“The media is so in Mr. Obama’s pocket that it might as well be lint.”


So says the one and only Ben Stein in discussing the leaky-administration. He writes:

What I really do love is that at the same time that Carl and Bob are attacking Nixon, the peacemaker, they are “warning” journalists and legislators not to jump all over Mr. Obama and Mr. Eric Holder for their leaks about national security matters, orchestrated to make Obama look tough on defense matters.

Obviously, these leaks are illegal. They are breaches of not one but many laws against releasing classified information. Will anyone go after the Obama White House for it? Will anyone outside the Tea Party dare to suggest that the Obama White House is a criminal enterprise for this? Of course not. The media is so in Mr. Obama’s pocket that it might as well be lint.

Read the rest. Mr. Stein’s grasp of history–and role in it–weaves Watergate into current events seamlessly.


Instructive: liberal admits liberalism a dud

If the battle of ideals were played out truthfully in front of the public, liberals would lose.

From the NYT, a key player in the destruction of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork speaks truth to power [emphasis mine]:

It is, to be sure, completely understandable that the Democrats wanted to keep Bork off the court. Lewis Powell, the great moderate, was stepping down, which would be leaving the court evenly divided between conservatives and liberals. There was tremendous fear that if Bork were confirmed, he would swing the court to the conservatives and important liberal victories would be overturned — starting with Roe v. Wade.

But liberals couldn’t just come out and say that. “If this were carried out as an internal Senate debate,” Ann Lewis, the Democratic activist, would later acknowledge, “we would have deep and thoughtful discussions about the Constitution, and then we would lose.” So, instead, the Democrats sought to portray Bork as “a right-wing loony,” to use a phrase in a memo written by the Advocacy Institute, a liberal lobby group.

And so began the take-no-prisoners politics of destruction we’re left with today. Can’t have a truthful conversation, so let’s make that Republican out to be as mean and loony as can be. More:

Conservatives were stunned by the relentlessness — and the essential unfairness — of the attacks. But the truth is that many of the liberals fighting the nomination also knew they were unfair. That same Advocacy Institute memo noted that, “Like it or not, Bork falls (perhaps barely) at the borderline of respectability.” It didn’t matter. He had to be portrayed “as an extreme ideological activist.” The ends were used to justify some truly despicable means.

It’s worked for 24 years. Liberals pander lies about conservatives through their willing accomplice, the media. And once conservatives do speak truth–Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright–they’re immediately branded kooks, liars and racists.

It’s time to fight back.

Read the rest.

Why young liberals should pay attention in history class

To avoid lookin’ like fools. Ann Coulter:

Sally Kohn, a self-identified “community organizer,” praised the Wall Street loiterers on CNN’s website, comparing the protest to the Boston Tea Party, which she claimed, “helped spark the American Revolution,” adding, “and yes, that protest ultimately turned very violent.”

First of all, the Boston Tea Party was nothing like tattooed, body–pierced, sunken-chested 19-year-olds getting in fights with the police for fun. Paul Revere’s nighttime raid was intended exclusively to protest a new British tea tax. (The Wall Street protesters would be more likely to fight for a new tax than against one.)

Revere made sure to replace a broken lock on one of the ships and severely punished a participant who stole some of the tea for his private use. Samuel Adams defended the raid by saying that all other methods of recourse — say, voting — were unavailable.

Our revolution — the only revolution that led to greater freedom since at least 1688 — was not the act of a mob.

As specific and limited as it was, however, even the Boston Tea Party was too mob-like to spark anything other than retaliatory British measures. Indeed, it set back the cause of American independence by dispiriting both American and British supporters, such as Edmund Burke.

Funny how that works out sometimes, no? Not that it bothers liberals in general considering our own Dear Leader’s preponderance for fake quotes and garbled facts. But he went to Harvard Law, y’all, and smarter than the rest of us by leagues.

H/t: Hot Air headlines

Have a party at home, just make sure you don’t talk about God!

What is this, Communist Russia?

Via American Spectator, the latest reminder that your home is not your own:

An Orange County couple has been ordered to stop holding a Bible study in their home on the grounds that the meeting violates a city ordinance as a “church” and not as a private gathering.

Homeowners Chuck and Stephanie Fromm, of San Juan Capistrano, were fined $300 earlier this month for holding what city officials called “a regular gathering of more than three people”.

That type of meeting would require a conditional use permit as defined by the city, according to Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), the couple’s legal representation.

The Fromms also reportedly face subsequent fines of $500 per meeting for any further “religious gatherings” in their home, according to PJI.

“We’re just gathering and enjoying each other’s company and fellowship. And we enjoy studying God’s word.” Stephanie Fromm told CBS2.

Rick Moran’s comment:

This is not an isolated incident. It’s happening everywhere. Property rights trampled, religious freedom abridged, free speech stifled, the right to assembly curtailed. This is not a left issue or right issue. It is an American issue. And it’s time we wake up before the Constitution starts gathering dust in warehouse somewhere – forlorn and forgotten.

Pretty much, no?

The rot of totalitarianism starts with localities creating these inane intrusions on rights. No one stands up. No one complains. And the rot spreads.

The city argues that these regular gatherings for 50 or more cause traffic problems. If I were to hedge a bet, if the couple were holding an orgy in the home and inviting 50 of their besties over to join the fun, the city could care less. And the ACLU would be involved if that weren’t the case, blasting the town and the neighbors for being such prudes, to deny the right of homeowners to congregate freely and have sex with multiple partners twice weekly.

The couple lost the appeal to the city. (Of course, as the city stands to gain financially). They plan on taking the case to the state Supreme Court. I shudder to think the law as it stands will be upheld.

H/t: Memeorandum

Linked by Pundette as a “Recommended Read.” Thanks!

UPDATE: Tina Korbe at Hot Air draws the same bedroom analogy:

Mrs. Fromm was rightly incensed at the city government’s intrusion into her living room. “I should be able to be hospitable in my own home,” she said. Had it been her bedroom, libs would have leaped to her defense, but as it was, no such luck for the lady.


I’m with her: Lan astaslem

Michelle Malkin attended a memorial service this morning at America the Beautiful Park here in Colorado Springs.

I attended Mass.

She left inspired and with her resolve intact.

I left angry and disillusioned.

My husband and I looked at each other in near disbelief this morning as our priest derided the aftermath of 9/11 much like Paul Krugman did. The priest mentioned revenge and vengeance. Krugman invoked the “false heroes” of Bernie Keric, Rudy Guiliani, and George W. Bush. The priest then offered the ultimate solution: forgiveness.

I can forgive this display:

But I will not forget.

In my heart, I cannot forgive this:

Flight 175 just before impacting the South Tower

Nor do I think I should.

This doesn’t bring to mind revenge and vengeance. Before the turn-the-other-cheek homily this morning, I wrote:

Shame isn’t my first thought of 9/11 and its aftermath. Service, sacrifice and perseverance are. And it shames me to know that there are others–other Krugmans out there–who fail to understand.

What does my priest fail to understand? This isn’t about forgiveness. This isn’t about revenge. This is an epic fight of good and evil. This is survival. There’s no 7 x 70 in survival.

Michelle Malkin writes:

Remembrance is worthless without resolve.

Resolve is useless without action.

But what is it exactly that you resolve?

I will not surrender.

Linked as a “Featured Blog” by Pundette. Thanks!

It never fails to take me by surprise

To see liberals with such a disdain for our country that I wonder how they’ve managed to stay so long.

I don’t usually think of myself as naive, but reading this bit of vile liberal self-loathing from Paul Krugman feels like a slap:

What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. Te atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.

A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?

The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it…

An occasion for shame?

Oddly enough, that’s not what I felt yesterday when I saw this:

I didn’t feel shame at my tears during the National Anthem, either, surrounded by thousands of others who knew the words, too.

Shame isn’t my first thought of 9/11 and its aftermath. Service, sacrifice and perseverance are. And it shames me to know that there are others–other Krugmans out there–who fail to understand.

Professor Jacobson writes he is glad Krugman voiced his distasteful refrain, one no doubt echoed in the halls of the White House: 

I’m glad Krugman gave voice to it on this day.  They can’t stand the fact that the attacks on 9/11 proved that their world view was wrong, and every mention of 9/11 is like a thorn in their political sides.

Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue to remember 9/11 in an “oddly subdued” manner.

We will.

Linked as a “Featured Blog” by Pundette. Thanks!

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey chimes in with a worthy reminder:

That’s one reason I find it hard to get worked up over this blog post, but the other is that it’s such a lousy piece of writing.  It’s nothing Krugman wouldn’t say (and probably does say) the other 364 days out of the year, and Krugman says it in pretty much the same vacuous manner of the everyday sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome.  After reading this, you seriously have to remind yourself that the New York Times pays Krugman to write it; this wouldn’t even pass muster for a Letter to the Editor at most newspapers.  It’s so trite, sad, and cliched that it’s hardly worth the effort to rebut.  He’s mailing this in from 2003.  It’s as if Krugman hasn’t bothered to think about 9/11 in the past ten years at all, which says a lot more about Krugman than it does about 9/11.

And for that matter, so does this:

I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.

Yes, the reasons are obvious, but it’s equally obvious that Krugman doesn’t have a clue what they are.

Never forget

Pray for the families whose lives changed forever that day.

Pray for military families whose lives changed forever that day.

Light that fuse under liberals

Stephen Moore compares Obamanomics and Reaganomics. It ain’t pretty:

If you really want to light the fuse of a liberal Democrat, compare Barack Obama’s economic performance after 30 months in office with that of Ronald Reagan. It’s not at all flattering for Mr. Obama.

The two presidents have a lot in common. Both inherited an American economy in collapse. And both applied daring, expensive remedies. Mr. Reagan passed the biggest tax cut ever, combined with an agenda of deregulation, monetary restraint and spending controls. Mr. Obama, of course, has given us a $1 trillion spending stimulus.

By the end of the summer of Reagan’s third year in office, the economy was soaring. The GDP growth rate was 5% and racing toward 7%, even 8% growth. In 1983 and ’84 output was growing so fast the biggest worry was that the economy would “overheat.” In the summer of 2011 we have an economy limping along at barely 1% growth and by some indications headed toward a “double-dip” recession. By the end of Reagan’s first term, it was Morning in America. Today there is gloomy talk of America in its twilight.

My purpose here is not more Reagan idolatry, but to point out an incontrovertible truth: One program for recovery worked, and the other hasn’t.

Read the rest. The Keynesian naysayers currently in charge said the economy couldn’t recover then:

The Godfather of the neo-Keynesians, Paul Samuelson, was the lead critic of the supposed follies of Reaganomics. He wrote in a 1980 Newsweek column that to slay the inflation monster would take “five to ten years of austerity,” with unemployment of 8% or 9% and real output of “barely 1 or 2 percent.” Reaganomics was routinely ridiculed in the media, especially in the 1982 recession. That was the year MIT economist Lester Thurow famously said, “The engines of economic growth have shut down here and across the globe, and they are likely to stay that way for years to come.”

Of course they took credit when all was said and done:

The economy would soon take flight for more than 80 consecutive months. Then the Reagan critics declared what they once thought couldn’t work was actually a textbook Keynesian expansion fueled by budget deficits of $200 billion a year, or about 4%-5% of GDP.

I’d like to think that maybe the Obama administration has been a blessing in disguise for our nation. While they have wrought economic pain, international embarrassment, or as one commenter on Obama’s Facebook wall the other day noted, they have forced humility on our nation. This dude thanked Obama for the humbling of a once-great nation. He was sincere, and it angered me. But the silver lining in this is the rise of the Tea Party and the conservative stars along with it–Rubio, West, Christie, Walker. And Perry, too, who would not have been a viable candidate 4 years ago running on the record of a prosperous state economy.

That’s my glass-half-full take, and I’m sticking to it as my IRAs tank and my house loses more value. Obama’s Hope and Change will be judged on the failure that it is, and the serious discussion of entitlements begins. People want the freedom to make and do for themselves, not to sit idle as the government does for them.

H/t: memeorandum.

The flimflam man at the Pentagon

When I saw Leon Panetta’s impassioned plea not to imperil our security or the military with draconian cuts, I figured it was a ruse. He’s a liberal budget cutter. Obama would love the chance to gut the military further. Turns out I’m not the only one who thinks Panetta is playing games. James Carafano at the Heritage Foundation blog:

According to news reports, “Pentagon chief Leon Panetta vowed Wednesday to fight any across-the-board cuts to defense spending that could be triggered in the next phase of deficit reduction that he says could do ‘real damage to our security, our troops and their families, and our ability to protect the nation.” That makes him a hero at the Pentagon, right? And, it puts him on record as bucking his own President, who has long talked about putting big defense cuts “on the table,” right?

Probably not. The flimflam man calls this the old “bait and switch” bit. The President has tried to outflank conservatives in the deficit debate by framing the choice as “big defense cuts” or “big tax increases,” knowing that conservatives hate both. Indeed, of late more and more conservative leaders in the Congress have come online waving red flags that the proposed cuts are just nuts. More than likely, rather than echoing their concern, Panetta is trying to turn up the heat, forcing conservatives to cave on big tax hikes or take the blame for massive defense cuts.

Read the rest. Carafano predicts Panetta will play both sides of the street to exact as much blood from defense hawks as possible. I’m not shocked by anything at this point after reading the radical proposal on the board to “restructure” retirement benefits to troops who have served for the past 10 years of war. Screw your soldiers who have fought and bled for the country. Keep those entitlements for folks who sit on their asses and collect their Obama money checks and feed the hipsters who use food stamps to pay for organic wild salmon at Whole Foods. Pretty soon we will have a draft again because no one in his right mind would stand up to defend such nonsense.

Max Boot with a dose of reality:

Moreover, comparing defense spending today with spending during earlier decades–say, during the Korean War–is not a fair comparison. Until 1973 we had a draft, which meant personnel costs were relatively low. Since we went to an all-volunteer force, the government had to start paying competitive wages and benefits to attract and keep qualified recruits. The Defense Department benefits–medical care, schooling, etc.– that Zakaria decries as “liberalism run amok” are nothing of the kind. They are better understood as the kind of corporate benefits package offered to employees in lieu of a straight salary. Those benefits are not an entitlement; they are earned by men and women who risk their lives in our defense. Which is what makes these compensation packages so difficult to cut. Congress naturally feels a sense of gratitude to veterans and wants to reward them for their heroic service. The Defense Department is also keenly aware of the need to keep up the quality of its service people. Both concerns argue against drastic cuts in pay and benefits packages.

We retain the best troops because the military takes care of families while the troops are away. They can’t leave their families and fight if they worry about what’s going to happen at home.


The parsimonious Eisenhower defense budgets of the 1950s left us overly reliant on a nuclear deterrent (the “New Look”) and ill-prepared to fight low-intensity conflicts such as the one in Vietnam. The cutbacks of the 1970s produced a “hollow army” and encouraged our adversaries’ aggression—this was the time of the Iranian hostage crisis, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Sandinistas’ triumph on Nicaragua. Later, the rush to spend the “peace dividend” in the 1990s left us ill-prepared to fight the post-9/11 wars: It’s impossible to send enough troops to pacify both Afghanistan and Iraq when the size of the active-duty army has been reduced by a third.

Simply because something has happened in the past doesn’t mean it’s a good idea for the future. And if history shows anything, it is there are few ideas worse than cutting defense spending precipitously. What is likely to happen as a result is we will not be ready for some unexpected crisis. While we slowly build up our resources, we will suffer needless defeats and our troops will spill needless blood—as we have in wars ranging from the Civil War to World War II, Korea and most recently, Iraq.

What say you? Tina Korbe at Hot Air points out the obvious discrepancy between the defense budget and entitlements and why we should be wary of tit-for-tat cuts [emphasis mine]:

In 2010, the defense budget was just $712 billion. Compare that to the unfunded liability of Medicare: $30.8 trillion. Because domestic spending is proportionally larger than defense spending, equivalent cuts will disproportionately hurt defense (and don’t buy the business about cuts to “security” rather than “defense” — the Defense Department will bear the brunt).

Proportionate cuts. Laughable. They’ll bring the active-duty military to its knees while arguing that the National Guard and Reserve forces will be enough in case of war. It won’t. And we’ll be saddled with an aging welfare state with no means to defend ourselves. I guess at that point there won’t be much to defend, eh? 



Ah, now it makes sense: “radical” overhaul of military retirements necessary due to downsizing the force

So “paying the military and their families for 60 years when they only serve 20″ is unsustainable, eh?

DOD recommends “radical” overhaul of miliary retirement

The military can take substantial cuts but entitlements can’t?


Ah, a deal: does it even matter?

After reading Mark Steyn at his most scathing, no:

The Democrat model of governance is to spend $4 trillion while only collecting $2 trillion, borrowing the rest from tomorrow. Instead of “printing money,” we’re printing credit cards and pre-approving our unborn grandchildren. To facilitate this proposition, Washington created its own form of fantasy accounting: “baseline budgeting,” under which growth-in-government is factored in to federal bookkeeping as a permanent feature of life. As Arthur Herman of the American Enterprise Institute pointed out this week, under present rules, if the government were to announce a spending freeze — that’s to say, no increases, no cuts, everything just stays exactly the same — the Congressional Budget Office would score it as a $9 trillion savings. In real-world terms, there are no “savings,” and there’s certainly no $9 trillion. In fact, there isn’t one thin dime. But nevertheless, that’s how it would be measured at the CBO.

Like others, I have a hard time fathoming “trillion.” Steyn points out $9 trillion eclipses the combined GDP of Japan and Germany. Still having trouble? Try this. It adds a certain dimension to the debate, no? If we’re incapable of honestly cutting money from our budget now, then we’re headed down the tubes in no uncertain order unless we kick the charlatans out of DC. A goodly number of Republicans included. For-ev-er.

So what lies ahead? Steyn paints a rather dismal picture. Read the rest.

Related: Friday Limbaugh, “You can be proud, Conservatives: Tea Party puts country over party.”

Cross-posted at Pundit & Pundette.