Maybe there are some stupid questions after all.

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton visited the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City. She viewed the image of Our Lady on the tilma of Juan Diego on display in the Basilica. She asked Msgr. Diego Monrroy who painted the image. He apparently responded, "God."

Oops. We can't expect everyone to keep up with all the traditions of other faiths, even the various parts of the Christian church. Hilary was raised in the Methodist Church in Illinois and Our Lady of Guadalupe is important within the Catholic Church in Mexico and among Hispanics in the USA.

Unfortunately, this is yet another blooper from the best and brightest who would show what a bunch of idiots the Bush administration was. Far more serious, the Secretary of State is in Mexico for discussions of Congress' violation of NAFTA in denying Mexican trucks' access to the USA. That is a far more serious blooper than not knowing the tradition of the miraculous origin of Mary's image on Juan Diego's tilma in 1531.

Will the EU demand that the Palestinians accept a true 2 state solution?

EU sends Netanyahu strong warning over two-state issue. The Jerusalem Post reports that "Karel Schwarzenberg, foreign minister of the Czech Republic which currently holds the EU presidency, said that if the new Israeli government does not commit itself to establishing a Palestinian state, 'relations would become very difficult indeed.'"

If the EU takes that position with Israel, are they going to take a similar position with the Palestinians? Will they require Hamas and Hezbollah to recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state?

Let's be blunt. Israel is not the difficult party to this. Israel wants peace and would accept a 2 state solution. The Palestinians, Hamas and Hezbollah have shown no reason for anyone to believe that they will accept a 2 state solution on a permanent basis. At most they would accept a 2 state solution only as a preliminary step toward the destruction of Israel.

Even CNN now has negative comments about President Obama.

It's not looking good for Team Obama when even a commentator at CNN says, "Obama is flunking economics." Ruben Navarrette, Jr. complains that Obama

is trying to do too much at once, and so he is not doing any of it well. He
vows to cut the federal deficit while proposing an avalanche of new spending
that will -- says the Congressional Budget Office -- increase the national debt
by as much as $9.3 trillion over the next decade.

Navarrette also points to the Obama supporters who immediately attack anyone who dares challenge Obama.

He even shows some doubt as to Obama's ability to speak convincingly. He admits that "anyone who tuned into this week's press conference has to wonder whether the president hasn't lost his touch. The popular narrative from conservatives -- that Obama stumbles when he is off the teleprompter -- is becoming more believable."

Obama's inability to answer difficult questions without a teleprompter providing his answers has to be clear to anyone by this point. Inability to respond articulately to tough questions in a public environment does not necessarily imply an inability to be a good president.

The frightening problem at this point is that Obama's incoherence may indicate a lack of ability to deal with the complex issues he faces. Incoherence in public speech can be forgiven; a president's inability to grasp and deal with the complex issues facing this country cannot be forgiven or allowed to continue. It may well be the President rather than the Secretary of the Treasury who may need to consider resigning at some point.

Muslim murders 50 people in Pakistan mosque.

Suicide Bomber Kills at Least 50 in Pakistan Mosque. When is the world going to wake up to what we're dealing with? This isn't about a few radicals moved to suicide bombing to protest American foreign policy.

We are facing a radical Islam thoroughly grounded in the Qur'an and Islamic traditions. Westerners kid themselves to think that the radicals pervert the Qur'an and traditions. That is why so few Muslims speak against the terrorists. They fully understand that not only does the Qur'an support the terrorists in their project to kill Jews and Christians, but that it calls for their own murder if they speak against the terrorists.

Once again, the apologists will find some way to blame Bush, the West, America, Israel or anyone other than the real source of the problem, the Qur'an and Islamic traditions as preached by radical Islamists.

Highway Report carefully averts its eyes from possible Islamist, environmentalist or animal rights terror activities; Missouri withdraws report.

Missouri Highway Patrol retracts controversial report on militia activity. The report "conservative groups with domestic terrorism and named former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin." Yeah, I thought some of Ron Paul's followers were weird, but claiming that they were domestic terrorists seems a bit much.

The Highway Patrol says that they "will open an investigation into the origin of the report." Did someone slide the report under the door of Highway Patrol headquarters and then disappear into the night? Did they provide the report for free with no compensation?

I suggest that the Highway Patrol check their records and find out who received payment for the report. It would also be helpful to find out who ordered the study. The report focused solely on conservative groups and made "no mention of Islamic terrorists or those who might subscribe to ideologies associated with liberals, such as environmental radicals."

One would think that Islamists might receive some mention as possible terrorists. Environmentalists and animal rights advocates have also engaged in terrorist acts. Yet the report failed to mention any possibility that any members of such groups might participe in future terrorist acts, focusing solely on conservative groups instead.

Are the Democrats bringing us our Smoot Hawley?

KansasCity.com reports that Mexico has now placed tariffs on $2.4 billion of American exports to Mexico in retaliation for Congress' terminating of access to the US for Mexican trucks. This will make American products less competitive in Mexico.

In addition, it will require the unloading of Mexican products in warehouses at the border and the reloading of the products on American trucks. The Department of Transportation estimates that this will add about $400 million to the cost of Mexican imports that the consumer will have to pay.

In a period of recession, such gamesmanship may lead to further retaliation that may impede free trade just as Smoot-Hawley did in helping to create the Great Depression. Of course, the Democrats have to pay off their union allies for support in the election.

What is the source of religious hatred in the modern world?

The AP reports that "The U.N.'s top human-rights body approved a proposal by Muslims nations Thursday urging passage of laws around the world to protect religion from criticism."

The article says

The resolution urges states to provide "protection against acts of hatred,
discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions
and incitement to religious hatred in general."

"Defamation of religions is the cause that leads to incitement to hatred, discrimination and violence toward their followers," Pakistan's ambassador Zamir Akram said.

"It is important to deal with the cause, rather than with the effects alone," he said.

The greatest source of defamation and incitement to religious hatred is the Qur'an and Islam. Does this mean that the Qur'an should be banned and Islam's preachers of hate muzzled and prosecuted?

Another work related accident. Do they all get their 72 white grapes?

Reuters reports on a work related accident that occurred in Helmand province in southern Afghanistan. A suicide bomber was bidding farewell to 6 of his cohorts when his suicide belt detonated. All seven were killed.

Another Obama campaign promise bites the dust.

Greg Mankiw reports that Obama's campaign promise of a middle class tax reduction is no longer operative. Is anyone really surprised? Have the Democrats ever met a tax increase that they didn't like or a tax decrease that they liked?

Milton Friedman - we need his wisdom today.

Randy Barnett provides a great video of Milton Friedman presenting some of his economic theory. Why do so many people assume that bureaucrats act from an objective standpoint and that only capitalists are greedy? Why do they assume that government will have the interests of the people in mind rather than those of the governing elite?

Obama: It's all Bush's fault ... Sorry, Mr. President, that dog won't hunt.

President Obama desperately tried to blame his proposed budget deficits on the Bush administration in his press conference last night. This exchange occurred

QUESTION Chip Reid: Thank you, Mr. President.At both of your town hall
meetings in California last week, you said, quote, ”I didn’t run for president
to pass on our problems to the next generation.” But under your budget, the debt
will increase $7 trillion over the next 10 years. The Congressional Budget
Office says $9.3 trillion. And today on Capitol Hill, some Republicans called
your budget, with all the spending on health care, education and environment,
the most irresponsible budget in American history. Isn’t that kind of debt
exactly what you were talking about when you said passing on our problems to the
next generation?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: First of all, I suspect that some of those
Republican critics have a short memory, because as I recall, I’m inheriting a
$1.3 trillion deficit, annual deficit, from them.

No, Mr. President, that won't work. You may have inherited a substantial debt resulting from years of deficit spending. However, you have presented your own budget that creates deficits far in excess of those of the Bush administration during its years in office. You did not "inherit" that, but created it for you own ideological purposes.

Instapundit presents the Bush and Obama deficits in a clear picture. Mr. President, that dog won't hunt.

AIG executive resignation letter - must reading for every American.

Every American should read this resignation letter from one of the AIG officers receiving the famous retention bonuses.

This country is in serious trouble. Too many partisan politicians seek only immediate political advantage from taking simplistic, emotional positions that get the attention of the media regardless of their effect on the economy or the country in the long run.

When word of the retention bonuses got out, politicians tripped over themselves trying to get in front of cameras to attack the bonuses, their recipients, AIG and anyone who had anything to do with the bonuses. Their merit in the scheme of things mattered not in the slightest. The particular circumstances of the actual recipients of the bonuses mattered not at all.

This would create enough problems if it were the only case of such demagogic conduct. Unfortunately, it only exemplifies the normal conduct of the American political class today.

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit

The Heritage Foundation presents the Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in a very visual form. There is no possible way that this disaster can be justified on the basis of the present financial crisis. Perhaps a substantial budget deficit in fiscal year 2009 can be supported in order to jump start the economy.

That cannot be argued for years beyond that. This is not about the financial issues, but an attempt to expand the government to an extent undreamed of before now. The financial crisis merely provides cover for what Obama and the Democrats wanted to do anyway.

The deficit in each year exceeds the worst year during the Bush administration. This country simply cannot sustain that level of budget deficits for so many years. China has already signaled that they will not continue to finance American profligacy.

This approach will likely generate inflation beyond even the years of the Carter administration.

Pope Benedict XVI - Genuine religion ... rejects all forms of violence and totalitarianism.

Pope Benedict XVI recently told Muslim leaders in Cameroon:

Genuine religion thus widens the horizon of human understanding and stands at
the base of any authentically human culture. It rejects all forms of violence
and totalitarianism: not only on principles of faith, but also of right reason.

Certainly, the Pope's comment expresses the Christian faith tradition. However, according to Islamic tradition, Islam was founded on conquest and murder. Muhammad was the leader of a band of murderers and thieves. The Qur'an itself calls for continual war against non-believers.

Westerners generally assume that all religions reject violence and that Muhammad taught the same precepts as Jesus. Unfortunately, the Qur'an and the Islamic traditions show otherwise.

Far from suggesting the essential unity of Islam and Christianity as being genuine religions that reject all forms of violence, many Muslims would have to understand the Pope's remarks as indicating that he does not view Islam as a genuine religion. Unlike Christianity, Islam requires its followers to kill or be killed for Islam. Its fundamental nature is one of violence and hate of all it views to be non-believers.

George Will: The Toxic Assets We Elected

George Will made some good points in "The Toxic Assets We Elected":

With the braying of 328 yahoos -- members of the House of Representatives
who voted for retroactive and punitive use of the tax code to
confiscate the legal earnings of a small, unpopular group -- still
reverberating, the Obama administration yesterday invited private-sector
investors to become business partners with the capricious and increasingly
anti-constitutional government. This latest plan to unfreeze the financial
system came almost half a year after Congress shoveled $700 billion into the
Troubled Assets Relief Program, $325 billion of which has been spent without
purchasing any toxic assets.

Referring to members of the House of Representatives as yahoos is overly insulting - to the true yahoos of the country, wherever they are. Barney Frank and his cohorts grow ever more disgusting as they struggle to get face time on TV news by making ever more outrageous claims about the AIG bonuses and American business in general.

After week after week of attacks on the private sector for its greed, Obama and the Congressional Democrats now beg the private sector to save their bacon by investing in the toxic assets. If the toxic assets turn out to be not so toxic, will the Democrats then demand a 90% tax on the profits?

George made a mistake in one of his comments. He said that "TARP funds have, however, semi-purchased, among many other things, two automobile companies" while even the Swedes say that Saab is on its own and "The Swedish state is not prepared to own car factories."

Actually, the American government isn't purchasing the car companies. They're simply providing the cash so the companies can continue the UAW contracts to pay off the union for its campaign contributions and votes for Obama.

Of course, they'll be needing another installment soon because nothing has been done to make the companies competitive.

When taxation becomes plundering ....

Jerry Pournelle presents an important insight into the present political situation even though he wrote the material in 1983:

There are other pressures. Republics stand until the citizens begin to vote
themselves largess from the public treasury. When the plunder begins, those
plundered feel no loyalty to the nation—and the beneficiaries demand ever more,
until few are left unplundered. Eventually everyone plunders everyone, the state
serving as little more than an agency for collecting and dispensing largess. The
economy falters. Inflation begins. Deficits mount. Something must be done.
Strong measures are demanded, but nothing can be agreed to.

The present administration threatens to provide its constituents with a greater largess from the public treasury while exempting most of them from the taxes that fund the payments. Doing so will require taking greater sums from the decreasing numbers who pay the taxes. The recipients will demand ever more "circuses" since they will not pay any of the costs.

This will destroy both the economy and democracy. Our tax system requires the willing acceptance of those taxed. As the tax rate increases to support the ever increasing level of expenditures, acceptance will turn to revolt as people begin to view tax, not as supporting the needs of the country, but as theft, a taking from productive elements of society to fund the unproductive elements to win their votes for the political class.

People will take their income underground or move their investments overseas. As the economy falters, control of the government will bestow the greatest source of income. That will transform elections into life or death struggles as the political class fights for control of government as the source of an increasing portion of the national income.

The Obama administration is already proposing budget deficits of $1 trillion+ annually for years to come. That will lead to massive inflation that will eventually require a recession to regain control of budget deficits and inflation. If that sounds familiar, it describes President Reagan following years of Jimmy Carter's runaway inflation.

We will be lucky if that is all that happens. Obama inflation may rise to such levels that it will lead to the person on the white horse who destroys democracy to "save" the country.

President Obama and the Democrats are getting what they wanted - AIG executives are bailing.

Reuters reports that some AIG executives are bailing from the company. The attacks by the President of the United States and the Congress on their retention bonuses and very real concerns about the safety of their families undoubtedly influenced their decisions.

According to the article:

A handful of senior executives working within American International Group
Inc's controversial financial products unit have resigned, said a company
spokeswoman late on Monday.

The division is at the heart of the financial problems that brought AIG to the brink of bankruptcy last September, saved only by a taxpayer bailout that has now swelled to as much as $180 billion.

The spokeswoman declined to specify the exact number of resignations, noting they
were expected to be "manageable," and said there were indications that more will
follow.

The purpose of the bonuses was to retain people who knew the business. Our political leaders have retroactively set aside the retention bonuses and insulted the recipients. Undoubtedly, more will leave as they find new jobs or simply go "John Galt."

Will anyone remain who can sort out the complexities of the derivatives to salvage some of the assets the taxpayers now own? Thanks to our political class for their stupidity. Will they learn from this fiasco? I doubt it.

The "environmentalists" show their true colors for any who doubt.

Does anyone really doubt that "environmentalists" hate one part of the environment - humans? The response to the world's cheapest car makes this hatred clear.

The New York Times reports on the imminent introduction of the Nano in India as the world's cheapest car. It will be "a boon to families all over the developing world that currently speed around town on overloaded two-wheelers, often with an infant perched precariously on someone’s lap."

The article provides a wonderful quote from an Indian man about his planned purchase of a Nano:

“I’m buying it because it gives a sense of freedom,” Mr. [Vishal] Bhatia wrote,
“freedom to go to someplace in uncrumpled clothes, with my deodorant still being
able to mask my body odor. But above all to see the look in my family’s eyes
when they see it in person.”

At a price of about $2000, the Nano will allow many people to move up to the greater comfort and safety of a closed vehicle with four wheels rather than a two wheeled motorbike open to the heat and rain.

One would think the Nano would be met with universal support for such an opportunity to improve the lives of people in the third world. Unfortunately, many in the environmental movement want to rain on this parade as they do most improvements in the lives of people.

The article indicates that "Environmentalists, however, have decried the Nano and its low-cost imitators as an impending disaster." Nobel Prize winner Rajendra Pachauri and head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was quoted as saying that he was “having nightmares” about the car.

In reality, the car will emit less pollution than many of the scooters it will replace. It will take far more dangerous and uncomfortable scooters off the roads of third world countries rather than simply adding to the congestion on the roads.

Don't expect facts and concern for mere humans to overcome the doctrines of the global warming religionists.

Even the New York Times finds Obama clueless.

Politico describes the situation aptly as "Friendly fire: NYT hits Obama." Frank Rich, Thomas Friedman, Maureen Dowd and an editorial in the Sunday paper all took Obama to task. Paul Krugman wrote in his blog on Saturday that "the president’s yet to be announced bank rescue plan would almost certainly fail."

Politico concludes that "The sentiment, coming just two months after the president was sworn in, reflects elite opinion in the Washington-New York corridor that Obama is increasingly overwhelmed, and not fully appreciative of the building tsunami of populist outrage."

There seems to be growing recognition that Obama is simply unable to cope with the office of the presidency and the issues he faces. This comes not simply from the right, from people who opposed his election. Increasingly, it comes from the most prominent supporters of both Obama and the Democratic Party. Certainly, no one comes before the New York Times in shilling for Obama and the Democrats.

This is extraordinary for so early in the term of the new president.

Obama: Holding mutually exclusive positions on the terrorists in Guantanamo.

Obama criticizes some Guantanamo release decisions. On the one hand President Obama claims that the Bush administration released some people from Guantanamo who then rejoined terrorist groups. He complained that "U.S. officials have not always been effective in determining which prisoners will be a danger once they are let go."

On the other hand, Obama said that "the Bush administration's policy of holding detainees for years on end with no trials is 'unsustainable,' and has only fueled anti-American sentiments." According to the report, he also "he also disputes former Vice President Dick Cheney's claim that plans to close Guantanamo will make America less safe."

Obama has President Bush coming and going. First, he was an idiot for releasing prisoners from Guantanamo who joined the terrorists. But he would have been an idiot for keeping them in Guantanamo because that would have increased hatred of America.

Yet, Obama can release all of the remaining terrorists from Guantanamo and that will not make America less safe. These seem to be mutually exclusive ideas that cannot all be held at the same time, but Obama firmly holds to all of them and expects Americans to do the same.

Was Bush in error for releasing terrorists or for holding them in Guantanamo? If Bush was wrong in releasing some of the terrorists, how are we not less safe if we release all of them?

I'm sorry, President Obama. You can no longer vote "present" or take all sides of an issue as you did in the campaign. Being President of the United States of America means that you have to take a decision and accept responsibility for the consequences. Do you release the terrorists or hold them? If you release them, you can be certain that a substantial number will rejoin the jihad.

Where is this country going?

New York Magazine reports: "Busload of Crazies to Tour Homes of AIG Executives this Weekend." It says,

The Connecticut Working Families Party this weekend has organized a bus
store that will make stops at Wilton, Connecticut, AIG office as well as the
security-patrolled homes of AIG execs who are fearing for their lives.

Rep. Barney Frank was demanding the addresses of the AIG executives to be released to the public. Now we have hordes of people descending on their homes. Little wonder that they are fearful for their lives and the lives of their families.

Where is this country going? Jon Green, the director of the Connecticut Working Families Party says that he wants people to have "an opportunity to see what kinds of lifestyle billions of dollars in credit-default swaps can buy."

Mr. Green, have you thought about what led to the creation of the credit-default swaps and why they ultimately became toxic? Do you think AIG executives created the concept for no reason and then torpedoed them to destroy their company? They were created in an attempt to deal with the high degree of risk created by subprime lending required by the Clinton administration, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, et al.

The financial industry would never have made the subprime loans. That reality led to the regulations that required the loans. AIG and others traded the credit-default instruments in an attempt to protect against defaults on the loans. Perhaps the industry should have simply said "no" to the Democrats and refused to make the subprime loans.

"All homosexuals should be stoned to death, says Muslim preacher of hate."

Every Westerner must consider the implications of these Muslim hate mongers as reported in the Daily Mail when they argue that all religions are the same. Anjem Choudary demands that Britain adopt Sharia law for the country. Under Sharia law "adulterers and homosexuals would be killed by stoning."

This does not represent the wild rant of an isolated preacher, but the accepted understanding of Sharia law throughout the Muslim world. Westerners may not want to believe it, but the Qur'an and Islamic traditions fully support the hate mongers preaching.

The article cited "fellow hate cleric Omar Bakri, who warned that Britons should 'wake up before it is too late' or suffer another 7/7 terror attack." The Qur'an describes a vengeful Allah who destroys city after city for not accepting the warnings of messengers not to worship other gods beside Allah. This occurs in page after page of endless repetition.

One can easily see how these self-righteous hate mongers see themselves as warning Britain and the West of their sinful ways. Having issued the same warnings as the Qur'an's messengers gave to the various cities, they can then murder as many Westerners as possible in the name of Allah and Islam just as Allah did in the Qur'an.

The article quotes a "third firebrand, Abu Abdullah, 30, [who] branded the British Government 'tyrannical' and warned: 'Do not relax, do not recline, or you will be touched by the fire of hell.'" However, the Qur'an does not simply warn that Allah punishes the sinner in the afterlife. It teaches that he destroys cities in this life whose people worship other than as the Qur'an teaches. That underlies the treats of another 7/7 terror attack and the "fire of hell" threat.

Perhaps the most frightening aspect of the article is the life story of Ajem Choudary. His student days were filled with "swigging beer, cavorting with women and puffing on a cannabis joint - offences for which he would be lashed and stoned under his version of Sharia law." Even a life in the West does not prevent a Muslim from preaching hate against the West. In fact, it may lead to even more radical hatred to atone for past sin.

Is any source of energy sufficiently green?

At every step of the way, "conservationists" will find objections to any proposed source of energy. None will be acceptable. The real objection is not the environmental impact of the particular energy source, but the fact that it supports American capitalism and the American standard of living.

We've been preached to relentlessly about the need for renewable energy sources. One would think that solar power would be the pinnacle of renewable energy. One would think that a desert would be the ideal location for massive solar power projects. Where else would the sun shine brightly for the most days of the year except in a region that gets almost no rainfall? What other area seems less susceptible to damage by such a project?

Conservationists are objecting to a proposal to build a solar power project in the Mojave Desert. All those solar panels would damage "the aesthetics of the region and its tortoise population." Wind turbines spoil the view and kill birds. Now solar panels spoil the view and hurt the tortoises.

Senagor Dianne Feinstein opposes the project in the Mojave. Arnold Scwarzenegger answered bluntly, "If we cannot put solar power plants in the Mojave desert, I don't know where the hell we can put it."

Only energy sources sufficiently far enough removed to ever be used will be acceptable to the "conservationists." They will continually object to any source that can actually be used because of its negative impact on the environment. Democrats followed this line during the Cold War. They continually objected to the deployment of any weapons system in favor of further research on a weapons system under development.

John Hinderaker: "Are We a Banana Republic?" With these last two months, that may insult banana republics.

Mr. Chief Justice John Marshall recognized long ago in McCulloch v. Maryland that the "power to tax involves the power to destroy."

John Hinderaker at Power Line asks, "Are We a Banana Republic" in regard to the Democrats' proposal to tax at 90% or more the bonuses given by AIG to retain certain of its critical employees. With some of the events in Washington these past 2 months, one might find this characterization to be an insult to banana republics.

Many people are undoubtedly shouting, "Right on" to the proposal to tax the AIG bonuses at confiscatory rates. That is why demagogues take such positions. They know they can whip up support for their policies.

That is the very reason that the founders enacted the Constitution - to limit the powers of the demagogue to gain temporary support for policies that hurt the country in the long run. John says it well:

I would have considered it a bright line rule that the government can't
identify a class of unpopular people and impose a special tax on them. What's
next? A 100% income tax on registered Republicans, retroactive to last year? If
Pelosi's bill passes muster, why not?

If Congress can pass a confiscatory tax on the AIG bonuses, no contract is safe in this country. Who will be next? Why stop with AIG? The Treasury obviously needs a tremendous injection of income, why not look at other unpopular salaries in the country?

A lot of people think our star athletes are overpaid. Why not pass a 90% tax on all athletes' compensation above $400,000 per year? While we're at it, why not apply the same tax to our college and professional coaches? Why should the football coach at the University of Texas make such a huge salary?

Now that we're on a roll, we can include the news readers and political pundits in the tax. Also, we should apply it to all contributions to political campaigns and all politicians' personal income. Uh oh. I think I've gone from preaching to meddling, haven't I?

This is just sad. And I always thought Obama was a nice person.

I didn't watch Obama on Jay Leno's show. I don't watch Jay and there was a good football match on - Seattle vs. New York. From what Jake Tapper reports, perhaps President Obama should never speak again without his teleprompter.

His comment makes me question my judgment about him. I've never been impressed with his intellect or ability, but he always seemed like a nice person. I now doubt that he is a nice person.

According to Tapper's report, Obama said that he was getting better at bowling with practice in the White House bowling lanes. He was now bowling 129. Tapper reports this exchange:

"That's very good, Mr. President," Leno said sarcastically.
It's "like the Special Olympics or something," the president said.

I'm not looking for gotchas from Obama. I don't want to find stupid things that he says, or thoughtless, inappropriate insults about good people. Unfortunately, one can hardly miss reading about such a thoughtless, ignorant comment made on Jay Leno's show.

I'm afraid this gives the world an insight into the real character of our President. He has largely kept it hidden by faithfully reading from his teleprompter. I'm truly disgusted by what I see. Someone who makes such a remark about people who happen to be differently abled and who participate to the best of their ability in athletics shows their real character.

The desperate attempts at spin by his people can't justify this disgusting comment. If President Bush had ever said anything similar, he would have been crucified by the media. Somehow, I doubt that this will be reported or commented on in much of the mainstream media.

President Obama, I suggest that you not appear on Jay Leno's show again.

And these people looked down their noses at George W. Bush's intelligence?

Tim Walker at the Telegraph says that "Gordon Brown is frustrated by 'Psycho' in No. 10." This is supposed to be the greatest intellects in the country who are going to smooth things over with our allies after that idiot George W. Bush fouled things up. Really?

PM Brown gave President Obama an extremely thoughtful gift when he was at the White House, a pen holder carved from the wood of an anti-slavery ship. The ship was a sister ship of the one from which the desk in the Oval Office was constructed. Great thought and consideration went into the selection of a gift from the people of Great Britain to the people of the United States of America, countries that have had a special relationship for decades.

One would expect that Obama's gift in return would show the same thoughtfulness and consideration. It appears that Obama sent an aide out at the last minute to find 25 videos of famous American movies. What a shocking insult to one of our most important allies.

Walker reports that when the PM tried to play a movie, it merely showed "wrong region" on the screen. Obama couldn't even be bothered to find videos that would work in Britain. Either that or he and his people are so clueless that they had no idea that such differences existed.

To add to the incredible embarrassment of the affair, Walker contacted a White House spokesman who "sniggered when I put the story to him and he was still looking into the matter when my deadline came last night." He "sniggered" at the story? Are these people intentionally trying to destroy American relations with Britain?

Rupert Murdoch: Can Europe and the United States survive if we allow the terrorists to succeed in Israel?

Rupert Murdoch raised an important question in a speech to the American Jewish Committee:

In the West, we are used to thinking that Israel cannot survive without the help
of Europe and the United States. Tonight I say to you: Maybe we should start
wondering whether we in Europe and the United States can survive if we allow the
terrorists to succeed in Israel.

We can no longer lie to ourselves. If the Islamic terrorists succeed in destroying Israel, they will not stop there. That will only be the warm up for a Christian country as the next target, and another will follow that one.

He describes the opponents well: "In the end, the Israeli people are fighting the same enemy we are: cold-blooded killers who reject peace, who reject freedom and who rule by the suicide vest, the car bomb and the human shield." They accept no peace until the whole world embraces Islam. To impose Islam on the world, they will murder any who stand in their way.

Apologists may think that if only we help the Islamists defeat Israel, they will be nice to Christians. They are no different than Neville Chamberlain and the Islamists will act no differently than the Nazis. If they destroy Israel, the only question will be where they will strike next.

The Dems want to tax the AIG bonus today. What will their target be tomorrow?

The blog JustOneMinute tells truth to power when it says, "I deplore this confiscatory tax aimed at whoever Congress is mad at today. Right now it's AIG and Fannie Mae; later it will be Merrill and Citibank, and eventually it will be defense contractors, profiteering oil executives, or whomever the Congressional Dems single out as their whipping boy du jour."

Everyone may be mad about the retention bonuses to be paid to AIG management, but that does not justify confiscatory taxes to appropriate the bonuses. Today it may be applied to AIG, tomorrow to the new enemy of the day.

When government sets aside contracts they don't like, no contract is safe. This introduction of uncertainty into economics discourages all investors from risking their money in the economy.

The Obama administration - like a train wreck in slow motion?

I do not want the Obama administration to fail. If it fails, this country and its people are hurt. We will all suffer.

It gives me no pleasure to criticize or write negative things about President Obama. He seems like a very nice person. Some like to talk about what a great orator he is. I am less than impressed at that than his likability when he isn't attacking some political opponent.

That said, Team Obama has been an unmitigated disaster from day one. They obviously face great challenges that carried over from the prior administration. Every administration inherits problems and opportunities from its predecessor. Certainly, President George W. Bush came into office with serious economic challenges from the Clinton administration.

However, when people begin to question whether a President is intentionally causing the economy to fail and speculate as to the firing of the Secretary of the Treasury less than 2 months after his confirmation, something is seriously amiss. Intrade already has an account betting that Geithner will be gone before June 31.

Even solid Obama voters are beginning to regret their vote. To date Obama has not even been able to staff the Treasury Department, which should be the primary focus of his attention in view of the economic challenges facing the country.

Does Senator Dodd really think he reassures the public by saying he didn't know what his legislation was doing?

AP reports:

On Wednesday, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., acknowledged that his staff agreed
to dilute the executive pay provision that would have applied retroactively to
recipients of federal aid. However, Dodd said he was not aware of any American
International Group Inc. bonuses at the time the change was made.

No, Senator Dodd, your staff did not agree to anything. You are the Senator. You propose legislation. You offer amendments to legislation. You vote and speak on the floor of the Senate. Your staff does none of those things.

Senator, you say that you weren't "aware of any American International Group Inc bonuses at the time the change was made." Is this supposed to reassure us somehow? Why do you think the amendment was suggested? Would you have supported such bonuses for some of the companies bailed out, but not AIG? Why? Did you not try to understand the purpose of the amendment that you were asked to offer? Do you carry legislation that you do not understand and vote for legislation that you don't know the effect?

In fact, the AIG bonuses are probably quite defensible even though too many of our political leader would rather demagogue them than show real leadership. Would AIG and the taxpayers really be better off if the people who understand the various instruments had left AIG for other jobs rather than stay for the retention bonuses?

If the taxpayers are going to bailout companies, they need to be prepared to analyze salaries and bonuses in hard business terms, not in simplistic, emotional ways. Instead, our Senators and Congresspersons would rather grab a torch and pitchfork to lead the mob.

It looks like China is voting against the Obama plan.

The Asia Times reports, "China inoculates itself against dollar collapse." It says that "There is mounting evidence that China's central bank is undertaking the process of divesting itself of longer-dated US Treasuries in favor of shorter-dated ones." It is moving its reserves from the dollar to hard assets that are devalued as a result of the crisis.

This does not bode well for the US dollar.

Only 9% of non-union workers want to join a union - Rasmussen Reports

The latest Rasmussen Report provides interesting information about the attitude of non-union workers toward unions. It says that only 9% of non-union workers would want to join a union while 81% would not.

No wonder the unions want their Democrat allies to force the card check legislation through Congress. They recognize that only by eliminating the secret ballot can they hope to unionize any more businesses.

A question for Rep. Barney Frank.

The AP reports some statements by Rep. Barney Frank about AIG bonuses to its managers. According to AP, "Rep. Barney Frank charged Monday that a decision by financially strapped insurance giant AIG to pay millions in executive bonuses amounts to 'rewarding incompetence.'" He continued and said, "These people may have a right to their bonuses. They don't have a right to their jobs forever."

Barney, you're right. They don't "have a right to their jobs forever." You don't either. Barney Frank and other Democrats required the financial industry make loans to uncreditworthy people. They have a lot of chutzpah to attack anyone for "incompetence" or claiming that others have no "right to their jobs" for trying to deal with the risk created by the subprime loans required by the Democrats.

If people in the finance industry should be fired for their efforts to handle the risk created by subprime loans, all of the government people who required the subprime loans and facilitated their continuation should be run out of office. Do you agree, Rep. Frank?

"Looking at Earmarks: Legislators for Sale?"

Many people defend earmarks as adding only a relatively small amount to the Federal Budget. As a percentage of total expenditures, earmarks may not be terribly significant. As a source of potential corruption and waste, their significance far exceeds the money involved. Furthermore, only in Washington would the sums involved not be considered important.

Defense Industry Daily provides some important information about one of the big players in the earmark scam - the PMA Group. The PMA Group was formed by a former John Murtha aide and is under investigation by the FBI. It is supposed to close its doors at the end of March 2009. According to Defense Industry Daily:

While charging nearly $107 million in lobbying fees, and growing from a
start-up to the 11th largest lobbying firm in the USA at one point, the firm
reportedly dispensed more than $1.5 million in political contributions via
Magliochetti, 9 of his close relatives, and a Political Action Committee he
controlled. Those contributions were made to key House Appropriations committee
members John Murtha [D-PA], James Moran [D-NJ], Peter J. Visclosky [D-IN], and to John Sununu [then R-NH]. Contributions were also made to Mike Doyle [D-PA],
Tim Holden [D-PA], Michael Capuano [D-MA], Sen. Bill Nelson [D-FL], and the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Earmarks allow a Congressperson to require the expenditure of funds for a particular project done by a particular company. It bypasses the entire Congressional budget process and the Federal government procurement process. One Congressperson substitutes him/herself for the entire Congress and Federal procurement system to award a potentially multi-million dollar job to a particular company.

The article reports that "In 2007 alone, PMA clients received some $100 billion in government contracts, an amount that is about 20% of all federal contracts that year. PMA clients also got nearly $300 million in earmarks in a the House Defense Appropriations panel’s spending bill for FY 2008."

Those are huge sums of money. Only a saint would not be tempted to engage in "pay for play" in such circumstances. Only an idiot would think that would not be the case. How many saints are in Congress? Congresspersons must think the voters are all idiots.

Osama bin Dead... since 2001, says Angelo Codevilla.

Angelo Codevilla writes in The American Spectator that "All the evidence suggests Elvis Presley is more alive today than Osama bin Laden. But tell that to the CIA and all the other misconceptualizers of the War on Terror."

He argues very strongly that the Osama and al Qaeda were not responsible for the 1998 bombings of the American embassies in Africa or September 11. Why then do the US government and CIA focus on al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden as the center of terrorism? Codevilla contends that doing so allows them to pretend that "terrorism is the work of 'rogue individuals and groups' that operate despite state authority."

He says that "insisting on Osama's supposed mastery of al Qaeda, and on equating terrorism with al Qaeda, is official U.S. policy because it forecloses questions about the role of states, and makes it possible to indict as warmongers whoever raises such questions."

In support of his thesis, Codevilla points out that Osama and al Qaeda do not have the resources to finance the Afghan insurgency. The large sums of money needed "can come only from the super wealthy of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. The equipment can come only through dealers who work at the sufferance of states, and can reach the front only through Pakistan by leave of Pakistani authorities."

If Codevilla is correct in his analysis, the USA would have to make substantial changes to its foreign policy. It would have to recognize that its "allies," the Saudis, UAE and Pakistan are funding and facilitating the Afghan insurgency and perhaps much of terrorism in general.

These are certainly thought provoking and challenging ideas that deserve careful analysis and discussion.

"Asian men" attack Christian minister in London after "heated arguments" with Muslims during his Gospel TV show. Any connection?

The Daily Mail reports about an attack by "three Asian men" on a Christian minister. Reverend Noble Samuel hosts a Christian TV show in London. He was born in Pakistan and educated by Christian missionaries. He moved to London 15 years ago.

Rev. Samuel says, "My show is not confrontational," but he has had heated arguments with Muslims during his shows, presumably from callers. As with any TV program, no one is required to watch or agree with the presentations made on the programs. Muslim viewers need not watch Rev. Samuel's program and need not call him to attack his ideas.

Three "Asian men" physically attacked Rev. Samuel. They hit him in his car and tried to smash his face into the steering wheel. One of the men grabbed his cross and took it off his neck. The other two men took his Bible and laptop. The men warned that "if you go back to the studio, we'll break your legs."

This clearly suggests that the crime was not simply a theft or ordinary assault case. The men knew that Rev. Samuel had a show on TV and showed an interest in the Christian cross and Bible. In spite of the threat, Rev. Samuel went on the air with his regularly scheduled show. "During the show the Muslim station owner Tahir Ali came on air to condemn the attack."

Obviously, not all Muslims either participate in or condone violence against Christians or Jews. However, such violence clearly is increasing throughout the world. Rather than taking action to put their own house in order, too many Muslims quickly shout "Islamophobe" at anyone who points to the hate preached in the name of Islam.

Once again the need to "COEXIST," as the bumper sticker simplistically calls for, fails because of the violence of Muslims against a Christian. There seems to be a pattern here. Certainly, everyone would find a pattern if Christians were attacking Muslims as Christian ministers preached God's hatred of all non-Christian faiths.

The politically correct in the West want everyone to ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the room - Muslim mullahs preach the superiority of Islam and Allah's hatred for Christians and Jews, citing passage after dreary passage in the Qur'an and the Islamic traditions in support. Whether they are correct in their interpretation of Islam or not, they seem to influence the actions of many of their followers to engage in violence in the name of Islam and Allah.

Supermercado de Walmart: An example of how capitalism innovates.

The Financial Times reports that Walmart plans to open its first stores this summer focused on the Hispanic market in the USA. This provides an excellent example of the innovation and flexibility of capitalism to meet the needs of its customers.

No socialist enterprise would ever create entire businesses to serve its customers better. One size fits all in socialist enterprises. One need only ask whether the Post Office would develop its locations in Hispanic communities to better serve the clients. Undoubtedly, they would not do so.

The report indicates that the signs, store layout and product lines will better meet the needs of the local Hispanic customers. The store employees will be bilingual.

Of course, an equally important aspect of capitalism works here. If customers do not find Supermercado de Walmart meets their needs as Walmart assumes, they will not trade at the stores and they will not make sufficient profits. Walmart will close the stores or convert them to the successful Walmart business model.

If the Post Office somehow built an Oficino de Correos for an Hispanic community, it would remain in operation regardless of any lack of support from the community.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao expressed about the safety of its loans to the United States.

AP quotes the premier of China saying, "We have made a huge amount of loans to the United States. Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I'm a little bit worried." Obviously, they should be concerned in view of the current administration's approach to deficit spending.

However, China did not enter into the loans out of the goodness of their hearts or simply as creditors. Much of the loans essentially financed the development of Chinese industry. Ultimately, the loans provided for the purchases of massive Chinese exports that fueled the Chinese economy's growth. Furthermore, China considered the USA to be the safest and best place to put its money.

The AP report also quotes an economist's reaction to the statement: "'They are worried about forever-rising deficits, which may devalue Treasuries by pushing interest rates higher,' said JP Morgan economist Frank Gong. 'Inside China there has been a lot of debate about whether they should continue to buy Treasuries.'"

The Obama administration needs to listen very carefully to this. They cannot continue to propose budgets that raise deficits forever. At some point creditors finally stop financing new expenditures or require ever increasing interest to offset the increasing risk of default.

Of course, an old saying about banks applies here. "If you borrow a little, the bank owns you. If you borrow a lot, you own the bank." The AP report indicates that "Analysts estimate that nearly half of China's $2 trillion in currency reserves are in U.S. Treasuries and notes issued by other government-affiliated agencies."

With such a large exposure to American debt instruments, China could seriously damage its economy if it took precipitous action.

H. Rodge Cohen - Another Obama nominee withdraws.

H. Rodge Cohen was nominated to be a deputy Secretary of the Treasury. George Stephanopoulos reports that he withdrew his name from consideration because “an issue arose in the final stages of the vetting process.”

No one wants to report what that "issue" was. Cohen appears to have had tremendous experience and would have been an asset in the Treasury Department. He apparently made many enemies during his representation of various clients over the years.

One blogger speculates that "Given current Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s continued underwhelming performance, the prospect that Cohen, given his history, might actually take charge of Treasury if Geithner proves he’s not up to the task may have been too much for his financial industry adversaries to bear."

This speculation provides an indication of Cohen's experience and the level of the enemies that he may have made over the years.

All of this may well be true. His enemies may have told the Obama administration to withdraw his name from consideration. It is also possible that he decided that he didn't want to join a ship that appears to be sinking rapidly. Geithner seems to be having extreme difficulty in persuading qualified people to join him at Treasury.

Either there are elements in the Democratic Party or the Obama administration who oppose anyone with adequate credentials for Treasury posts or those with adequate credentials don't want to be associated with the Obama administration. Most speculation seems to focus on the former. I suspect the latter may be as important.

Yes, Jimmy, the secret ballot is a basic tenet of democracy.

Unwittingly, Jimmy Hoffa explains why everyone should oppose "card check." Hoffa asked, “Since when is the secret ballot a basic tenet of democracy?” Only since the beginning and at every point in which people actually wanted democracy to work.

Would anyone seriously suggest that Americans surrender their right to the privacy of the secret ballot in political elections? Public voting invites intimidation, threats and violence.

Of course, unions support card check for exactly that reason. They lose elections using secret ballots. Workers who signed cards calling for an election to determine unionization then vote against the union in the final election in the privacy of the secret ballot.

The unions expect to greatly increase the number of unionized businesses through the card check process. Their organizers will be able to intimidate enough workers to sign the "card check" who would vote against unionization if they had a secret ballot.

Team Obama gets a big fat F from the economists.

The Wall Street Journal reports that a poll of 49 economists gave President Obama an average grade of 59 for his leadership in trying to turn the economy around. They gave Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner an average grade of 51 and Federal Reserve Chairperson Ben Bernanke a grade of 71.

Obama voted "present" thoughout his working life, why should he be expected to provide leadership now?

Here's what Howard Fineman says that the people and the "establishment" think of President Obama now: "Luckily for Obama, the public still likes and trusts him, at least judging by the latest polls, including NEWSWEEK's.But, in ways both large and small, what's left of the American establishment is taking his measure and, with surprising swiftness, they are finding him lacking."

If the American establishment are only now coming to that conclusion, they weren't paying attention during the long campaign. His description of Obama may give a clue as to the basic problem. He claims that Obama is "A busy, industrious overachiever, he likes to check off boxes on a long to-do list." On what possible objective information does he make that claim? Only the grossest wishful thinking could be the basis for such conclusion.

Obama did nothing as a state Senator in Illinois nor in his short period in the US Senate. The treatment of his college grades, his LSAT score and grades in Harvard Law School as a state secret clearly announces that affirmative action rather than personal achievement got him in the door. He got into the Harvard Law Review and was elected president of the review for the same reason.

His failure as President to this point should surprise no one. He was in over his head as a community organizer, state Senator and US Senator. Why should anyone think that he would do a great job as President? We can pray that he will for the sake of the country.

And this is supposed to reassure?

The Telegraph reports an explanation of the recent Obama White House insults to PM Gordon Brown on his visit to Washington:

British officials, meanwhile, admit that the White House and US State
Department staff were utterly bemused by complaints that the Prime Minister
should have been granted full-blown press conference and a formal dinner, as has
been customary. They concede that Obama aides seemed unfamiliar with the
expectations that surround a major visit by a British prime minister.

So the clowns in Team Obama have no clue as to how to handle a "major visit by a British prime minister"? If they can't handle a rather simple matter such as that, how are they going to deal with Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, etc.?

Apparently, in a attempt to defend Obama, "Allies of Mr Obama say his weary appearance in the Oval Office with Mr Brown illustrates the strain he is now under, and the president's surprise at the sheer volume of business that crosses his desk." This is supposed to excuse his poor behavior or to reassure the American people?

Unfortunately, the information surprises not at all. Obama has never worked hard or succeeded at anything in his life. It does not surprise that he is overwhelmed at the business he faces in the White House.

I fear this is only the beginning of a series of revelations of complete incompetence in the White House and Team Obama.

Team Obama: "There's nothing special about Britain."

The Telegraph reports the shocking attitude of some high level members of the Obama administration. A State Department official involved in planning the Brown visit "reacted with fury when questioned by The Sunday Telegraph about why the event was so low-key. The official dismissed any notion of the special relationship, saying: 'There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment.'"

So this is how the new administration wants to improve international relations, by insulting one of the USA's longest and most important allies? Unfortunately, the State Department official may be only too correct at this point. Team Obama may have destroyed the special relationship with Britain that has endured these many decades.

One can only hope that a subsequent, more intelligent administration can patch up the damage done by the present incompetent one.

Charles Krauthammer: "Deception at Core of Obama Plans."

Charles Krauthammer has a must read op ed today on the Obama sleight of hand budget game. Obama claims that his plan meets the problems that created the economic problems the country faces. He offers "universal, heavily nationalized health care; a cap-and-trade tax on energy; and a major federalization of education with universal access to college as the goal."

One may certainly agree as to the wisdom of that program. I suspect that he was peddling the programs before the meltdown occurred and would have been peddling them had it not occurred. The Democrats have been trying to sell them for some time, since Hillary Care for one.

However, they do not speak, topside or bottom, to the real problems underlying our present economic situation. Mr. Krauthammer expresses it well: "As a cure for rapidly growing joblessness, a massive destruction of wealth, a deepening worldwide recession, this is perhaps the greatest non-sequitur ever foisted upon the American people."

The source of the present economic situation lies in the financing sector. Universal health care, cap and trade and increased numbers of college graduates do not speak to the real problems whatsoever. Again Krauthammer, "Four months after winning the election, six weeks after his swearing in, Obama has yet to unveil a plan to deal with the banking crisis."

Instead of speaking to the real source of the crisis, Obama sells the country the same old Democratic snake oil. Little wonder that more and more people are experiencing "buyers' remorse" at their vote for Obama.

Is Naomi Klein in the White House?

Naomi Klein may not be in the White House, but Rahm Emanuel has clearly read her work - The Shock Doctrine. Charles Krauthammer quotes Emanuel as saying, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before."

Klein accuses Milton Friedman as using the shock doctrine to impose free market solutions on various countries. Her book is utter nonsense, but Emanuel seems to be taking her approach as a guide to impose the usual Democratic big government answers on this country in the name of ending the economic crisis.

Rep. Shelley Bereley: Tie aid to Shalit release and end of rocket attacks.

Congresswoman Shelley Berkley of Nevada has offered a resolution that "would tie America's aid to Gaza to the release of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit." It would also "suspend the aid payments until Hamas-run Gaza stops targeting Israeli civilians with frequent rocket attacks."

Finally, a good idea introduced in Congress. It probably won't pass.

Gilad Shalit was kidnapped on 25 June 2006 by Hamas in a cross border incursion from the Gaza Strip. He was not captured in battle, but in a calculated kidnapping to use in trade for murderers captured by Israel trying to kill Israeli citizens.

Why should Americans sacrifice to provide aid to Gaza to be used in buying more rockets to kill Israelis? Why should Americans sacrifice to help rebuild Gaza only to see it destroyed again because they refuse to stop attacking Israel?

Coexist bumper sticker - Who isn't "coexisting"?

I saw one of the "Coexist" bumper stickers on a car this morning, the one with the Star of David, the cross, etc. Maybe I missed it, but I don't remember seeing reports of the Methodists blowing themselves up to kill some Episcopalians, or Buddhists murdering Shintoists.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but only one of the religions seems intent on murdering people of other faiths just because they don't worship the "right" way. The need for coexistence indicates mutual antagonism between groups. Only Muslims refuse to accept the existence of other religious traditions and seek to murder others simply on the basis of their faith.

That doesn't suggest a need to "coexist," but that Islam needs to clean up its religion so that its people stop murdering people because of religious differences.

Two more Obama nominees withdraw.

Two potential high level appointees to Team Obama have withdrawn their names from consideration. Dr. Sanjay Gupta asked that he not be considered as Surgeon General and Annette Nazareth withdrew as chief deputy to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

This begs for explanation as to why both suddenly withdrew their names from consideration. In view of other problems with nominees, the immediate thought arises that they may have tax issues. That appears not to be the case.

In view of the direction the administration seems to be going, perhaps both had second thoughts about becoming involved with such a train wreck of an administration.

Is Obama trying to destroy the stock market?

Doug Ross argues that President Obama is intentionally attempting to bring the stock market to its knees so that he can say, "The free market has failed just as it failed the housing market!"

I doubt that this is the case, though ideology rather than reality certainly guides the administration's policy positions. That ideology will create economic disaster as it has in the past.

Ross makes the very helpful point that all of the Obama proposals point in the direction of enlarging the national government and its role in peoples' lives.

Obama has announced a new $3.55 trillion dollar budget. The GDP for 2008 is estimated at approximately $14.58 trillion. One can only imagine the outcry if one company controlled 1/4 of the national economy, yet the Obama budget grants control of about 1/4 of the national economy to the government in Washington.

This grants far too much power over the national economy and the country itself to the government. This encourages the graft and corruption already rampant in Washington.

Does the "tea party" movement result from a weak GOP leadership?

As he so often does, Glenn Reynolds provides thought provoking questions about the "tea party" movement: "Is the GOP leadership so weak that people have resorted to self-help? Or does this go beyond party?"

While the movement goes beyond party, the predominant problem is the lack of Republican leadership. Indeed, the real problem is that too many Republicans in Congress are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

Too many Republicans happily play the earmark game and have no desire to lead a movement against it. Too many Republicans happily voted for bloated budgets under President Bush and lack credibility to oppose them now.

That said, the danger to the nation's economy from the Obama budget requires that the Republican Party step up to lead opposition to the destructive policy proposals. Obviously, any good ideas that come out of the White House need to be recognized and supported.

Furthermore, the opposition must always offer constructive alternatives to the statist Democratic policy positions. Republicans must never simply say "No;" but "No and our solution is this."

"President Barak Obama Just Plain Rude to Britain. Don't Call Us in Future."

Those are Iain Martin's words in the headline of the Telegraph. Obama told us that he wanted to change American foreign policy. In less than 2 months he's badly damaged the special relationship with Britain that has stood both countries well through 2 world wars and most recently the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Martin spells out his disdain for Obama: "We get the point, sunshine: we're just one of many allies and you want fancy new friends. Well, the next time you need something doing, something which impinges on your national security, then try calling the French, or the Japanese, or best of all the Germans. The French will be able to offer you first rate support from their catering corps but beyond that you'll be on your own."

Some will wonder what Obama did to deserve such scorn. Martin also made that very clear:

The morning papers and TV last night featured plenty of comment focused on the
White House's very odd and, frankly, exceptionally rude treatment of a British
PM. Squeezing in a meeting, denying him a full press conference with flags etc.
... But Obama's merely warmish words (one of our closest allies, said with
little sincerity or passion) left a bitter taste with this Atlanticist.
Especially after his team had made Number 10 beg for a mini press conference and
then not even offered the PM lunch.

Did the administration act intentionally to insult the PM or from negligence? Regardless, their message seemed quite clear to any who cared to observe. Obama and his administration treated the PM as a minor player deserving of less than full honors. Mrs. Brown flew from London and was treated shabbily; no state dinner with the Obamas as one would expect.

Obama seems determined to insult America's allies and kowtow to its enemies. What will tomorrow bring?

Run Larry run.

The Hartford Courant is reporting that Larry Kudlow is considering a run against Chris Dodd for Dodd's senate seat. Larry would bring some real economic knowledge to the table. Dodd's sweetheart deals and his stonewalling any reporting about the deals are reason enough to vote against him.

Hopefully, Kudlow will run and win the election. Dodd seems to be vulnerable at this point.

Obama opposes the secret ballot.

The Wall Street Journal reports that President Obama told 100 top AFL-CIO leaders in a closed meeting that his administration supports the misnamed "Employee Free Choice Act." This will allow for the unionization of a business unit on the basis of signed cards without the need of a secret ballot election.

This permits actual threats by union organizers or simple peer pressure to intimidate workers to sign union cards. In the past, unions were able to win sufficient signatures on the cards, but subsequently lost the election because of secret ballots.

Many workers sign the cards to appease their co-workers, but then vote against unionization in the privacy of the election booth. Obama and the unions know that they cannot win support for unionization through democratic elections.

Obama is now paying off the unions for their support in the election. Unfortunately, this also follows the path of FDR that helped change a recession into the Great Depression. Roosevelt encouraged unionization that artificially increased labor costs and reduced employment. That will occur as a result of Obama's legislation.

Mr. President, the secret ballot is the foundation of democracy. Nothing can justify denying workers the right to vote their true opinion in the privacy of the ballot box in union elections just as in political elections.

Mr. President, where are the economists?

Shortly after President Obama announced the Stimulus Package, several hundred economists signed an ad by the Cato Institute opposing the package. Even more economists subsequently signed onto the statement

No comparable outpouring of support for the package seems to have been forthcoming from economists. Where are the economists, Mr. President? Why have they not rallied behind your program, or rather that of Speaker Pelosi? In reality, you voted "present" once again in formulating the major economic legislation for your administration. You let the Speaker and her people prepare the package rather than submit your own program.

Why aren't well respected economists putting their reputations on the line to respond to Jim Cramer, Larry Kudlow, Rick Santelli and, most of all, the Cato Institute ad? Their silence speaks volumes, Mr. President. You and your Democratic cohorts are putting the nation at risk to pander to your constituencies in the face of strong opposition from professional economists.

Here is what several hundred economists willingly put their reputations on the line to sign:

Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we
all support a big increase in the burden of government, we do not believe that
more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More
government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States
economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did
not solve Japan's "lost decade" in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope
over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S.
today. To improve the economy, policy makers should focus on reforms that remove
impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a
reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy
to boost growth.

Geithner: Obama to fight international tax dodgers

Geithner says that the Obama administration will introduce rules that will prevent international companies from avoiding American taxes. Perhaps they might want to take action against their own members to make sure that they not avoid paying American taxes.

Rather than being a serious proposal intended for governance, this seems nothing but an emotional ploy in a political campaign. Does Geithner seriously suggest that the administration will take this action? This country is already one of the few nations in the world that taxes its corporations for their earnings abroad.

Rather than attempting to increase taxes on corporations, the administration should be reducing tax payments to allow for job creation. Unfortunately, that basic economic concept seems far too complex for the Obama ideologues.

I would hope that Geithner is embarrassed for making such comments.

Christopher Hitchens warns about the UN's attempt to criminalize opposition to Islam.

Christopher Hitchens takes on the UN's attempt to criminalize any opinions that differ with Islam. Hitchens quotes paragraph 6 of the UN resolution that "[n]otes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001."

No one defames a religion by merely quoting the hate spouted by its preachers and the murders perpetrated by their followers in the name of the faith. Rather than attacking non-Muslims who oppose violence committed by Muslims, the UN and Muslims in general should demand that such violence end.

I don't see many Methodist preachers calling on Methodists to blow themselves up to kill some Muslims. I see continual calls by Muslim preachers for the faithful to kill Jews and Christians in the name of Muhammad. Aren't the Muslim preachers engaging in defamation of the religion of Islam far more than Christians' pointing to actual violence perpetrated by Muslims?

Why don't the UN and Muslims take on the Muslim preachers for their identification of Islam and Muhammad with beheadings and murder of non-Muslims? Of course, if they took such action, they would have to begin with the Islamic traditions that describe Muhammad as a murderer and leader of thieves and murderers. They would have to take on the Qur'an that calls for continual war against Christians and Jews.

Revolt among the Democrats?

Congressional Quarterly reports that 49 Democrats may oppose the Obama administration's agenda in the House of Representatives. These Democrats come from districts that voted for John McCain for president in 2008. They will face strong Republican challengers in the 2010 election.

Very specifically, "Many of the 49 Democrats in the group have particular concerns about Obama’s call for allowing the Bush-era tax cuts for wealthy families to expire." These concerns may increase as opposition to the Obama program grows throughout the country.

Obama administration to Gordon Brown: Drop dead.

The Mail is reporting that Downing Street is embarrassed that President Obama scaled back his first meeting with Prime Minister Gordon Brown. What is the administration thinking? Why do they want to insult the PM and Britain?

Are they trying to show that the first world president simply lacks the time to devote to the mere PM of Great Britain?

The Mail also reports, "Although Sarah Brown flew to Washington today to join her husband, there were no plans for the two couples to meet and she will instead have a brief one-to-one meeting with Michelle Obama."

Obama said that he would improve American relations with other countries. Insulting a world leader hardly seems the way to do so.

Buyers remorse already.

This is amazing. Obama voters are already expressing their sorrow and publicly apologizing for voting for him. I think that it will only grow as more begin to realize what an incompetent they put in the presidency.