SIGN UP - IT'S FREE!
SEARCH FSM
| National Debt Clock |
A million seconds pass in 12 days.
A billion seconds pass in 31 years.
A trillion seconds pass in 31,688 years!
December 30, 2009
Exclusive – Oval Office Watch – Wednesday, December 30
2009: The Year of Living Fecklessly - HERE.
Frank Capra movies make some folks examine President Obama's views - HERE.
Obamacare’s Constitutional Problems Proliferating - Read article.
Cap and Trade: A License Required for your Home - SEE HERE.
2010 could be 'year of the angry white male' redux
Dave Cook, CS Monitor.com
A new Battleground Poll shows that “voters tend to describe themselves as angry, pessimistic, anxious, and depressed,” says Celinda Lake, president of Lake Research Partners, a political strategy firm that works for Democratic candidates.
Ms. Lake and Republican pollster Ed Goeas jointly oversee the Battleground Poll.
Things may get worse for office holders after Christmas, as voters deal with holiday bills and with the effects of layoffs that often come just before the end of the year.
“Whatever mood the voters are in right now, they are likely to be in a particularly ornery mood toward every elected official by January,” Lake says. “And one of the more interesting places they may take this out is less at the federal election [level] and more at the governorships. You may see a record number of governorships change party.”
With Democrats holding control of both houses of Congress, angry voters could spell trouble for the party in 2010 elections, argues Mr. Goeas, CEO of the Tarrance Group.
“There is a potential for [2010] being a 1994 year of the angry white male,” Goeas says. That year, Democrats lost 54 seats and Republicans took control of the House for the first time in 40 years.
Battleground Poll data shows independent voters now rank 13 percentage points higher than Democrats [77 percent versus 64 percent] in saying they are likely to vote in the next election. “So the pool of angry independents is larger than what you normally see in an off election year…. It is certainly something that is going to be problematic for the Democrats,” Goeas says. Read article.
For Obama, 2010 in the Middle East Looks More Like the Precipice of Doom than Achievement
Barry Rubin, Gloria-Center.org
The year 2010 is going to be interesting. Well, all years in the Middle East are interesting; many of them are far too interesting.
For the Obama Administration, I'm going to predict, it will not be a fun year. True, the best face will be put on things. Since it is protected-perhaps next year to a lesser degree--by the media, the administration has a special advantage over its predecessors. Yet there are two huge and two potentially serious problems which it cannot solve.
The first unsolvable problem is the Arab-Israeli conflict. Last January, President Barack Obama promised a quick solution to the issue. Then he promised that an Israeli freeze of construction on settlements would lead to a diplomatic breakthrough. A few months later, he promised he'd get some Arab concessions in response to an Israeli freeze. In September he promised that final status negotiations would begin in two months.
None of these things happened.
In fact, Obama's policy sabotaged progress. After all, if he was bashing Israel to some extent and demanding a freeze, why should the Palestinians give Israel a way out by negotiating and accept anything less than a total freeze? U.S.-Israel relations have now improved considerably and are good, but there's no talks going on because the Palestinian Authority is saying "no."
Remember in his Cairo speech, Obama said the Palestinian situation was "intolerable." The Palestinians disagree with him. They know they are doing pretty well materially, the world is criticizing Israel, and they don't have to make any concessions.
But here's where it gets interesting........... Read article.
America's Survival Is At Stake
Roger Chapin, Townhall.com
Never before in our history has an American president, deliberately and by design, risked our very survival to a maniacal enemy power sworn to remove America from the world. Yet from all appearances, this is exactly what Obama is doing by failing to vigorously oppose Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.
But in spite of the fact that over 60% of the public favors militarily destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities, there’s nary a word of protest from the Republicans in opposition. They’re so paranoid about being labeled warmongers that they have shamefully abdicated their own national security responsibilities, just as John McCain did during his presidential run.
Obama is weakening rather than strengthening our missile defenses. That’s how seriously this Administration takes the Iranian threat.
The reality is that the fanatical, messianically driven radical Iranian zealots will pay any price, including Iran’s virtual obliteration, in order to render the U.S. and its major allies non-players on the world scene. The mullahs expect to emerge from the ruins no longer hindered by the “Great Satan,” free to use their huge oil and gas reserves to fund the imposition of their tyranny throughout the Middle East and beyond. Read article.
Catch and Release - The Guantanamo Recidivism Problem.
Stephen F. Hayes, Weekly Standard.com
The Bush administration released the first recidivism study in June 2008. President Obama has promised to run "the most transparent administration in history." But when it comes to the DIA recidivist study, it is not even as transparent as its predecessor. Many of the recidivists, moreover, are already known--there is no reason that the government should classify those details that can be sourced to newspaper accounts.
In February, for example, the Saudi Kingdom published a list of its 85 most-wanted terrorists. At least 11 of them were once detained at Gitmo. Said al Shihri was held at Guantánamo. He is now the deputy leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, an al Qaeda affiliate that the Obama administration has told us is one of the strongest in the world. Ibrahim Rubaish was held at Gitmo, too. He is now the chief ideologist for al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and is responsible for providing the theological justifications for al Qaeda's terror. Two other members of the Saudi 11 have been killed in shootouts.
Every month, it seems, we learn about more Gitmo detainees who have returned to jihad. In June 2008, the DoD reported that 37 former detainees were "confirmed or suspected" of returning to terrorism. On January 13, 2009--seven months later--Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said that number had climbed to 61. In May 2009, when the last report was leaked to the New York Times, the DoD had found that same metric had risen further to 74--exactly double the Pentagon's estimate just 11 months before. At that rate, the Pentagon is identifying on average more than three former Gitmo detainees who are thought to have returned to terrorism each month.
If ex-Guantánamo prisoners are rejoining the fight, just as the administration plans to release more of those prisoners, shouldn't the American public know this? Read article.
A Parody of Leadership
Robert Samuelson, RCP.com
Barack Obama's quest for historic health care legislation has turned into a parody of leadership. We usually associate presidential leadership with the pursuit of goals that, though initially unpopular, serve America's long-term interests. Obama has reversed this. He's championing increasingly unpopular legislation that threatens the country's long-term interests. "This isn't about me," he likes to say, "I have great health insurance." But of course, it is about him: about the legacy he covets as the president who achieved "universal" health insurance. He'll be disappointed.
Even if Congress passes legislation -- a good bet -- the finished product will fall far short of Obama's extravagant promises. It will not cover everyone. It will not control costs. It will worsen the budget outlook. It will lead to higher taxes. It will disrupt how, or whether, companies provide insurance for their workers. As the real-life (as opposed to rhetorical) consequences unfold, they will rebut Obama's claim that he has "solved" the health care problem. His reputation will suffer.
It already has. Despite Obama's eloquence and command of the airwaves, public suspicions are rising. In April, 57 percent of Americans approved of his "handling of health care" and 29 percent disapproved, reports The Washington Post-ABC News poll; in the latest survey, 44 percent approved and 53 percent disapproved. About half worried that their care would deteriorate and that health costs would rise.
These fears are well grounded. Read article.
When Legerdemain Is Used to Pass an Unpopular Bill
Michael Barone, Rasmussen Reports.com
It's time to blow the whistle on two erroneous statements that opponents and proponents of the health care legislation being jammed through Congress have been making. Republicans have been saying that never before has Congress passed such an unpopular bill with such important ramifications by such a narrow majority. Barack Obama has been saying that passage of the bill will mean that the health care issue will be settled once and for all.
The Republicans and Obama are both wrong. But perhaps they can be forgiven because the precedent for Congress passing an unpopular bill is an old one, and the issue it addressed has long been settled, though not by the legislation in question.
That legislation was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. Its lead sponsor was Stephen A. Douglas, at 41 in his eighth year as senator from Illinois, the most dynamic leader of a Democratic Party that had won the previous presidential election by 254 electoral votes to 42.
The issue that Douglas said the Kansas-Nebraska Act would settle forever was slavery in the territories. His bill repealed the 34-year-old Missouri Compromise prohibiting slavery in territories north of Arkansas and substituted popular sovereignty -- territory residents could vote slavery up or down.
The Republican Party was suddenly created to oppose the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the 1854-55 elections transformed the Democrats' 159-71 majority to a 108-83 Republican margin. Democrats didn't win a majority of House seats for the next 20 years. Read article.
Reid’s bill makes it almost impossible to repeal ObamaCare
Sher Zieve, RenewAmerica.com
Every day the news coming out of Washington D.C. just gets worse and worse. Just when I thought I could no longer be shocked by the totalitarian Senate and Executive branch, I was...and am. On Monday, December 21, the Marxist-leaning Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid decided that he would make it virtually impossible for the American people to overcome Congress' Machiavellian ObamaCare Death Plan. Betrayal is now the operating agenda of both the US Congress and Executive branch.
On the advice of the Marxist Senate "Parliamentarian," using an illegal "procedural" measure, Marxist Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) wrote an amendment to ObamaCare Section 3403 that states "it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection." RedState reports that this "applies to regulations imposed on doctors and patients by the Independent Medicare Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels."
Although this change in Senate rules requires 67 senatorial votes, Reid decided to pass it as a 'procedural matter.' Clearly, Reid is illegally and unconstitutionally changing the rules to better ensure that his and Obama's totalitarian control of the American people is absolute and forever. Read article.
The Childish Constitution and the Mature Constitution
Selwyn Duke, American Thinker.com
It's ironic that the more we describe our Constitution as a "living document," the more we turn it into a dead letter. As to this terminal state, consider the current debate over health care reform. How many politicians give the constitutionality of the mammoth bills spawned by the Houses even the slightest consideration? Why, Nancy Pelosi must not have, as she was so "shocked" when asked about it that the only reply she could muster was "Are you serious? Are you serious?!"
When leftists do deign to consider the matter seriously, they may take a leaf out of esteemed intellectual Ruth Bader Ginsburg's book and aver that the Constitution should not be "stuck in time." Often missed in this debate, however, is that conservatives don't say it should be stuck in time -- just stuck in law. And law is changed not by time, but by people...that is, certain people.
The problem is that leftists do not want merely a living document. This we've always had, as the Founding Fathers gave us the amendment process, through which we may lawfully change the Constitution.
Leftists want a childish document.
Here is what I mean. We all know how children can learn more quickly than adults; this is why childhood is the best time to learn languages. Children are as wet clay, easily molded as pleases the potter's eye. But another way of putting it is that they're very unstable beings. They are prone to flights of fancy, to mood swings and outbursts of emotion. One moment they're ecstatic; the next, they have a tantrum; first they say they love you, and an hour later, that they hate you. A child changes to suit the times -- his version of the times -- continually.
With age, however, that clay starts to harden. This certainly contributes to a lot of frustration for the grown-up struggling to learn a skill later in life, but becoming a stable being is necessary for responsible citizenship. (This is why it's so tragic when twisted hands create hardened vessels that tilt left and don't hold water.) Read article.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0) | Sign Up for FSM Updates!
