The Obammissariat

Interesting piece in the Wall Street Journal this week by Karl Rove. Pres. Barak Obama's staff at the White House's West Wing will number about 160, almost a three-fold increase from the number of staffers that punched in every day for George W. Bush. But what's more amazing is how the President is concentrating power at his fingertips. A number of positions, for the first time will be based in the White House. The decisions about who gets to be down the hall from the real Executive Washroom is an interesting one.
Among those to score offices in the West Wing are:

• The President's director of political affairs. Putting his political guru in the White House says a lot about the importance of looking good politically to the first post-partisan president.


• Incoming Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tom Daschle. He'll be the first cabinet secretary in our nation's history to be assigned to the White House. Daschle is an avowed proponent of what is called in Orwellian speak a "unitary payer" health system, but which everyone else knows as socialized medicine.


• The "environmental czar (czarina?) Carol Browner. Now instead of a phone call, Mr. Obama just has to walk down the hall for a few of Ms. Browner's left-of-center environmental bromides.

All of this is troubling for two reasons:

• It ignores 233 years of American tradition which says that the President's advisors of record are his Cabinet secretaries. Mr. Obama says the cabinet concept is outdated. Funny, Abraham Lincoln preserved the Union using it. Teddy Roosevelt oversaw sweeping changes to business and enshrined the environment in the national conscience using it. FDR won the great war using it. Mr. Obama's apparent disdain for it says a lot about arrogance and the esteem in which he holds the traditions and structure of our government.


• It creates a dangerous precedent where Mr. Obama has concentrated the real authority of his administration in the hands of a few people who even trump the cabinet secretaries. This is not unlike the old Soviet system of Commissars, isolated in the Kremlin, who held the real power and owned their allegiance not to the country but to the premier.

Pres. Obama said all the right things (and a couple of wrong ones) during his inaugural adress. But as time passes we're apparently seeing the real Pres. Obama: the guy who goes on Arabic television to make an unwarranted apology on the part of you and me to the Arab world for some perceived slights. The guy who thinks that bipartisanship is buying the votes of Republican congressmen with some drinks at the White House. And an isolated premier who is building his own Commissariat in the West Wing, getting ready to force feed legislation that most Americans will find repugnant.

Be worried. Be real worried.

Just thought you might like to know.

What Did We Ever Do Before Nanny Government

"How Did We Ever Make It Before Nanny Government?" asks economist and author Walter Williams.

Think about the ways in which government makes decisions for us and hovers over us like a caregiver. I wonder why the human race did not die out before we turned our common sense over the the government. Here's a few examples of Aunty Government:

• School principals in Australia want teachers to have the power to police lunch boxes from home to remove any offending cookies or chips that are deemed unhealthy. They say teachers need the authority to enforce ‘healthy eating’ habits.


• Last year California lawmakers introduced a bill to criminalize spanking. The state has a $40 billion deficit lawmakers can't close, but their biggest concern is that some smartass kid doesn't get his rear end whacked by mom.


• If you live in Aurora, CO and you leave your car running unattended, police may hit you with a $75 fine. They say it makes it too easy for car hijackers. Here's a thought: It's my car. If it gets stolen, no one suffers a loss but me. If it causes my insurance premiums to increase, no one pays but me. If I'm willing to accept the consequences, what business is it of anyone else?


• The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 in effect prohibits gamblers in the U.S. from engaging in their pursuit over the Internet. Maybe next Congress will ban slot machines or Casino War, or any other game where they consider the odds anti-consumer.

Silly legislation like these examples only matter because of the government resources and treasure they suck up to enforce. It creates permanent bureaucracies like the Federal Trade Commission. It sucks money out of the private sector that might be used to hire people, buy equipment, and increase productivity and the general standard of living. Instead, we're saddled with enforcing bans on Internet gambling, ice cream in school lunchrooms or helmet-less motorcycle riders.

Just thought you might like to know.

The Formerly Relevant Award Known as Oscar

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences today announced their nominations for their Academy Awards. It comes as no surprise that Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed , a thought-provoking look at the issue of academic freedom in our nation's universities, was not even nominated.


Expelled is the brainchild of Ben Stein, a Renaissance man who has been, in turn, an economist, a comedian, an actor, an author, social activist, and sought-after speaker.



Expelled tells the story of academic censorship, of whether we have the right in the 21st century to challenge orthodoxy without punishment--in the same way that Gallileo or da Vinci challenged it in theirs. In doing so, Expelled makes us take a hard look at our history, our academic institutions, orthodoxy, and the role of religion in a secular society.



Someone must have liked it, because it:

• was a million ticket seller in 2008


• was the top grossing documentary of 2008

Nevertheless the leftist-dominated motion picture industry saw fit to leave it off its list of approved nominees.

The movie made clear where it stood on the issue of academic censorship. However, it fairly presented the dissenting opinion. Nevertheless, the Hollywood powers proved the point of the movie. In their equivalent of a book burning, they acted as if Expelled had never sold a million tickets or grossed close to $10 million.

Apparently pompous, arrogant gas bags like Al Gore or Michael Moore, with no academic credentials, can make documentaries about junk science or theses that are patently false, and Hollywood has no problem spiffing them with a little gold statuette. But let a man of accomplishment and intelligence make a film about something with which they disagree and they try to toss it in a vat of acid.

Just thought you might like to know.

Freedom of Choice Act

Today thousands of pro-life demonstrators descended on Washington for the annual March for Life to mark the 36th anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision.

The Obama Administration must soon begin delivering its payoffs to the groups that propelled the 44th president on his stunning drive to the White House. First up, the Employee Free Choice Act, which would replace union certification elections with a sham process reminiscent of the Stalinist era. Check out the Dec. 4, 2008 post about that.

Next up, the so-called Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). The leftists who now control two of our three branches of government love giving their big-foot federal legislation these Orwellian names as a way to disguise their true intent.



In point of fact, FOCA is not meant to provide choice; it's true intention is to disenfranchise millions of state voters--half of them women--and their elected officials who have courageously put into place numerous pieces of legislation that lend some sanity to the process of abortion.

The National Abortion Rights Action League, which in an effort to fool centrist voters has morphed into NARAL Pro Choice America, says that FOCA's purpose is "to restore the right to choose" as defined in the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.



But the reality is that it would do the opposite. The federal law would "pre-empt" or invalidate laws passed by more than half the states. In doing so it would invalidate the democratically express will of millions of women voters and their legislatures.



Take a look:

• Under FOCA parents would not have to be notified of, or consent to, abortions by their minor children. Today half the states have notification/consent laws which have safeguards that have passed constitutional muster. FOCA would invalidate these laws, in the process taking away parents rights and responsibilities for the health of their children.


• FOCA would take away the right of healthcare professionals to choose whether to provide or pay for abortions. Healthcare professionals would lose the right to choose whether or not to participate or pay for an abortion according to the dictates of their consciences. Their moral compass would be replaced by a Federal bureaucracy.


• FOCA would make it illegal to require that girls and women seeking abortions receive information on fetal develop and alternatives to the process, and wait for a period of time before the abortion is performed. These women would lose the right to make an informed, reflective choice.

Far from expanding choice, FOCA would invalidate the choices women have democratically made at the ballot box in the states, electing pro-life candidates, as well as choices that women legislators have made in state capitols around the country, voting for sensible legislation that works within the framework of Row v. Wade.

Bottom line: The abortion lobby cannot afford to have people finally realize that groups like NARAL do not speak for the majority of American women. They cannot let the public see that their "all in" view of abortion is not shared universally by American women.

When the public realizes that, donations and funding to groups like NARAL, NOW, and Planned Parenthood will drop dramatically. Fortunately, the more they try to wrap themselves in constitutional clothing, the more we realize it's really about their money and the power in Washington that it buys.

So their answer is the un-democratization of women--taking away the choices women have made at the state level and disenfranchising them as voters, as women, and as mothers. All so that NARAL, et al. can continue to raise money to put compliant politicians like Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Gerry Nadler (D-NY), the sponsors of this putsch, in their shopping carts every two years.
Just thought you might like to know.

The 5 Sins of George W. Bush (and no, Iraq is not one of them)

On the last day of the Bush presidency we look back on the last 8 years. Pres. Bush delivered one of the best speeches of his presidency Thursday night reflecting back on the last 8 years and on his vision for America.

Only the most irrational Bush haters would deny the signal accomplishments of the two terms: No terror attacks on U.S. soil since 9-11, five years of unprecedented job growth, and the corner turned, with no going back, on raising the standards we set for public school education.

Having said that, we look back and wonder what might have happened and how much better things might have been, but for the shortcomings of the Administration. I think the Bush Administration faltered in five areas. Four of them were mistakes of governance; the fifth a policy blunder that has severely diminished this Presidency. Here they are:

1. Attitude. My experience in working with a couple of the executive agencies of this Administration was that they had little desire to hear opposing points of view or to be receptive to suggestions. Certainly no one expected Mr. Bush's appointees to forego their conservative principles which earned him his two electoral victories.

But at some point you cross the line from principled to stubborn and then to insular. I have seen that line crossed several times. The result: A reputation, rightly or wrongly to "go it alone." What this did in many cases (Iraq being one) was force supporters to choose sides. Too often they chose to change sides.

2. Failure to communicate. To quote Strother Martin's character in Cool Hand Luke, what we had here with the Bush Administration was a failure to communicate. Republicans with few exceptions (Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich) are terrible communicators.

Republicans in 1994 captured both houses of Congress for the first time since before the Depression by taking their message directly to the people. Reagan and Gingrich took it to the house--your house. They hit the road and took their message directly to the people--bypassing the Democrat-dominated political class in DC as well as the biased, leftist media poohbahs. They effected change like tax cuts and welfare reform by going directly to the people and getting them to whip their elected representatives into line.

On the other hand, Pres. Bush, time and time again, remained sequestered in the White House or on his ranch, blowing chances to defuse Democrat attacks by taking his case directly to the people. In his farewell address Jan. 15 he was forthright, articulate and almost combative about his accomplishments. One can only wonder what the last 8 years would have held had he done more of that.

3. Loyal to a fault. Loyalty is a quality all Americans admire. And the President was nothing if not loyal to his advisers. Unfortunately he tended to stay with them even when it was apparent to most Americans that they weren't up to the challenge.

The Bush Administration was defined by three events: 9-11, the economy, and Hurricane Katrina. We all remember Mr. Bush's attaboy to failed FEMA administrator Michael Brown. "We're proud of you, Brownie," he told a skeptical TV audience, as the feckless Brown tried to lead the federal response to Hurricane Katrina. Despite Brown's designer wardrobe, Americans saw little to be proud about in the government's disaster response under his leadership. That disconnect between the President's propping up of an obviously over matched administrator and the television images of an unparalleled disaster more than anything spelled the end of Mr. Bush's popularity.

The President was also ill-served by long-time friend Don Rumsfeld. Sec. Rumsfeld stubbornly clung to a concept of a light, fast attack in Iraq, about which he seemed to have an incomplete grasp, with little afterthought on how to hold the ground once the attack was successful. Even on his way out the door, he continued to resist the addition of 30,000 troops into Iraq to stabilize the situation.

Then there were the three Treasury secretaries--O'Neill, Snow and Paulson. They failed to connect the dots of below market interest rates, rising commodities prices, and an over leveraged mortgage market. Had the President been less loyal to advisers obviously over matched in the three signal events of his Presidency, the governments response to all three might have been more successful.

4 .Failure to say no. It was not near the end of his first term that the President vetoed a bill sent to him by Congress. By contrast, his father scotched Congressional bills 44 times (including several pocket vetoes) in just four years. President George W. Bush leaves office having vetoed just 12 times.

The veto was designed by the Founders as a tool to maintain the equilibrium between the Executive and Legislative branches. But Pres. Bush's failure to use it led to an emboldened Democrat-controlled Congress gaining the upper hand. Democrats, unconcionably putting politics above the nation's interests, refused to cooperate on issues like free trade and the President's judicial nominations. This has hamstrung the federal courts for several years and will probably be responsible for a swing to the left in Columbia. There is no doubt who has been in control of the ship of state over the last two years. It hasn't been the decisive guy who stood atop a pile of rubble at the World Trade Center in 2001 and challenged Islamic terrorists.

5. Destabilizing the U.S. currency. "Sound as a dollar" used to mean that something was stable, durable, and a benchmark for its class. Now "Buddy, can you spare a dollar" seems more appropriate. For most of the last decade the Federal Reserve, led by Alan Greenspan and his acolyte Ben Bernanke have been responsible for the devaluation of the dollar.

The Fed chairmen have pursued a monetary policy of lower and lower interest rates. There were good reasons and results for this originally. It held recession at bay. It made American goods cheaper abroad, creating jobs and offsetting the loss of jobs that moved offshore over the last 10 years. It made home ownership affordable for more people--even if people who shouldn't have qualified for home loans under any circumstances got to play.

But the continued policy led to an overheated economy. Because it weakened the dollar, it suddently took more dollars to buy the same products as before. Americans woke up to find $4.00 gasoline and $5.00 heating oil. It created the housing bubble that burst last year. It has led to two so-called "stimulus plans" that have guaranteed the U.S. will remain a debtor nation for several generations.

Certainly the President does not control or directly influence the Fed. But the President took credit for the results of the Fed's interest rate policy. Increased exports. Increased home ownership. Job creation. All good things.

But on the rise in commodities prices like oil? Not so much. He blamed that on Democrats stymieing plans for more domestic drilling. The mortgage debacle? He challenged Democrats for a lack of control on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but like the coyote in the Roadrunner cartoons, failed to recognize the ticking time bomb that was an over-leveraged mortgage market . On the trade deficit? The best he could do was challenge Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a real profile in courage, to bring Mr. Bush's Columbia Free Trade Pact to a floor vote.

History is written by the victors, wrote Churchill. How President Bush will be remembered by history depends on who emerges the winner in the global war on terror, and who can entice this economic genie back into the bottle.

I'll remember the President as that guy with the bullhorn--a plucky little leader who didn't sign up for one crisis after another, but who didn't shirk from confronting them, either. A flinty-eyed Texan who conquered his own demons and exhorted the world to conquer theirs. A good and decent man who delivered us to his successor--a little bruised but none worse for the wear. Thank you, Mr. President.

Just thought you might like to know.

The Party's Over

If you thought that the drop in gas prices over the last few months meant the good times were back, think again. For the better part of this decade Americans spent like drunken sailors. Now, after four months of financial turmoil, it's time to sober up. According to a recent survey by the retail thought leader Precima, nearly half of the 3,000 shoppers surveyed said that their savings at the pump went straight into their shopping carts.


It looks like the irrational exuberance of the last decade has worn off. American consumers are putting their pump savings to practical use, like feeding their families, instead of leasing the newest Bimmer. According to Precima:

• 42% of shoppers surveyed say they're saving their pump pennies for a rainy day


• 30% say they're paying off credit cards with the extra cash from the drop in gas prices


• 60% of shoppers making less than $35,000 are putting their money into food--only 29% of those making over $100,000 say the drop in gas prices has them buying more food


• And 55% of shoppers who have taken a direct hit from the current financial debacle say the extra money in their pockets is ending up on their tables

Maybe the most interesting statistic in these hard times is that only 10% of those surveyed say they're using the new found money to, well, have fun.

Let's call it a night. The party's over.

Just thought you'd like to know.

Fascism You Can Believe In

Fascism is an authoritarian ideology marked by the following beliefs:

• A single party state
• Subordination of the individual to a central government
• Centralization of authority
• Reliance on central government for national solutions and services
• Opposition to conservatism, capitalism and entrepreneurship

I bring this up because virtually unnoticed this week, amid the political background noise of Roland Burris and Al Franken, the House of Representatives (actually the Democrat majority) adopted their House Rules for the 111th Congress. Included in these Rules are significant changes from the past. These changes say a lot about the Democrat majority and where this country is headed over the next several years.

The changes include:

• Elimination of term limits for committee chairmen. No longer will chairmen be elected on merit. Now the old leftist bulls who came to Washington in the radical '60s and '70s will be in charge again.


• Suspension of cost-containment measures for Medicare. Medicare is the fastest rising entitlement program. Now there are no controls on it, paving the way for socialized medicine.


• Fast track tax increases. Gone is the ability for the minority (Republicans) to strike any tax increase that does not have a corresponding way to make up the lost revenue.


• Virtual elimination of any chance for tax cuts so long as this gang is in power. The only way to pass a tax cut now will be to propose a tax increase somewhere else in the budget. In effect you can change taxes but you can't lower them. Call it permanent taxation.


• Elimination of the "motion to recommit" tactic. This little-known procedure is a cherished right of House Members. It has been in effect, supported by both Democrats and Republicans, for more than a century! It gives the minority party one last chance to work out a compromise with the majority party before a bill is passed. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has eliminated this hallmark of the two-party system in order to jam her leftist agenda down the throat of House members.

Before my leftist friends accuse me of over-reacting by using the F-word, please look at what these changes mean a few things for the House and for the country:

1. There is little stopping Congress now from taking a new, sharp tack to the left. This includes socialized medicine, expansion of entitlement programs on a scale not seen since Lyndon Johnson, neutering of our military and intelligence capabilities, and punitive taxation of those people who have supported this country for so long.
2. All of those pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, pro-defense Democrat Members recruited by party leaders over the last two election cycles so the Democrats in could take control of Congress have been duped. They have no pull in a Congress controlled by Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel and Henry Waxman They're simply the Chorus in this Greek tragedy.
3. All of those conservatives and centrists who voted for "change" in the last election, will probably end up with more change that they bargained for. The mischief the Pelosi gang can cause over the next two or four years will take years to unravel, if it ever can be unraveled.

Just thought you might like to know.

Al Franken's Best Joke

So it looks as if the grand poobahs of the U.S. Senate will seat Al Franken, Democrat from Minnesota, after all. In an earlier post we looked at an undeniable pattern of corruption among Democrat politicians. We should have waited a few days and included a hack politician from Minnesota, Democrat Mark Ritchie, currently masquerading as that state's secretary of state.

Mr. Ritchie has presided over election theft, in this case the disputed contest between incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman, a Republican, and his challenger, Democrat Al Franken. Because of the closeness of the election, the contest has been in recount for several weeks. Sen. Coleman ended election night 215 votes ahead, but now finds himself 225 votes behind the failed comedian--all thanks to Comrade Ritchie and the state's obedient Politburo, er, Canvassing Board.

As we've seen, Democrat pols clawing for power aren't anything new, but the way the Dems are stealing this election is so egregious, it bears a second look. Check this out:

• The number of ballots certified as legit in 25 precincts during the recount has magically exceeded the number of people who signed in to vote. The Canvassing Board has accepted these additional votes on the grounds that board members are powerless to stop local election fraud (They're probably right if they want to keep their political careers on track). The result: nearly 100 more votes for candidate Franken.


• Apparently at least one precinct in Hennepin County didn't wait till the recount to do their ballot stuffing. The hand count showed fewer ballots than were recorded election night. In this case the Canvassing Board decided it couldn't accept the recounted number and went with the election night total instead. Result: nearly 50 more Franken votes.


• And then there was Ramsey County, where one precinct miraculously ended up with 177 more votes for Franken than were cast on Election Night. Since this benefited the Democrat, the Canvassing Board, with an inconsistency that borders on the absurd, decided that they could go with the recounted number, even though in next door Hennepin County they refused to accept the recount results. Result: 37 more votes for the lesser half of Franken and Davis.


• Absentee ballots are a mess unto themselves. The review process for absentees has been so inconsistent that the Coleman campaign has asked the state Supreme Court to rule on a request to standardize the counting process. Despite the matter being in the hands of the state's high court, Mr. Ritchie and his elves worked through the weekend, rubber stamping the Franken absentee ballots as certified: Result: another 175 votes for the Democrat challenger.

At the same time, Minnesota's other Senator, Democrat Amy Klobuchar, is popping off that Harry Reid and the Democrat caucus in Washington should seat Franken as the legitimate title holder to the Senate seat as soon as the Canvassing Board rubber stamps Franken. Apparently Sen. Amy forgot to consult state law which says the Board cannot certify an election that is still in dispute.

So it appears a done deal that Al Franken is about to join Landslide Lyndon Johnson and a parade of other Democrat election fixers. The pattern continues: the party which took control of Congress in 2006 with such lofty ideals has smeared us yet again another coating of political slime--Blagojevich...Jefferson...Dodd...Franken. No matter how much Democrat Kool Aid you drink at some point you can't ignore the pattern.

And a failed comedian with the help of his straight man Ritchie, and the stooges on the Canvassing Board, has the last laugh--by making a joke of democracy.

Just thought you might like to know.

Ethics, Schmethics

The Democrats regained control of Congress in 2006 promising to change the “culture of corruption” that they claimed pervaded Congress during 12 years of Republican rule. And it’s tough coming up with excuses for the GOP after the antics of Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney and Jack Abramoff.

But you would have to be a mindless, leftist drone to fail to connect the dots of Democrat corruption in the two years since Speaker Pelosi became the new sheriff in town. Impressive in its own right:

Let's start with Rep. William “Cold Cash” Jefferson (D-LA), who somehow found 90 grand in his freezer, presumably when he was digging around for the fish sticks.

And let's not forget House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) who keeps trying to scrape a series of real estate, tax, and conflict of interest allegations off his shoes.

How about Illinois Democrat Rep.Luis Gutierrez who allegedly netted over $400,000 in questionable real estate transactions?

While we’re dealing with Illinois pols, how about Democrat Gov. Rod Blagojevich, the poster child for stupid and corrupt politicians and the Chief Auctioneer of U.S. Senate seats?

Let's not forget Illinois (Oops, there’s that state again) Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) , who may or may not be wrapped up in Gov. Blagojevich’s alleged pay-to-play scam.

Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), chair of the House Intelligence Committee, whose enthusiastic use of earmarking has come under scrutiny, joined this hit parade in 2007 with some creative fundraising of his own.

Alan Mollohan (D-WV), in his best impression of the bride at an Italian wedding, was forced in the 110th Congress to resign from his position on the House Ethics Panel over charges of funneling cash back home.Having an ethically challenged pol on the Ethics panel is a bit like having Cuba on the United Nations Human Rights Council.

Barack Obama's nomination of Eric Holder to be Attorney General has been praised in some quarters. But let's not forget Mr. Holder's role in in Bill Clinton’s pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich, whose wife subsequently donated a million dollars to the Democratic party, not to mention picking up the tab for some Clinton legal bills and buying them ten grand worth of furniture, presumably as a housewarming gift when they vacated the White House.

And finally, there’s Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), who chairs one of the Congressional committees with oversight over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but whose moral compass somehow told him it was okay to take a sweetheart mortgage deal from a leading mortgage company that made a fortune off of government-sponsored high risk loans. Too bad the massive defaults on these loans helped start the global economic free fall we now find ourselves in. Oh well, stuff happens.

Somehow the Dems have no problem writing a hall pass for someone like Dodd who took favors from a company that has profited handsomely from a business over which his committee has jurisdiction.

Well, after watching the economic free fall of the last six months, I have a problem with it. You gotta answer for Sonny, Carlo, er, Chris.

Jefferson…Rangel…Gutierrez…Blago…Jackson Jr…Reyes…Mollohan…Holder…Dodd...Connect the dots, please. My point isn’t to paint the Democrats as the new party of corruption, in the same way they tarred the Republicans. It’s simply to show the hypocrisy of Speaker Pelosi who presides benignly over this cesspool.

The problem isn’t party or the other. It’s a party system that perpetuates itself by 1) making elected officials begin foraging like squirrels for re-election cash as soon as they win an election; and 2) making it virtually impossible to challenge incumbents at the polls.

Until we put an end to lifetime sinecures for elected officials by preventing them from gerrymandering their districts every 10 years, we’re going to have our Duke Cunninghams and our Rod Blagojevichs. The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.

Just thought you might like to know.