deeply into a replay of the Vietnam quagmire.

"Secretary of State Clinton argued for a second troop surge, and she has since been rewarded by losing half her duties to 'special envoy' John Kerry.

"When the press observed that the discussions and debates were going around in circles, Obama responded by telling the press that the most important thing about the decision—whichever way it went—would be the civilian component of the deployment. And he would see to it that there was a greater buildup of aid workers, development experts, and political advisors than the military had proposed.

"This civilian buildup was a foolproof way to slow deployments because few civil service and contract employees have volunteered to take the positions already offered to them in this mountainous and isolated conflict zone. The country is too dangerous a place for civilians. It is too early to be looking at the economic development of a territory that has not changed much since Alexander's army came through. The lack of government or of security of any kind has kept Afghanistan in a state only a couple of levels above the Bronze Age.

"After one full month of debates and discussions—complete with internal factions leaking differences of opinion that served to encourage the Taliban—Obama's field general felt constrained to publicly say a decision of some kind had to be made. Obama allowed the left-leaning members of the press, acting as an extension of his press office, to complain about General McChrystal's 'activism' and to complain about the potential presidential ambitions of his boss, General Petraeus. This bought the president another week's delay.

"After Secretary of Defense Gates—a particularly non-'activist' leader—reiterated McChrystal's concern and publicly stated that the president needed to make a decision soon, President Obama was forced to come up with another excuse: he needed to wait until the Afghan president agreed to a run-off election against his top opponent. This bought the president another week's delay.

"And, finally, last week [now two weeks ago], after President Hamid Karzai agreed to a runoff election, the president came up with his newest excuse. The military needs to 'model' the response to two different troop deployment levels: 80,000–85,000 men v. 120,000–125,000 men. That is being done this week with war games at the Pentagon. And this bought the president another week's delay."

As I said at the beginning of this discussion, the latest news is that Obama is asking for yet another study on the effect of different troop levels, which will buy him another week or two. Jack continues:

"If it is humanly possible to evade it for months—we're up to two months of indecision—President Obama will not make the deployment decision until after a congressional vote on health care 'reform.' The vote is too close and he needs every far-left congressman and every far-left senator voting on his side. He can't afford to alienate them by approving a broader war in Afghanistan.

"The delay is not entirely about socialized medicine, however. For Barack Obama, everything in his agenda to reorganize the American economy along more collectivist lines take precedence over a far-away war that smells vaguely like it is the product of American exceptionalism."

In my recommendation for last year's election, I wrote about the one issue that provided a crucial differentiation between the two candidates.

In this election, there is one crucial question about the character of the two candidates that does highlight a sharp and morally revealing difference between them. It also happens to be the most basic and elemental question we can ask about a man who would be president of the United States: Does he love America?

To ask that question is to immediately invoke Obama's close, long-time associations with his pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and with one of his key Chicago political sponsors, the unrepentant former Weathermen terrorist William Ayers. Associations of this kind matter because they reveal who and what a man will tolerate, and more: they reveal what he regards as normal, what he is comfortable with. They reveal, not just Barack Obama's convictions or his calculations, but his sense of life….

A man who is comfortable with hatred of America cannot be allowed to sit in this nation's most powerful office.

Why does this matter? Foreign policy is the one area in which the president acts virtually alone. On domestic issues, the president proposes and Congress disposes. But in foreign policy, the president can and must act on his own initiative. If he wants to do something, it is very difficult for Congress to stop him—and if he refuses to do something, it is very difficult for Congress to make him act. This is why the president's deepest, basic motivations and sense-of-life "gut" reactions matter. Without that kind of psychological support, he could not possibly sustain decisions made under the highest pressure, often in the face of disapproval from the entire world.

Boy, are we now seeing a grand-scale demonstration of this factor. No matter what he says explicitly, to the public or to himself, about how committed he is to the war in Afghanistan, Obama's actions show the drag of his leftist sense of life. Under the enormous pressure of the office of "leader of the free world," he finds that his "gut"—his deepest psychological core—won't let him make the decision to order the effective use of American military power.

He could only keep going so long as his main job was to ratify the status quo and allow the war to drift in a direction that was already set by the previous administration. But the moment he was called upon to make his own first-hand decision, he cracked. So he keeps finding rationalizations for why he needs more information or to study different options and maybe test different theories with war games, and on and on—all in the attempt to delay taking an action that is anathema to his sense of life.

As they say, elections have consequences, and this is the consequence of promoting to commander-in-chief a man who spent his entire youth and all his formative experiences among the hard-core, anti-American left.—RWT

Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com. He is the editor of The Intellectual Activist and contributor to The Freedom Fighters Journal.

Amerogod, The Great Welfare State To The World

I chose to restrict myself to 1,000 words because my original draft was 3,247--and still incomplete; and while this more condensed version leaves many important things untouched and a lot to be desired, it has the benefit of being just that--condensed. This will at least give you some insight into the ideas that contributed to the imagining of this piece.

To examine its present trajectory is to discover the state of the American nation irredeemable. The proportion of citizens pickled—like cadavers—in the toxic bromides of multiculturalism is formidable; consequently, the dissolution of the once indivisible American ethos into sects of squabbling ethnicities is all but destined. As for those citizens not so intoxicated, they dwell divided betwixt distraction and despair, in passivity and complacency, awaiting a savior that will never come. And so it is with a hardened heart I hammer out

The idea of American Manifest Destiny is not exclusive to the mid-nineteenth century, though the period of imperial "Westward Ho!" is one of the more conspicuous symptoms of that deeper, existential malady—the messianic mission to make the world over in America's image. Not only does this mandate hearken back to the founding of the Republic but, to this very hour, it gallops apace under the banner of global democracy. The crusade to extend salvation across the globe—to make all places not America, America—is matched only by a more recent, penitent reflex to make all places America, un-American. And whereas once American pretensions to empire could bring but shame to the nation for military misadventures or issue punitive slaps to the jingoist’s ego, at home, the uncritical institutionalization of diversity and the aggressive indoctrination of such facile dogmas as "we are a nation of immigrants," must prove even more destructive to the American body politic for they threaten the very existence of the nation itself.

The political knaves and the meretricious mouthpieces of popular culture have spoken: Thou shalt not question immigration—legal or otherwise. "We are a nation of immigrants" goes the benediction and the demons of racism and xenophobia are exorcised back to Dark Ages before the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred nineteen and sixty-five. Talk of immigration reform (except to increase the huddled masses yearning to cannibalize the Middle Class at the behest of their elitist wranglers) is tantamount to heresy; indeed, proposing a moratorium during which to examine the environmental, financial and existential consequences of permitting millions of aliens of questionable political allegiances to populate this country is the most damnable offense of all.

That we are a nation of Americans—and not a nation of immigrants—is an elementary civic fact. (Incidentally, Osama bin Laden’s fatwa was not titled “Declaration of War Against All Immigrants.”) Neither fact nor force of history—until that force is brought to bear—will convince the open-borderites that their World Nation of Babel is a destructive delusion. Nor is such utopian idiocy confined to any one political persuasion. It is touted by dim-bulbs named Bush and bloated Bostonians called Kennedy, America-hating Leftists, their puling liberal lapdogs and laissez faire libertarians alike. Corporatists of the Church of Economic Determinism gorge themselves on cheap labor while Evangelicals from the School of Putting los Anuses en los Asientos lustily pack the pews with the ceaseless supply of commodities, consumers and congregants unlimited immigration provides. If America is prohibited from restricting immigration on the belief that we are a “nation of immigrants,” it warrants consideration that if we are, and always have been so, then prior to the 1965 Immigration Reform and Control Act America was a nation of immigrants—almost exclusively of European origin. This, the reconquistadors of La Cuckaracha Raza aught to ponder when next they march their Mexican flag waiving mestizo minions onto American streets. Clearly, immigration policy should be dictated by some other criteria; if not, then perhaps it isn’t too late to correct a certain historical mistake.

The nation killers assure us that none can escape the dizzying, centripetal spin of the great American assimilation machine. In goes the immigrant, out the American: not the proud citizen reverential of America’s historical exceptionalism, but the malleable sort eager only to consume scows of garbage they don't need or that demands little more from their leisure time than to slobber over the tawdry exploits of Hollywood’s latest loose bimbo. (In the very least, they are sufficiently American to vote Democrat or attend Catholic mass.) This is a cynical estimation, but the only one that matters to our governing elites. That they themselves do not truly accept the acculturation of immigrants into the American national family is betrayed by another indubitable truth they trumpet so loudly: Diversity is our greatest strength.

Our leaders pay lip service to assimilation even as they deny a particular American culture exists; and inasmuch as one does, it is vilified as inherently oppressive—a racist, sexist legacy to be openly rejected by the immigrant and native alike. Worse still, group rights have formally replaced the rights of the individual. The government incentivizes factionalism and rewards minorities for maintaining their cultural exclusivity through generous entitlements and policies of affirmative action. Adding more diversity to the already encouraged-to-be-indignant ethic blocs can only lead to future violent, internecine conflict—a civil war that will tear the country apart at its unnatural seams as the nations-within-nations vie against one another for scarce resources.

Lamentably, the just and the wise do not always prevail. As the rhetorical salvos are lobbed and the ideological artillery discharged, from the carnage of our country a hideous new order is bent on ascendancy. Out of the reconstituted ashes of the nation no phoenix spreads its blazing wings but there hatches a hydra—its multifarious heads and snapping beaks hissing the false praises of diversity. The Shining City on the Hill has been trampled into the ground by the hungry hordes. Liberty Enlightening the World stands not as she once did—as an inspiration—but as an easy harlot of the harbor. The Mother of Exiles has cast aside her shining lamp and, like some pagan fertility goddess, invites the huddled masses of the world to milk the bounteous udders of the State bone dry. America, home of the new mongrel proletariat has become Amerogod, great welfare state to the world.

MORE BY DTD AT THE STUDY OF REVENGE

Meet The Most Frequent Obama Visitor

The video here

This subhuman is the scum of the earth! A raving COMMUNIST PIG! So you still don't think we need a revolution and the mass termination of Leftard traitors to the Republic?

Yes, TERMINATION with extreme prejudice. We all know where this current American civil war is headed. The time is soon to come when either we kill the Leftards, or they kill us.

In the words of Bismarck:

Not through speeches and majority decisions will the great questions of the day be decided, but by iron and blood.

Mr. Smith...err...Mr. Hoffman Goes To Washington

Tuesday is election day, a nice, sleepy little off-year election, with just a few state governor's races and a special election to fill a House seat. It would be nothing special and little noted by anyone outside those states or districts—in any other year.

Instead, tomorrow is the first electoral measure of the popular reaction to the policies of the Obama administration—and, perhaps more important, the first electoral measure of the strength of the "tea party" rebellion against big government.

Surprisingly, the real fireworks are not in the Virginia or New Jersey races, but in the smallest, most obscure contest: NY-23, New York's upstate 23rd congressional district. It is a "safe" Republican district, but not one with a history of electing firebrand conservatives. When its popular, long-time incumbent was asked by the Obama administration to become Secretary of the Army—his district is home to Fort Drum—the seat opened up unexpectedly. Under party rules, the new Republican nominee was selected, not in a primary, but by a committee of local county chairmen. They chose Dede Scozzafava, a state assemblywoman with what turns out to be a very left-leaning record.

The objections to Scozzafava come from both the religious and secular wings of the right. The religionists object to the fact that she is pro-abortion, but in this year of the "tea party" protests and the town hall rebellions against socialized medicine, I don't think that would have been enough to motivate a grassroots rejection of her candidacy. Instead, what touched it off is that she is pro-union, weak in her opposition to tax increases, and—the real kiss of death—she endorsed the Obama "stimulus" bill.

All of this—both the religious issues and the big-government issues—prompted Doug Hoffman to run against Scozzafava on the Conservative Party ticket. (Significant third parties are rare in America, and the Conservative Party is a peculiar New York institution in the same way that the Democratic Farmer-Labor Party is a peculiar institution in Minnesota.) Hoffman was immediately adopted by the Republican base and by activists outside the district as, in effect, the "tea party" candidate, and he began to draw Republican support away from Scozzafava.

At first, this simply split the Republican vote, giving the Democratic candidate an advantage. But then last week a string of conservative celebrities and rising political figures—Fred Thompson, Sarah Palin, Steve Forbes, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, and so on—all endorsed Hoffman, despite the fact that the Republican establishment, including Newt Gingrich, had backed Scozzafava. The result was that Scozzafava's poll numbers collapsed, and over the weekend she withdrew from the race—and endorsed the Democratic candidate.

There was some question about whether this would benefit the Democratic candidate, whether Scozzafava's voters would really shift to the Democrat, giving him a majority in a two-man race. But it seems to have mostly benefited Hoffman. From what I can tell, Scozzafava's endorsement of the Democrat simply served to prove Hoffman right in his description of her as a leftist in disguise.

Thus, the latest polls show Hoffman with a clear lead and likely to win tomorrow's vote.

This is obviously a big message sent to both parties, but more to the Republicans than to the Democrats. The message is that the party had better nominate small-government candidates and not "me-too" types who will echo the agenda of the left.

An interesting overview of this contest also points to some other races where this will be a factor, such as a Florida race in which Governor Charlie Crist is seeking the Republican nomination for a Senate seat—but the primary may become a referendum on Crist's stance in favor of Obama's "stimulus" bill.

The significance of this race is not just about the power of the small-government movement within the Republican Party. It's also about the appeal of that movement to political independents. The conventional wisdom—represented by Gingrich—is that Republicans have to nominate more left-leaning candidates in "moderate" districts, in order to win over independent voters who are allegedly more sympathetic to the big-government agenda of the Democrats. But Hoffman's lead in the polls indicates that this conventional wisdom is wrong, and that the independents have shifted to the small-government side.

The same factor is driving the election in Virginia. The Republican candidate, Bob McDonnell, has a history as an advocate of a religious agenda, and a big controversy here has been over a graduate thesis he wrote decades ago advocating the social agenda of the religionists. But what is interesting is that McDonnell has basically declared this story an irrelevant distraction and campaigned on taxes and the economy—again, appealing to popular discontent with the rapid expansion of government. And independents have swung to his side, giving him a strong lead that makes him almost certain to win tomorrow, carrying along many other Republican candidates "down the ballot."

And we can see this story even in New Jersey—despite the best efforts of that state's Republican candidate. Chris Christie has put out campaign ads featuring President Obama—in a positive light—and he has pointedly refused to offer a plan to reduce the state's high property taxes, a major long-term issue in New Jersey politics. In short, he has done everything he could possibly do to lose the election to Democratic incumbent Jon Corzine—the candidate who is actually endorsed by Obama.

But he isn't losing. And in the past week, as it looked like the Democrat might pull ahead in the pulls, Obama has actively campaigned for Corzine. It turns out Obama has had about as much effect on New Jersey voters as he did on the International Olympic Committee: Corzine has slid back down in the polls.

As in NY-23, there is an Independent candidate who has gained a surprising number of votes on an anti-tax platform. But unlike NY-23, his poll numbers have declined recently as his supporters seem to be moving back toward the Republican. But if you take the two candidates together, the Republican and Independent command about 60% of the vote against the Democratic candidate and against the candidate backed by the president.

So the combined message of NY-23, Virginia, and New Jersey is that the "tea party" movement's rebellion against big government enjoys wide popular support, particularly among the independent voters who cast the deciding votes in elections.

This election day will make it significantly more difficult for Obama and the leftist committee chairmen in Congress to push through their health-care bill. There are dozens of Democratic congressmen serving their very first terms in right-leaning congressional districts. They now know that they can expect this to be their only term—if they vote for the bill Nancy Pelosi is sending to them.

This, by the way, is why I reluctantly recommend a vote for the Republican candidate in New Jersey, the only one of these races that really seems to be tight. No, it will not do anything to improve politics in the Garden State. But if it is seen as part of an anti-Obama message—particularly because Obama chose to campaign there—then it will serve a larger and more important purpose: reducing the chances for the passage of Obamacare.

That's the message that needs to come in loud and clear to the Democrats: that America has not shifted left and therefore that there is no base of popular support for President Obama's policies.—RWT

Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com. He is the editor of The Intellectual Activist and contributor to The Freedom Fighters Journal.

Boehner: Political Rebellion Under Way

Well, "DUH!" It's the rebellion against the socialist revolution conducted by the psychopath President Obama (formerly of Kenya) and his army of fellow travelers. This is the counter revolution gaining speed, money and membership in this the WINTER OF OUR DISCONTENT. In the spring we may see a latter day Lexington Green.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 1 (UPI) -- There is a "political rebellion" going on in America that the Republican Party is hoping to speak for, the U.S. House minority leader says.

Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, speaking Sunday on CNN's "State of Union," said an incident in which a GOP-endorsed New York congressional candidate withdrew from an election under pressure from Republican conservatives showed that "we're in the middle of a political rebellion going on in America."

Boehner said, "This rebellion are by people who really have not been actively involved in the political process. And they don't really care whether you're a Democrat or a Republican. They want to see people who are going to stand up and protect the future for our kids and grandkids."

The House candidate, Dede Scozzafava, who'd been chosen by local Republican leaders to try to hold the seat of now-U.S. Army Secretary John McHugh for the GOP, was attacked by Republican presidential hopefuls Sarah Palin and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty as not sufficiently conservative.

Scozzafava on Sunday threw her support not to Conservative Party candidate Bill Hoffman but to Democratic candidate Bill Owens, the Washington publication The Hill reported.

RUSH LIMBAUGH ON FOX NEWS SUNDAY NOVEMBER 1, 2009

CHRIS WALLACE: Now to our interview with Rush Limbaugh. Whether you love him or can't stand him, he is a major player on the American political scene. For three hours a day, five days a week, he tells listeners exactly what he thinks on more than 600 radio stations across the country.

We traveled to Palm Beach this week where Rush does his show for a rare interview discussing everything from politics to whether he's really worth that huge amount of money he makes.

WALLACE: Rush, welcome to "FOX News Sunday."

RUSH: Thank you. Appreciate it.

WALLACE: This week it will be one year since Barack Obama was elected president. In that time, what has he done for and to the country?

RUSH: I think it's all to. I don't think there's any for. I'm -- Chris, I'm -- I'm really, really worried. We've never seen this kind of radical leadership at such a high level of power in the -- in the country.

I believe that the economy is under siege, is being destroyed. Anybody with any economic literacy would not do one thing this administration's done to try to revitalize the private sector. They're destroying it.

And I have to think that it may be on purpose, because this is just outrageous, what is happening -- a denial of liberty, an attack on freedom.

I mean, just -- just a couple days ago, they talked about these 650,000 jobs that they've created or saved. There's no such thing as a saved job. Besides that, they've destroyed jobs. They've lost 3.3 million jobs in this country since Obama's stimulus plan, and it's going to get worse.

WALLACE: But -- but wait a minute. How about save the country from a financial abyss, 3.5 percent growth in the third quarter in GDP?

RUSH: There wasn't any growth in the private sector. That 3.5 percent came from two things -- government spending on "Cash for Clunkers" -- they just moved fourth quarter auto sales into the third quarter -- and the first-time home buyer thing.

GDP equals CIG -- that is, consumers, the investment of business, and government. And it's all G. It's all government. There is no private sector growth. There were no new jobs being created. We're losing them.

WALLACE: How about kept the country safe for nine months?

RUSH: I don't know how safe we are. Iran is nuking up. Everything that we've asked them to do they are forgetting. They're not going to move their plutonium, their enriched plutonium -- uranium out of the country like they said so.

We can't make up our minds what we're going to do in Afghanistan. We're dithering there. I don't -- I don't think we're any better off in any way it could be measured.

WALLACE: You have now taken to calling Mr. Obama "the man-child president."

RUSH: Right.

WALLACE: What does that mean?

RUSH: Just -- he's (inaudible) he's a child. I think he's -- he's got a -- a five-minute career. He was in the Senate for 150 days. He was a community organizer in Chicago for however number of years.

He really has no experience running anything. He's very young. I think he's got an out-of-this-world ego. He's very narcissistic. And he's able to focus all attention on him all the time. That -- that description is simply a way to cut through the noise and say he's immature, inexperienced, in over his head.

WALLACE: Let's talk about a couple of the big issues the president is dealing with now -- first of all, Afghanistan. You suggest that he is taking all of this time to decide what to do in Afghanistan to keep his left-wing base on board for health care reform.

RUSH: Well, it's partly that, but I also don't think he cares much about it. I think once...

WALLACE: Well, come on.

RUSH: No, I -- no, see, this is -- I know this is going to sound controversial, but I don't think he cares that -- if he -- Chris, if he cared about -- we've got soldiers and their families worrying about what we're going to do. The general on the ground said we need some more troops.

The policy that he implemented in March he now doesn't like and is trying to figure out how best to make everybody happy here politically on his side of the aisle and also for his image. Democrats have a tendency to be seen as weak on defense, so he's battling with that.

But again, if he cared about victory -- remember, he said about Afghanistan victory is not something he's comfortable with, the concept. It reminds him of the Japanese surrendering on the USS Missouri. It made him very uncomfortable.

He wants to manage this rather than achieve victory. He says these things. I don't know if people actually listen and have them register when he does.

WALLACE: But you say you don't know that he really cares. Do you at least give him credit for going to Dover, Delaware to honor the remains of soldiers, dead soldiers, who came back from Afghanistan?

RUSH: You know, see, the politically correct thing to say here would be, "Oh, yes, I am very impressed that President Obama decided to go show his concern for the remains, troops who've given their lives for freedom in this country."

It was a photo op. It was a photo op precisely because he's having big-time trouble on this whole Afghanistan dithering situation. He found one family that would allow photos to be taken. None of the others did.

And of course, when you have a sycophantic media following you around, able to promote and amplify whatever you want, then he can create the impression that he has all this great concern, but the -- Bush did this...
WALLACE: Well, no...

RUSH: ... but no cameras.

WALLACE: I don't know that he ever went to Dover, Delaware.

RUSH: No, he went to see the families.

WALLACE: Yes, he certainly went to see the families.

RUSH: But he didn't make photo ops out of it. The...

WALLACE: Well, but the argument would be that it was political of Bush not to be seen with the coffins because he was trying to hide it, hide the cost of war from the American people.

RUSH: Well, I have the benefit of knowing George Bush a little bit, and I -- I -- I've seen him cry talking about missions that he's ordered. I think he has a great, profound, deep respect for the families of all military personnel, and those who have died...

WALLACE: But I don't disagree with that...

RUSH: ... and I -- he's not going to use them.

WALLACE: But you don't think that Barack Obama has a profound respect for our soldiers and the families that are giving the sacrifice?

RUSH: Chris, throughout the Iraq war, it was Barack Obama and the Democrat Party which actively sought the defeat of the U.S. military. They convened hearings and accused General Petraeus of lying. They said the surge would not work.

Harry Reid stands up, waves the white flag -- this war is lost. Jack Murtha is out saying our Marines at Haditha are guilty of rape. John Kerry is accusing our Marines of committing terrorism acts by going into the homes of Iraqis at midnight in the dark terrorizing, looking for Al Qaida or whoever was there.

Yeah. I mean, look. I hate to be honest with you here, but I do question their commitment to national security. I question their commitment to the U.S. military. They'll put their political survival and their political power being gained over anything else. They'll use anybody and throw anybody away in order to achieve it.

WALLACE: You also say that the president should give the generals, the commanders on the ground, as many troops as they need to win.

But a staunch conservative like George Will says, "Look, this -- Afghanistan has been a dysfunctional country. It's a corrupt country," and that we can beat the Taliban and beat Al Qaida without this huge commitment of new troops.

RUSH: Well, I don't know that. I don't -- I don't have the benefit of knowledge that George Will has, so I trust the experts, and to me they're the people in the U.S. military.

But these are -- these are -- you know, the surge in Iraq -- same thing. We went -- it worked. The Democrats were the ones opposed to it. They said it would fail, it wouldn't work. And by all measure it did.

Now the basic same theories are being suggested for Afghanistan and -- I don't know. The thing that bothers me about this is we're there. You know, it's -- whether we should have gone or what we've done heretofore is now irrelevant. There's only one thing to do, win. you know, what about Afghanistan? Easy. We win, they lose.

WALLACE: Let's turn to health care reform.

RUSH: Yeah.

WALLACE: You have made no secret of the fact you oppose the public option, government-run health insurance to compete with private insurers. With tens of millions of Americans still uninsured, do you think that the government has any moral obligation to find some way to cover them?

RUSH: There is a way to insure the uninsured without doing any of what we're doing. If that were the objective, then I'd be full for it.

This is not about insuring the uninsured. This is not about health care. This is about stealing one-sixth of the U.S. private sector and putting it under the control of federal government.

And when they get this health care bill, if they do, that's the easiest, fastest way for them to be able to regulate every aspect of human behavior, because it will all have some related cost to health care -- what you drive, what you eat, where you live, what you do.

And there'll be penalties for violating regulations. It's going to be the biggest snatch of freedom and liberty that has yet occurred in this country.

WALLACE: And in 30 seconds, how do you insure the insured without this big overhaul?

RUSH: Well, I've run the numbers, and the real number of uninsured that want insurance is 12 million. Take some of the unspent stimulus. We have 85 percent of the stimulus unspent. Take some of it. For 35 to $40 billion a year, you could insure those people, not $2 trillion, not 1.4 -- if that's the objective, do it now.

WALLACE: Do you think the individual mandate is constitutional? Do you think...

RUSH: No, I don't think the...

WALLACE: ... do you think the government has the right...

RUSH: No.
WALLACE: ... to tell people, "You're going to get health insurance, and if you don't get it, you're going to pay a penalty?"

RUSH: I do not think it's constitutional. Chris, this -- this is -- these are dark days for the country. This is deadly serious stuff. This is a total attempt to remake the country as founded and constituted. And it -- it worries me greatly.

WALLACE: We asked our viewers for some questions.

RUSH: I love Fox viewers. I love them.

WALLACE: Well, George Heplin (ph) sent this, "If President Obama would agree to an interview, what would be your first question?"

RUSH: Why are you doing this? Why? What in -- what -- what do you not like about this country that makes you want to inflict this kind of damage on it?

WALLACE: Lucille Golman sent this question, "Did you vote for John McCain in the 2008 presidential election?"

RUSH: I did.

WALLACE: Really?

RUSH: Of course.

WALLACE: But you've been so critical of John McCain.

RUSH: Yes, but you weigh the two. I don't think -- there are a lot of people, Chris, that are saying there's no difference in two parties. I know a lot of people think that, and they're -- and they really, really believe it.

But I don't know of any Republican who would try to take over one-sixth of the U.S. economy. I don't know one Republican who would put forth this -- this irresponsible cap and trade bill. I don't know one Republican who would actually do that as something he initiated.

WALLACE: Let's talk about the state of the GOP. A recent Fox News poll found that the approval rating for the president has dropped to 49 percent, but meanwhile, only 25 percent of people approve of congressional Republicans.

As voters have growing doubts about the president and his policies, why aren't they turning to the opposition? Is there something that the -- that the Republican Party lacks in the way of a positive, affirmative agenda?

RUSH: The Republican Party needs to learn something. If it goes country club blue-blood moderate, it's going to lose. If it goes Reagan conservative and commits to it, it's going to win landslides.

WALLACE: To press my question, why aren't people turning to the Republicans?
RUSH: Well, right -- right now there's no central Republican leader to turn to, and there's no central Republican message. The Republican messages is sort of muddied. What do they stand for? Right now it's opposition to Obama.

WALLACE: And is that enough?

RUSH: Well, it may be in 2010. I mean, I -- I actually do think that there's going to be a revolt against the Democrat Party and against Obama, even if voters in 2010 have nothing to vote for.

WALLACE: So do you think that the Republican Party -- do you see it as a big-tent party or small-tent party?

RUSH: Big tent.

WALLACE: But -- but you sound like you're kind of saying to the moderates, the -- particularly on social issues, "If we lose you, too bad."

RUSH: Well, I look at -- when I say big tent, I look at the United States of America, so I -- I -- I'm an American. I love this country. I want everybody in it to do well.

The conservative message is not, "OK, Hispanics, we have this plan for you. Women, we have this plan for you." That's what the Republican Party's trying to do, and emulate group politics. And the history is that -- you know, why be Democrat lite? Let them handle that.

Let's go after the big tent that is the country, and let's go get every person in this country -- I don't care what their race is, what their gender is, what their sexual orientation.

If they are told that there is somebody that's going to lead this country or party that is actually going to strengthen them, give them the tools, get out of their way and let them make this country work, the Republican Party can attract a majority like they haven't seen since the '80s.

WALLACE: In the Time Magazine article about Glenn Beck recently...

RUSH: Oh, yeah.

WALLACE: ... they write just as you found your place as the triumphant champion of the age of Reagan, that Beck is tapping into the fear and anger on the right today.

Is that why you think he's struck such a chord, because he taps into the fear and the anger of the conservatives today?

RUSH: There is a lot of fear. There's a -- there's a tremendous amount of fear in the country over what is happening in Washington to individual liberty and freedom. He may well have tapped into that.
The anger -- I think that's -- that's sometimes overplayed, because it's become a cliche for the left to say angry white men as a way of denigrating conservative energy and ideology. But there's no question there's a lot of anger. And if -- and if he's tapped into that, I wouldn't be surprised.

WALLACE: When you look at Glenn Beck and you see this explosion, what do you feel?

RUSH: Well, I'm kind of -- I'm kind of proud.

WALLACE: No envy, no competition?

RUSH: No, no, no, no, no. I mean, my radio audience is astronomically high. I'm -- look it, in 1988 there was nobody doing what I'm doing. Nobody. You had -- CNN was the only cable network, and you had the three networks and the newspapers.

And now look. Now look what's out -- all of this conservative media, conservative talk radio, television, Fox News, the conservative blogosphere. I mean, I -- in one way, I could -- I could -- if I wanted to have my ego to be as big as Obama's is, I could say, "Look what I created."

So any success out there on my side, conservative media -- damn, if it's going to help us get this country back, bring more in.

WALLACE: Let's talk about you. You said recently, "I actually thank God for my addiction to pain pills because I learned more about myself in rehab than I would have ever learned otherwise." What did you learn from drug rehab?

RUSH: One of the -- one of the things that I'd always had trouble with in my life was trying to be what other people expected me to be or wanted me to be, in my personal life, because I wanted to be liked.

And everybody's raised to want to be liked and to want to be loved. Nobody wants to grow up being hated. Now, interestingly, my radio career -- I don't care. You know, I -- I figured that out. It was a tough thing, Chris, to learn to take as a measure of success being hated, you know, by 20 or 30 percent of the country. I mean, that -- because nobody's raised for that.

But in my personal life, what I -- the thing I learned most was that the only way to have real intimacy with people, real solid relationships, is to be who you are. That will attract the kind of people worthy of having intimate relationships with, good friendships with.

WALLACE: And without putting you on the couch, are you saying that the addiction came from some sense of personal inadequacy?
RUSH: Oh, of course. Yeah. It -- I wasn't good enough. I was masking unhappiness elsewhere, not dealing with the real reasons I was unhappy in my personal life. I had -- I had never experienced the kind of euphoria that I got from a pain pill.

I think the only time that I really -- with all the success I've had, the only time I've had the kind of euphoria is when I made the high school football team as a sophomore. I was never prouder of myself.

But all my career achievements did not create that for me, because it's -- you've got to maintain it every day. It's not something you earn and that it lasts forever. And I don't look back. I don't stop and think about what I've accomplished because there's always tomorrow, so I don't have time for the euphoria. I don't have time for that.

Man, am I -- it's -- I'm too busy trying to meet everybody's expectations tomorrow. So the pain pills came along and they masked all these feelings of inadequacy that I had. Now, after just seven weeks of this place in Arizona, I have zero feelings of inadequacy.

It has not been replaced by an irresponsible ego. It's just a confidence in who I am.

WALLACE: You signed a new contract last year -- eight years, reportedly $400 million.

RUSH: Reportedly, right.

WALLACE: So I'll -- I'll go to the horse's mouth. True?

RUSH: It could be true. You know, I'm a -- a guy who earns a percentage of what I generate every year. There are some guarantees, but I'll tell -- the $400 million is not guaranteed. I have to earn that. So far...

WALLACE: But you could earn $400 million.

RUSH: I could. I'm ahead of schedule, in fact.

WALLACE: And don't get me wrong.

RUSH: Right.

WALLACE: I think you're a great broadcaster. How can you possibly be worth that kind of money?

RUSH: Very simply. Value is determined by what somebody will pay you to do what you do. I'm probably worth more. I'm not complaining. Do not -- do not misunderstood.

But you know, this whole question -- see, because I'm a capitalist. You're worth whatever you can get. You're worth whatever your value is, and that's determined by what somebody's willing to pay you for it.
And the only reason I get that money is because the people who invest in me get results beyond their expectations.

WALLACE: All right. You believe in the free market.

RUSH: I do.

WALLACE: Let's talk about the NFL and the decision to drop you as a possible owner. What about the argument, "Look, this is a bunch of billionaire owners sitting around and saying, 'Rush Limbaugh isn't good for business?'" Is that the free market?

RUSH: Yeah, but that didn't happen. It never was allowed to get to that point. My name was leaked as being part of a group. Roger Goodell, the commissioner, goes out and cites a six-year-old quote from -- that I made about Donovan McNabb, got it all wrong.

Jim Irsay of the -- I call him "Hearsay" because he's repeating things that weren't true -- the owner of the Indianapolis Colts, joins the chorus. I never got -- I never got past first base. I mean, we...

WALLACE: So what do you think that was about? What do you think happened?

RUSH: Well, I think it's actually about the fact that the NFL is about to lose its current collective bargaining agreement with the players.

And guess who happens to be the new executive director of the players association? A guy named DeMaurice Smith, who is Obama. He's part of his transition team. He has -- he has suggested that the Congress, the White House, might get involved in stop a player-owner lockout.

So I -- I think -- and he got involved in this, too, you know. He was out participating in the spreading of quotes I didn't say, warning Goodell and the owners what might -- I think this was a warning shot across the bow, saying to the NFL, "Look, we're going to be close to running this league, not you. We don't want this guy here."

And I think -- I don't -- I don't really take this personally, but I do think it was a bunch of cowardice all the way around.

WALLACE: Let's do a lightning round -- quick questions, quick answers.

RUSH: All right.

WALLACE: You started talking about Vice President Biden this week, and you said to your producers, "Now, get the bleep button, because I may go over the line," and then you censored yourself. So I'll ask you, what do you think of Joe Biden?

RUSH: Pompous, a bit of a windbag and wrong.
WALLACE: About?

RUSH: Pretty much everything. I mean, he was a guy in July who says, "Well, we -- we guessed wrong on the stimulus jobs." We guessed wrong. Anybody with a brain could have told you the stimulus plan wasn't going to work. I mean, he's a walking comedy of errors.

WALLACE: Sarah Palin -- you say that you admire her backbone. Do you really think she's ready to be president?

RUSH: Well, yes, I do. See, I am a -- one thing I do not do is follow conventional wisdom, and the conventional wisdom of Sarah Palin is she's not smart enough, she needs to bone up on the issues, she's a little unsophisticated, she -- Alaska, where's that? -- doesn't have the pedigree.

I've seen -- she's the only thing that provided any kind of a spark for the Republican Party. This is not an endorsement, but I do have profound respect for Sarah Palin.

There are not very many politicians who have been through what she's through -- been put through and still able to smile and be ebullient and upbeat. I mean, this woman, I think, is pretty tough.

WALLACE: Finally, some politics. You predict a possible blood bath for Democrats in 2010.

RUSH: I really do. I know that there is an eruption waiting to happen at the ballot box. I know that a majority of the people in this country are opposed to every single major agenda item that Obama has proposed and is trying to get passed.

The mainstream media doesn't do it, doesn't know it. They think they need a visa to go to Missouri. You know, they -- they're not in touch with what's happening out -- and in fact, if they find out that there's this kind of angst, they look at the voters with contempt -- "Well, you're not sophisticated to understand how brilliant Obama is and how magical his agenda" -- they don't want any part of it.

And it's going to be bigger than anybody thinks, especially -- especially -- if health care gets passed, and if they get cap and trade, and they start going down this global warming fiasco track and get something passed on that. There will be a revolt at the polls.

WALLACE: If you had to bet now, does Barack Obama win re- election in 2012?

RUSH: If I had to bet now, he will not.

WALLACE: Have you got a name of somebody who's going to beat him...

RUSH: No.

WALLACE: ... can beat him?

RUSH: No. I have no clue about that.

WALLACE: If he does win, how is Rush Limbaugh going to handle seven more years of Barack Obama?

RUSH: You know, I'm glad you asked me that, because one of the questions I always get is, "Rush, isn't Obama -- aren't these Democrats in power good for your business?" The way I go about my business, I'm out to get the highest ratings I get every day.

I'm going to attract the largest audience I can regardless the news. It's my -- it's my talent that draws the crowd. The news is incidental to it. No. I'm worried, seriously worried, about the future of the country.

I would never put my personal success in front of what I think is something that's disastrous for the country.

WALLACE: And seven more years of Barack Obama would...

RUSH: Well, it would be painful. It would literally be painful. This is -- every day you get up and there's a new potential threat to liberty and freedom being launched by this man and his administration.

And it's kind of -- be -- I mean, I -- some days I'm in -- I'm in radio and some days I feel like I'm in the trenches in a war -- no bullets being fired, but trenches in a war. I mean, it's really -- it's really intense when -- you know, I love this country.

To have this kind of passion, and my -- you know, I want -- Paul Revere. I want as many people to hear what I think the problems are, because I believe the people of this country eventually will make it -- make it work and get what they want. I do believe in the Democratic process and the vote.

WALLACE: Rush, thank you.

RUSH: Thank you, Chris.

END TRANSCRIPT

Read the Background Material...

• Fox News: Limbaugh Tells Fox News Dems Trying to 'Steal' Private Sector

If You Can't Find The Book You Want, Maybe You're At...

"OBAMA: SHOW AMERICA YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE!"

You really have to hand it to Liberals when it comes to picking conspiracies. They do have some doozies. Yet they think that theirs are intellectual and legitimate while any that Conservatives come up with are loony. Liberals also have a certain unsavory predilection for handing out insulting, and all too often vulgar, names to those of us who think against their grain. When dealing with these far Left conspiracies we must always remember; while Conservatives think, Liberals 'feel.'

For example look at how the Liberals 'feel' about Hurricane Katrina:

Liberals feel that they are being intellectually scientific when they say that the Bush administration was responsible for an unnatural increase of hurricane activity and the heightened severity of these hurricanes during his administration. They will look you straight in the eye and tell you that Bush ordered the US Navy to destroy the levees of a US city, New Orleans. I believe they claim that it was the battleship Iowa that was doing most the dirty work. Then they complain that the ridiculously bureaucratic FEMA's slow response was all due to racism by the Bush administration. It would be totally ridiculous and impossible for a President to do what these Liberals 'feel' he has done, but then being ridiculous is an inalienable right for Liberals.

To Liberals it doesn't matter that hurricanes have historically followed a natural pattern of increasing and decreasing activities, or that such hurricanes also historically follow a natural pattern in the increasing and decreasing of their strength and severity. That's just too much science, and every Liberal knows that Bush hated science so much that he outlawed it during his administration.

Apparently Liberals know nothing about being on a ship in the midst of a hurricane or typhoon. One of the few stories my father related to me about his days in WW II was of being caught in that infamous typhoon off the Japanese Islands in the spring of 1945 and of how his destroyer just missed by a few degrees from being rolled over. Our Navy lost a lot of good ships and brave men in that typhoon but Liberals may have never heard of such a thing so perhaps they don't realize how dangerous the high winds and waves of a typhoon or hurricane can be to a ship at sea. Still, according to Liberals there were our Navy's ships out in that violent storm just off the Louisiana coast during Hurricane Katrina bombarding the city.

Liberals also must not have a clue about windage and elevation when it comes to shooting guns. Be it BB guns to the big guns on battleships, wind, rain, temperature and the weather in general all affect where the rounds end up. In a hurricane it must be near impossible to hit anything, especially levees that are miles away and that are being fired at by ships in distress. Liberals could learn about how weather affects the accuracy of a round, big or small, like I did in the Marine Corps. But then if they are not so inclined to enlist for a few years perhaps they could just watch the movie 'Sergeant York.'

If Conservatives are dealing with minorities than as far as Liberals are concerned everything comes down to race. Minorities don't even cry racism as much as Liberals. Concerning FEMA during Katrina, for Liberals the overbearing bureaucracy and overwhelming logistics had nothing to do with FEMA's slow response, for FEMA's late arrival was all due to Bush's supposed racism.

Other Liberal conspiracies say that Bush knew about the attacks of 9-11 before they happened. Or Liberals even believe that the Bush administration was behind the attacks and that he ordered the deaths of over 3000 people so that he could attack Iraq. Then there's the one where Osama bin Laden is actually a CIA operative who was given the go ahead by Americans to kill Americans. Of course these theories are utterly absurd but that doesn't stop the Libbies from demanding investigations.

When it comes to their Global Warming conspiracy for some reason Liberals are not even as smart as the first cavemen. Even cavemen knew that when the Sun came up the Earth got hotter and when the Sun went down the Earth cooled off. I mean it's like the difference between night and day! Yet Liberals now disregard the natural influence of the Sun and its historical surface changes that affect the ever so slight fluctuations of the Earth's temperatures, such as increasing and decreasing sun spot activities, resulting in the natural and non-fatal influence upon the Earth. Instead Liberals choose to believe that the Earth is getting hotter because earthworms and cows flatulent too much and so to save the Earth all non-Liberal humans need to stop breathing.

Liberals also believe that America faked the Moon landings and that fifty years of space exploration has all been conducted in a New Mexico barn.

These are all Liberal causes that any sane person finds absurd and annoying. Yet Liberals think that they hold the intellectual high ground so when American taxpayers show up at Town Hall Meetings to protest the dangerous Congressional spending they are ridiculed as being uncivil and are referred to in such derogatory terms as the Mob, Racists and Nazis.

Again when other American Patriots protest the insane Liberal spending policies of our government, Liberals claim that these Tea Parties are Astroturf movements generated by Fox News and other far rightwing organizations. The participants are labeled as racists, lunatics, Nazis and fools. In displaying their penchant for vulgarity and to villainously mock their fellow countrymen Liberals use a homosexual slang term for an obscene sex act by calling these upset taxpayers, Teabaggers, how clever.

Likewise Liberals believe that anyone who does not approve of Obama and his policies are racists. Therefore they must also 'feel' that the only reason Obama did not get 100% of the vote in the last election is because America is such a racist nation!

Liberals believe that Fox News is a biased rightwing conspiracy designed to ruin Obama, his administration, agenda and reputation, but feel that the unashamed, biased bootlicking at MSNBC is just honest, unbiased journalism.

And while Liberals can unabashedly claim that President Bush attacked US cities and murdered US citizens, they declare the complete insanity of the Americans who are simply demanding to see a sitting President's birth certificate proving that he is rightly a natural born citizen of the United States as required by the Constitution. These Patriots are mockingly referred to by Liberals as "birthers" and how dare they even question the constitutional legality of their Chosen One!

Imagine a man comes home from a hard day at the office and his wife immediately meets him at the front door. She is all decked out in a beautiful black and red evening dress with shimmering black pumps and is wearing a diamond necklace with matching earrings.

"Honey," she says sweetly. "Tonight you are going to keep your promise and take me to that Broadway Show and out to dinner."

"Ah…ah…" The man mumbles while wishing he had brought his Teleprompters home with him. "I'm afraid… ah… we can't… ah… do that… ah… we… ah… don't… ah… have the… ah…ah… money."

"What are you talking about," she fires back. "Of course we do, wait a minute… Barry! What have you been up to?"

"Well… ah… you see Baby… ah… it's those…ah… those damn birthers… ah… they just… ah… won't leave me alone… ah… ah… ah… oh hell… ah… I just spent 1.7 million to… ah… keep my… ah… birth certificate hidden… ah…so …ah… there. But… ah… Baby… ah… I did it for you Baby… ah…"

"Well, we're goin' so you call your office and tell them that tonight's on the US taxpayers… but we're goin'!"

"Ah… yes… ah… sir… ah… Baby." He replies as he picks up the phone, "Hello Rahm…"

And therein lies my biggest problem with your president's refusal to produce his original birth certificate.

Why on Earth would anybody spend 1.7 million dollars, and climbing, to hide his birth certificate if it truly does prove that he is a natural born US citizen and is eligible to hold the office of President of The United States? Well, they wouldn't so why is Obama withholding his? As it stands now the only two things that are increasing more than Barry's B.C. legal fees are the national deficit and the unemployment rate.

If Obama was really born in Hawaii his actions of hiding a legitimate US birth certificate defies all logic. Likewise in a time of financial crisis for the rest of us his wasting of 1.7 million to hide what millions of other Americans must produce on a daily basis on demand by a hundred different government agencies, and for a lot less important issues than being the President, is fiscally appalling to those of us just trying to meet the rent.

His refusal to follow through with his repeated promises of an administration of unequaled "transparency" would be laughable if it didn't display his galling arrogance and his utter distain towards the American people. Don't the citizens of this country have the right to know that their President was actually born here? Well…yes we do, so what's the problem Junior?

Financially the Obama's are not hurting but by no means are they to be considered rich. Besides no matter how rich he might be, no sane man wastes 1.7 million to hide his legitimate US birth certificate unless there is a very good reason why he does not want it to be shown. If in some future date he produces this document showing that he was actually born in Hawaii and then gives some lame excuse for not showing it before he spent millions to hide it, then every American who has been unemployed or going without because of our depressed economy should get a chance to kick his butt.

Here's a thought; perhaps Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize as a way for the Nobel Committee to donate the 1.5 million check that goes along with it to Junior's birth certificate legal fees? Makes more sense than anything else I've heard of why this no-show won it.

Liberals will tell you that he has given us a B.C. but that is not true. What he has given us is a simple form from Hawaii that simply states he is alive. My son got the same thing for his daughter when he received custody of her in Hawaii. It took him twenty minutes at Public Records and cost ten bucks, twenty if you include the outrageous Honolulu parking fees. He needed it to insure that his daughter could leave the state without any hassles and his ex wouldn't give up the hospital B.C. So what Barry has given as proof of his citizenship is a ten-dollar live birth declaration and 1.7 million in lawyers' fees. Maybe that's part of Barry's back to work plan, by keeping a few more lawyers busy with this simple nonsense.

There are all other kinds of problems with this B. C. issue, like were his parents married or not at the time of his birth. Did Junior give up his US citizenship when he became Barry Soetoro? His paternal grandmother swears that she was present in Kenya when young B. H. O. Jr. was born and there is a plague in the Kenyan hospital commemorating his birth there.

One of the most intriguing issues of Junior's citizenship concerns his world travels as a young man with a passport of unknown announced citizenship. Like his school records and transcripts, that passport information apparently didn't fall under Obama's promise of transparency either. Besides not knowing how a struggling twenty-year old student like Barry Jr. could afford such an extended trip abroad, during this trip in 1981 he also traveled to Pakistan when no US citizens were allowed to enter Pakistan by the United States' government. Oh please explain to me how the Magic One managed such a James Bondian feat, birther bashers. Inquiring minds want to know!

Personally I have never owned a passport as all of my International travel was arranged through the famous Marine Corps' Travel Agency. That has some disadvantages like you don't really get to choose where they are sending you. However, one huge advantage is that not only are you required to carry a weapon upon arrival, you get to use it. But even then you have to produce a birth certificate way back in the beginning of this process at that bastion of truth and confidentiality, the recruiter's office. The Marine Corps' Travel Agency could have gotten my Brothers and I into Pakistan in 1981, if the need had arose, but Barry wasn't in that same position, so how did he get into Pakistan as a US citizen? Maybe he crossed into Pakistan at the Afghani border disguised as a Taliban refugee? That would help to explain some of those pictures of his trip.

By the way, just about anyone can get a copy of my service records, so why can't a judge get a copy of Barry's birth certificate?

Liberals will also tell you that if the birth certificate was really a problem that the Democrats and their media would have found out about it when they vetted him. But that's a joke right? I mean everybody knows that the Dems and their lapdog media never even came close to vetting this guy; they made a lot of excuses for him though. To bad the voters didn't vet him either.

Next the Libs tell us that if this issue really was a problem that certainly the Republicans would have used it against Obama in the last election. And if not the Republicans then Hillary sure would have brought it up. But the trouble with this lame excuse is that the Hill Pill and the McCain campaign did mention this birth certificate issue. The results were an immediate superficial cry of racism by the Liberals, the Obama campaign and their adoring press so everybody dropped it quicker than Henry Gates can bad mouth a White cops Mama!

Lastly Liberals will point out how judges all over the country are throwing out these cases to get Obama's B.C. made public as proof that there is nothing to the conspiracy. Wrong, judges throw out rightful cases on legal technicalities everyday, and most of these cases have been dismissed because of some technicality.

The latest judge to throw out a B.C. case was a Clinton appointee, in California no less, so two strikes against the challengers right there, on the grounds that no court could rule on a the legitimacy of a sitting president, strike three. The fact that this judge so violently condemned the 'birthers' only points out where his already obvious sympathies lay. It has also been stated that the Hawaiian Republican Governor has sealed Obama's hospital birth certificate. So what? To be the first Republican Governor in the ultra liberal state of Hawaii in forty-eight years you can bet she is at the most a Centralist. Besides the Governor is simply obeying Hawaiian law that states only Obama, his descendants or a person with a court order can get a copy of Obama's birth certificate. Plus orders from the White House must be obeyed by a Governor in Hawaii just like they must be obeyed by… oh let's say, a Commanding General in Afghanistan. Neither order is pleasant to follow as one has to hide something and the other must put his troops' safety at risk and wait, and wait, and wait, and…

It's Chicago politics folks and the mere fact that Barry, Jr. has spent so much money to hide what the Liberals claim is a document proving Junior is a natural born US citizen only adds credence to the belief that he is not. Liberals think that those among us who want prove that Obama is a natural born US citizen, as our Constitution requires, are a joke. But Obama talking about truth, honesty, transparency and "an end to the old ways of Washington politics" are the only jokes in this issue, not the "birthers."

Show Us The Birth Certificate!


SOURCE