On a More Optimistic Note...

To counter my "end of the world" post earlier, I'll make note here of Michael Berry's guest host spot yesterday for Mark Levin.

I didn't hear the whole show; I was driving and caught a few minutes on the radio, but it was encouraging. Berry was making the case that this is a great time in America - the greatest time, in fact. We are more politically active and aware right now than we've been in years!

He hooked me from the beginning of the spot because he was describing exactly what I've done over the past year. Berry asked, and I'm paraphrasing, "How many of you have pushed away from the television, quit watching commercial network sitcoms, and started watching conservative news programs?" I've been watching conservative news programs for years, but in the past year find that I watch less and less television because I'm reading, researching, or writing.

He went on to point out that more an more people are becoming engaged and active in the legislative process. "How many of you went online in the past year and read a piece of congressional legislation? How many of you have ever done that before?"

Over the past year, people have read bills, written and called congressmen, attended Tea Parties or town halls, have gone online to express their feelings in blogs or emails to friends, have registered to vote or even voted for the first time. People have taken to the internet and to the streets to be heard.

Berry is right. People are more involved now than they've been in years.

So what does that mean? Does that mean that 2010 will bring good things to Washington? That people are fed up? People are tired of the status quo in Washington? Obama promised "change" but I don't think he's the change most of us wanted.

So, I'll take a leaf of optimism from Michael Berry and be grateful that so many people are now paying attention to what is happening around us and in Washington. Maybe good things are coming; maybe all the negative now is for a reason.

Go back to the adage - You have to go through a Carter to get a Reagan. Where are you, son?!

Starting the Day Under a Cloud

This is the most depressing thing I've read since, well, yesterday. Why does it continue to shock and depress me that the left wants to ruin this country?

The voices on the right, of conservatism, and of the majority of Americans could not be more clear - we don't want Obamacare. Yet Harry Reid and company are intent on jamming it upon us no matter what.

Despite the CBO analysis, which Professor Jacobson points out, is not even in legislative language yet and therefore can't really be properly scored, there are plenty of other reasons to hate this legislation. Foremost in my mind is that it is simply going to lead to inferior care. Every plan on the table so far reduces the level of care you currently receive. The Baucus plan will lead to long waits and deferred care - rationing.

The justification for all this just isn't there. The left screams about all those that are uninsured but many of them choose to be.

The arguments have all been made and I can't make them more forcefully now than I could in the months I've been writing about it. And by the looks of this Foundry post, there's no point anyway. It's a done deal.

So now I have to take my disgust and disillusion out on those lame, weak, bottom feeding members of Congress from both Houses and reject almost all of them. There are no Republican leaders there fighting hard enough for me. Oh, the occasional weak, wishy-washy patsy will amble up to a microphone and give some little self-righteous speech about how this is a travesty but he's not doing much else about it.

In 2010 we need to clean house and get some real leaders in there, if there are any to be found, and take this country back. It's going to take years to undo the damage that's been done already and if Obamacare passes, we're screwed.

Damn, that's a gloomy way to start the day. So sorry.

Not Buying It...

Donald Douglas is NOT buying the Code Pink rehabilitation in the press. In fact, he says, "Code Pink's 'rethinking' Afghanistan is bull."

News Flash:

Professor Jacobson reminds you that THERE IS NO BAUCUS BILL!!

Quote of the Day

In 2008, Americans, says Gingrich, “were voting for the end of Bush. They were voting to have no taxes raised on anybody making under $250,000, and they were voting for a tax cut for 95 percent of the American people. Go back and read what Obama campaigned on. This is a con job on the scale of Madoff.”

From Robert Costa's NRO interview
with Newt Gingrich

And There Go the Gun Shows...

Well this will make the anti-gun crowd happy.

From NYC.gov:

The undercover investigation sent professional investigators to seven gun shows in Nevada, Ohio, and Tennessee to determine whether sellers would engage in two types of illegal transactions. The first involves private sellers selling guns to people who they thought could not pass a federal background check. The second involves licensed dealers conducting illegal straw sales, which are sales made to accomplices posing as buyers in order to help the real buyer avoid a criminal background check.

“The gun show loophole is a deadly serious problem – and this undercover operation exposes just how pervasive and serious it is,” said Mayor Bloomberg. “We are sending a copy of our detailed report Gun Show Undercover to every member of the United States Congress. We’ll work with Congressional leaders to pass legislation closing the gun show loophole. This is an issue that has nothing to do with the Second Amendment; it’s about keeping guns from criminals, plain and simple.”

Now the folks at Crooks and Liars are comparing this to the ACORN video sting, because, you know, importing underage girls to use for prostitution is okay and the whole undercover video thing was so unfair.

Most sensible people would agree that criminals shouldn't be allowed to purchase guns at gun shows and that any loophole should be closed. No argument here. In this day and age we ought to be able to do instant background checks which would solve the problem, no? There are a lot of legitimate collectors and dealers at gun shows and such events offer an opportunity for collectors and aficionados to meet.

Bloomberg writes:

Congress should pass legislation requiring that all sales at gun shows be subject to criminal background checks -- a measure that has the support of Sen. John McCain, President Obama and 83% of gun owners. It is also time for Congress to support the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) with the resources it needs to crack down on illegal sales at gun shows.

The vast majority of gun buyers at gun shows are law abiding citizens. Closing the gun show loophole and increasing resources to help ATF enforce the laws will not detract from anyone's Second Amendment rights. What it will do is send the message that criminals are not welcome at gun shows.

But what you will see now is the paranoid left calling for the shut down of all gun shows. Case in point. You want to enter crazyville, just get into a discussion on gun rights with someone. Especially someone on the internet.

No, Bloomberg isn't calling for an end to gun shows, but the moonbats will. Just close the loophole, folks.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-bloomberg/gun-show-undercover_b_312339.html

(H/T: Memeorandum)

Are You....

Are you going to take the H1N1 vaccine?

Sebellius swears it's safe, and we like, uh, trust her, right?

Who Cares?

Even if Bill Ayers really wrote Dreams From My Father, why would he spontaneously confess this to a stranger in an airport, especially after she reveals she is a conservative blogger?

Because he likes to play games?

Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. Maybe he heavily edited it. There's been a lot of speculation for months now; Jack Cashill has been analyzing the text for months, but what difference does it make at this point? If the end game is to reveal Obama as a liar for having claimed sole credit for the book, well, we already know he is really proficient at hiding the truth.

Does Bill Ayers want the royalties now, after all this time? Why not when the book was at the top of the charts? Don't you think Obama already took care of Ayers if, in fact, he did write the book for BHO?

No, no, no.

I admire Backyard Conservative's gumption for striking up a conversation with Ayers though. But if he wrote the book, well, it just doesn't matter to me anymore. I already know what I need to know about Obama.

(Much more at Memeorandum)

Still in the Oktoberfest Spirit

Let's praise our drinks. This is the band that was at Oktoberfest. Did I tell you we had a great time?

It's My Blog-Father's Birthday

It's Stacy McCain's birthday - the big 5-0. Go by and say something!

And since my 5-0 was two weeks ago, I'm technically older than he is. What does that get me? Nothin'.

Have a great birthday Stacy!

Kevin Jennings, Harry Hay, and Safe Schools

I started working on this Kevin Jennings post last weekend, never finished it, and forgot about it until Jennings was all over Memeorandum again today. A really good journalist wouldn't have have been so lackadaisical with posting, but that's why some of them get their tip jars rung more often than the rest of us.

At any rate, I noted the Rachel Abrams post at The Weekly Standard, looking at the Jennings perception of what safe schools means today. Back when we were kids, or at least I was, being safe in school meant not running in the halls or as Abrams says, "eating the paste."

Times are changin'.

You will remember, of course, that Jennings is the safe schools czar who has come under fire for failing to report knowledge of a male underage high school student having sex with an older man whom he met in a bus station. It has since been determined that that young man in question was in fact of legal consent, and he has come out in praise and gratitude of the support Jennings offered him. For his part, Jennings attributes this lapse to a youthful mistake and apologized, only after coming under fire by conservatives.

What Abrams is looking at now is Harry Hay and Jennings's praise of him. Michelle Malkin is now posting on the same subject, pointing to Zombie's post about Harry Hay. So this is gaining a little traction.

Who is Harry Hay? He was a Communist, he was co-founder of the Mattachine Society, which was one of the first gay activist organizations in the U.S., and was deeply involved with the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). We'll get back to him.

Kevin Jennings penned the Foreward in the book Queering Elementary Education and in it he actually says something I agree with. He says "Let's start setting the expectation that you must value every human being as a precious gift, that you must respect even those you disagree with, that you must treasure the differences among us, as soon as possible." On this point Mr. Jennings and I are in agreement, however, I don't think it's his call as to when or how a child learns about homosexuality, or his place as czar to tell them.

Full disclosure: Before anyone jumps me for being anti-gay, let me just say that nothing could be further from the truth. I'm not going to go into the long list of friends I have (and some that I have tragically lost) who are gay. My levels of tolerance might surprise you. This is not my issue with Jennings. I question his methods, his timing, and his role in that part of a child's education. I question his decision making; his handling of the sexual activity of a child, of legal consent or not, with an older man was wrong.

Jennings is the safe schools czar. As Abrams points out, safe schools used to include drug education, anti-violence and even increasing our awareness of bullying, but Jennings says "we must address anti-gay bigotry and we must do it as soon as students start going to school." Really? We have to address this in kindergarten?

That is simply not the role of government. You know, when Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky was exposed and pundits all over the television were talking about it, suddenly parents found themselves in the awkward role of having to explain to very young children what oral sex is. The President of the United States dropped that bomb in their laps and parents had to negotiate the landmines of adultery and mature sexual content with kids that were too young to have to think about such things.

Jennings's philosophy is not unlike that in principle. It should be the role of the parents to decide what to say to kids, and when to say it, on such mature topics. Whether those parents agree with Jennings or not, it's their own call.

Now, back to Harry Hay. One other disturbing thing that Rachel Abrams, and now Zombie, points to is Jennings's outspoken admiration of Harry Hay who spoke out in favor of man/boy love. Hay's quote on the subject asserts that the best thing that could happen to a young, gay boy is to hook up with an older man. He said, ". . . if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world. And they would be welcoming this, and welcoming the opportunity for young gay kids to have the kind of experience that they would need.”

To be fair, when Jennings praised Hay, he wasn't necessarily praising NAMBLA, but he was praising Hay and for him to express such admiration of a man that spoke so highly of pedophilia is in fact disturbing. NAMBLA advocates the liberalization of laws against sexual relations between adult men and underage boys. Zombie is more to the point: "It's a pro-pedophilia group."

Zombie has all the evidence of Hay's deep involvement with NAMBLA. There's no proof that Jennings ever met Hay or associated with him, and it's all guilt by association. But how much does that matter when you're talking about the man in charge of your child's safety at school expressing admiration for a man who is pro-pedophilia?



More links:
American Spectator on Nancy Pelosi's silence on Jennings
Dan Riehl standing by his position that Jennings is fine with child/adult sex
Memeorandum
A video on Jennings by Newsy.com

The Baucus Bill is All About Rationing

The Wall Street Journal today highlights a provision in the Baucus bill which is actually frightening and could not make more clear that Obamacare will lead to rationing despite what he says:

"Take a provision in the Baucus bill that would punish any physician whose 'resource use' is considered too high. Beginning in 2015, Medicare would rank doctors against their peers based on how much they cost the program—and then automatically cut all payments by 5% to anyone who falls into the 90th percentile or above. In practice, this rule will only apply to specialists."

What is "resource use?" The WSJ explains that each year Congress allots "x" number of Medicare dollars to doctors. Period. Divide it up between all services. How much one area of billable service gets is called a Relative Value Unit, for example, "in 2008, a colonoscopy earned 5.64 of these units, a hip replacement 37.66. Then it multiplies a doctor's total RVUs by some dollar factor, currently about $36, and cuts a check."

But, under the Baucus bill, "The basic tools of heart specialists—echocardiograms (stress tests) and catheterizations—are slashed by 42% and 24%, respectively." That equals rationing. If this patient needs that test maybe more than you might, you have to wait, because I'm not going over my RVU and getting fined!

Oncologists? Forget it:

"Cancer doctors get hit because the Administration believes specialists order too many MRIs and CT scans. Certain kinds of diagnostic imaging lose 24% under new assumptions that machines are in use 90% of the time, up from 50%. There isn't a radiologist in America running an MRI 10.8 hours out of 12, unless he's lining up patients on a conveyor belt. But claiming scanners are used far more often than they really are lets the Administration "score" spending cuts."

Brian Faughnan, writing for Red State, last week points out that these penalties would apply each year. Every single year the top ten percent of offenders would get penalized.

Faughnan also worries about how these cuts will affect treatment for seniors. Wouldn't they be the first to be denied tests?

The National Right to Life Committee has the same concerns: “This provision does not link funding to outcomes or quality; instead, it will force a ‘race to the bottom’ with relentless pressure on doctors to limit health care for their older patients,” the group said. “On top of the significant Medicare cuts in the bill, this will gravely endanger the lives of America’s senior citizens.”

Faughnan lists those who voted to keep this provision in the Baucus bill:

The Senators who voted to keep this provision are:

Max Baucus, MT

Jay Rockefeller IV, WV

Kent Conrad, ND

Jeff Bingaman, NM

John Kerry, MA

Blanche Lincoln, AR

Ron Wyden, OR

Charles Schumer, NY

Debbie Stabenow, MI

Maria Cantwell, WA

Bill Nelson, FL

Robert Menendez, NJ

Tom Carper, DE

So basically, as the Washington Times pointed out on September 25, if a doctor orders an expensive, life-saving treatment, he is likely to be fined for it, no matter how successful it was or how important it was to saving a life. The incentive is to keep costs down, order fewer tests, and stay out of that top ten percent.

As it stands now, the Baucus bill has been put on hold awaiting scoring by the CBO. Hot Air reports that "Democrats had tried to push the bill out of committee before the Congressional Budget Office could review the proposal and project its costs, fearing that another harsh analysis could kill the Senate effort before it has a chance for a floor vote. " It isn't likely to score well.

Obama can suit up all the actors in white coats that he wants to, it won't change the fact that Obamacare is all about controlling costs and not at all about health care. And that means rationing.

(More at Memeorandum)

Rove Writes a Check for Rubio

Well this is interesting...via Memeorandum, MSNBC reports:

"While Crist has financially overwhelmed Rubio to date, there are many Republicans -- particularly those in Flordia that are close to former GOP Gov. Jeb Bush -- who have publicly become more comfortable airing their skepticism about Crist in public. One of those Republicans with close ties to the Bush family, Karl Rove, has signaled his preference with his wallet. Rove confirms to NBC News that he has contributed a $1000 to Rubio's campaign, the donation will be made public when Rubio files his next FEC report (due Oct. 15). "

Will an endorsement from Rove help Rubio's momentum? We shall see. Some see Rove's endorsement as a vicarious endorsement from Jeb Bush who hasn't come out for anyone. Jeb is walking the tightrope not wanting to alienate either of them. Jeb has the same problem that the NRSC has in that Crist is "the favorite" so let's just go with him - never mind what he stands for. Rove's endorsement, or support, could be a silent nod from Jeb, at least, that's the way Ben Smith at Politico is reading it.

The Tampa Bay Buzz at the St. Pete Times is reporting that Rubio has earned over $600,000 this quarter which is enough to keep him going.

(Cross posted at Not One Red Cent!)

Obama Continues to Dither

I find today's news on Afghanistan, Obama, and McChrystal just stunning.

First is this piece from the Telegraph in which U.K. General David Richards said that "if Britain and Nato failed in Afghanistan the risks to the western world would be 'enormous' and 'unimaginable.'"

From The Telegraph:

He said: "If al-Qaeda and the Taliban believe they have defeated us – what next? Would they stop at Afghanistan? Pakistan is clearly a tempting target not least because of the fact that it is a nuclear-weaponed state and that is a terrifying prospect. Even if only a few of those (nuclear) weapons fell into their hands, believe me they would use them. The recent airlines plot has reminded us that there are people out there who would happily blow all of us up."

Then we have reports of Obama upbraiding General McChrystal for having an opinion on the best strategy in Afghanistan. Well, to be fair, Obama was apparently more angry that McChrystal verbalized his opinion. Again, from The Telegraph:

"People aren't sure whether McChrystal is being naïve or an upstart. To my mind he doesn't seem ready for this Washington hard-ball and is just speaking his mind too plainly."

In London, Gen McChrystal, who heads the 68,000 US troops in Afghanistan as well as the 100,000 Nato forces, flatly rejected proposals to switch to a strategy more reliant on drone missile strikes and special forces operations against al-Qaeda.

He told the Institute of International and Strategic Studies that the formula, which is favoured by Vice-President Joe Biden, would lead to "Chaos-istan".

So why is Obama dithering so on the troop decision? It's clear that he isn't worried about public perception on the matter; his is the only perception that matters. But to the public, the soldiers in the line of fire, and the eyes of the world, he is dithering. He spares only twenty five minutes for McChrystal and that, it appears, was spent, at least partially, on whether McChrystal should keep his mouth shut or not.

We've come a long way from General Petraeus and his weekly sessions with and open access to George W. Bush.

And for another perspective, check out John Guardiano's "Leaking for National Security" at American Specatator.

Keep up with the debate on Memeorandum.

The Great Conservative Book Buying Conspiracy

And while we're on the subject of Sarah Palin's book, our old friend Gryphen comes back to the surface spewing sour bile about the number one status of Palin's book. It's all a conspiracy, don't you know? Conservatives can't write books! "Nobody wants" them!

You'll remember Gryphen from his earlier Palin smears, smartly smacked down by Robert Stacy McCain and Dan Riehl earlier this year.

Gryphen is still in the land of the paranoid with this diatribe:

If you are unfamiliar with this particular scam, let me clue you in.

You see what the Conservatives do is pre-order a whole ton of books by one of their minions like Glenn Beck, or Bill O'Reilly, or Rush Limbaugh, Or Sean Hannity, or Sarah Palin, and then either change their mind, leaving the book store with a whole bunch of books that NOBODY wants, or they have their money laundering book outlet, the Conservative Book Club, sell the books later at a loss.

What this does is push these poorly written books to the top of the bestsellers list and cause panic among the few hundred people who may legitimately want to read one of these future doorstops, and they rush to the bookstore to reserve their copy before they are all sold out.

This way they reinforce the mythology that conservative authors sell way more books than do their liberal counterparts and they get to funnel a buttload of money to one of their Conservative mouthpieces without alerting the IRS to the scam.

I wonder what his explanation is for Ted Kennedy's book being number 2 on the NYT list this week? Are they selling that through the Conservative Book Club?

Gryphen suggests that Rachel Maddow or Olbermann investigate this great conservative book buying conspiracy. That ought to be interesting.

Rachel Maddow Attacks Stacy McCain

[Scroll down for updates]

Rachel Maddow on Meet the Press this morning, called Robert Stacy McCain a white supremacist. I'm thinking she's been listening to Charles Johnson a little too much.

The panel was discussing the Sarah Palin book, Going Rogue, when Maddow offers her criticism of Lynn Vincent, Palin's ghostwriter. Maddow explains that Lynn Vincent "co-authored a book with a guy who is widely believed to be , and I believe him to be, a white supremacist. So she's [Palin] chosen Lynn Vincent who has written a book with a white supremacist to write her book." Robert Stacy McCain and Lynn Vincent co-authored Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party in 2006.

Slide on over to 8:00 for the quote.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I'm just going to second my friend William Jacobson who defended Stacy McCain back in September when this meme started. I've read NOTHING in Stacy's works to support such an accusation and it seems to me that Maddow just lowers the level of debate when she spews trash garnered from Charles Johnson.

Was it necessary for Maddow to slander Stacy McCain in her attack on Palin's ghostwriter? I don't think so.

It's a nasty, damaging attack to label someone as a "white supremacist" and it shows that Maddow has sunk lower than I even thought her able to go, which was pretty low.

Update: Here's the entire exchange, in context, (emphasis mine) from the Meet the Press transcript:

MR. DIONNE: But she'll sell a lot of books.

MR. MURPHY: No, she will sell a lot. I'm, I'm going to buy it. I'm going to wait for it to get spell-checked, but then I'm going to buy it.

GREGORY: Right. And she's number--I should point out, I mean, number one on the best-seller list for Amazon.

MR. MURPHY: Yeah. No, no, look, she has a constituency. She'll never be the nominee, I totally agree with David. I agree with Steve Schmidt, it would be actually a disaster if she was the nominee. I do wish my friend Steve felt that a year ago when a lot of people were asking John McCain to put her on the ticket. But the truth is--and I'm going to agree with David here, too--the noisiest parts of kind of the conservative media machine have far less influence than the mainstream media machine that covers the Republican world thinks they do. These radio guys can't deliver a pizza, let alone a nomination. And you can case study that out in the last election. So I--the question is whether or not our party will learn, when we have a pretty good midterm victory due to Obama's mistakes this time, that turning up the volume is not the reason that we're going to do well, I believe, in the midterms. And the fact is to get all the way, there are a lot of things we have to do to modernize conservativism to be successful.

MS. MADDOW: I, I do think that there's a little bit of reckoning that needs to happen on the right for Sarah Palin's success. I mean, she was the vice presidential nominee, she is going to sell a kazillion books and she is the biggest brand name in Republican politics still right now. And she's chose--the person who's writing her book, her last--the last person who she co-authored a book with was called "Donkey Cons" and it was co-authored with a guy who's widely believed to be and I believe him to be a white supremacist. So she's chosen Lynn Vincent, who's written a book with a white supremacist, to write her book, and she's the biggest name in Republican politics.

MR. MURPHY: Oh, but, Rachel...

MS. MADDOW: And you can dismiss her and say she's not going to be the nominee, but I do think the right needs to sort of answer for what's happened to conservatism.

MR. MURPHY: But let me just say, I am a well-documented nonfan of Sarah Palin, at least as a national politician. I don't know her personally. But that's guilt by association stuff. That's the cable stuff. That's the problem.

MS. MADDOW: But why would you--you can pick anybody to be your ghostwriter.

MR. MURPHY: Sarah Palin's a lot of things, but she's not a white supremacist. And...

MS. MADDOW: You could--no, I don't think she is. But when you can pick anybody, why would she pick somebody who's associated with the League of the South, who said that Americans are revolted by the idea of having a black sister-in-law. I mean, she--this is who she picked to write her book.

MR. MURPHY: Yeah, but there's...

MS. MADDOW: Why do you do that?

MR. MURPHY: That's sort of guilt by association stuff, which I don't know and it can--I--check it out.

MS. MADDOW: It's guilt by choice. It's guilt by choice.

GREGORY: OK.

MR. MURPHY: It is, is so, so not important to the central questions in the country right now. But that's what cable TV has become, so I...

MS. MADDOW: Sarah Palin's popularity is a central question in the Republican Party right now.

GREGORY: Quickly, E.J.

MS. MADDOW: And you can make fun of her, but it doesn't make it go away.

MR. DIONNE: Forget guilt by association. Governor Rick Perry may win a Republican primary because he talked about secession. You haven't had somebody win an election on secession since 1858.

MR. MURPHY: Yeah. E.J., I can tell you...

MR. DIONNE: There's a radical strain in the Republican Party. It's not guilt by association, it's right out there.

Update 2: Robert Stacy McCain responds.

Full Metal Jacket Saturday - The Octoberfest Edition

Well, we did Octoberfest last night, and it was as much fun as last year! There were more people this year, too. And like last year, we were there before it started and stayed until the very last song! And like last year, they ran out of Sam Adams Octoberfest and we had to settle for inferior beer by the end of the night, but we were having so much fun it really didn't matter.

One of the neat things about this event is the cool people you meet there; it attracts young and old alike and I had a big time watching this elderly couple get out on the dance floor to just about every single dance! We saw some of the same folks we saw last year and a lot of new ones. Organizers increased the number of taps from five to fifteen this year and that helped A WHOLE LOT!

I think more people were dressed up this year; the costume contest was a big success. They also had a keg rolling contest, a yodeling contest, a yard drinking contest, and a shoe-dance contest. After the band packed up, the same DJ from last year kept us going for a couple of hours and in the end I'd say it was another successful Octoberfest! Ready for next year!!

Now on to the links:

I'm starting off with Pundette who has the last-word-round-up of the Obama Olympic Fail. Ruby Slippers has some comments on it as well. Jimmie is more optimistic than I am that Obama may learn something from this defeat. Narcissists NEVER learn, Jimmie! Left Coast Rebel is also weighing in as is American Power. And of course, Memeorandum has the full round-up.

Stacy McCain is back from Kentucky and is working on a very long story for us.

Snaggletoothie is back from dead-computer-land and has some interesting ACORN stuff.

Carol is concerned about Dems chipping away at the Patriot Act.

Reaganite Republican Resistance is watching Obama's priorities.

Thought Cap and Trade was gone? No, no, no. Little Miss Attila has a sobering article on that front.

Fishersville Mike has his weekly Weekend Watchdog.

I thought Steve was kidding when he said they'd do this, but sure enough, the libs are blaming Bush for Obama's Olympic fail. Gateway Pundit has it. So does Professor Jacobson. But Troglopundit knows the REAL reason we lost the Olympics!

The Daley Gator reports an arrest in the sordid Erin Andrews case. Thank goodness.

Cassandra at Villainous Company proves that a picture really is worth a thousand words.

Carolyn Tackett weighs in on bizarre czar Kevin Jennings.

Texas Rainmaker is wondering how the environmentally conscious green President justifies two jets to Cophenhagen.

Critical Narrative has a very telling unemployment graphic. Yes siree, that stimulus is doing a fine job. Monique Stuart has the commentary.

A musical interlude from Sippican Cottage.

Protein Wisdom makes note of Hollywood's broken moral compass.

Bride of Rove is eloquent as always.

Oh dear. Almost half of Americans will pay no income tax this year. No wonder we're so screwed.

ACORN and Roman Polanski? Only Cynthia!

Ok, that's it for now. I've got the DirectTV guy here finally. After one no-show appointment, and six days later, (two weeks from original appointment), he's here to switch out a dead HD-DVR. Except he's been here 2 hours now and none of my TVs work now. Everything was fine before he starting working except for one dead box. Now he's digging around in his truck and looking confused. He's about to climb a ladder.

I'm getting worried. I've got to watch LSU kick Georgia's tail today.

The Hand Jive

The GIRL Won the Yard Drinking Competition

Steve and Ray

Chicken Dance

Oktoberfest

Time for Some Oktoberfest Fun!

We're heading out to Oktoberfest! It's a beautiful, perfect, fall day and we're excited. Watch this space; will post pictures throughout the evening!

Sarkozy and Krauthammer Unload on Obama

Charles Krauthammer takes Obama to task this week for his naivete, especially with regard to Iran, the U.N. and nukes. Couple that with unfolding story of Obama and his commander in Afghanistan, General McChrystal, and Krauthammer's point couldn't be more clear.

It is, however, a point that most of us saw long ago, including Krauthammer. He isn't new to this view of Obama.

As things stand at this point, Obama is (finally) meeting with McChrystal on Air Force One at this moment. What will come of that? We shall see. It seems to me, and I'm no military strategist by any stretch of the imagination, but it just seems common sense to me that McChrystal would be the one to know what the situation is in Afghanistan. For Obama to sit upon high and override his hand picked General seems the height of arrogance to me. But, maybe he has other information that the rest of us don't know.

With regard to Obama grandstanding at the U.N., Krauthammer says this:

Confusing ends and means, the Obama administration strives mightily for shows of allied unity, good feeling, and pious concern about Iran’s nuclear program — whereas the real objective is stopping that program. This feel-good posturing is worse than useless, because all the time spent achieving gestures is precious time granted Iran to finish its race to acquire the bomb. Don’t take it from me. Take it from Sarkozy, who could not conceal his astonishment at Obama’s naïveté. On September 24, Obama ostentatiously presided over the Security Council. With 14 heads of state (or government) at the table, with an American president in the chair for the first time ever, with every news camera in the world trained on the meeting, it would garner unprecedented worldwide attention.

Unknown to the world, Obama had in his pocket explosive revelations about an illegal uranium-enrichment facility that the Iranians had been hiding near Qom. The French and the British were urging him to use this most dramatic of settings to stun the world with the revelation and to call for immediate action.

Obama refused. Not only did he say nothing about it, but, reports Le Monde, Sarkozy was forced to scrap the Qom section of his speech. Obama held the news until a day later — in Pittsburgh. I’ve got nothing against Pittsburgh (site of the G-20 summit), but a stacked-with-world-leaders Security Council chamber, it is not.

Obama knew about the second Iranian nuclear plant and held that information until he could reveal it in Pittsburgh because he didn't want to dilute his message of disarmament. As Krauthammer says, "Sarkozy could hardly contain himself." Sarkozy has been rather outspoken about it all this week, reminding Obama that we live in the real world, not a "virtual" one.

There has always been this fatal flaw of hubris in Obama; he somehow believes he knows better than anyone else without having the experience or credentials to back this up. Confidence is a good thing, but any examination of history will show you that pride goes before the fall.

I just hope he doesn't take the rest of us with him when he falls.

Is the Kevin Jennings Apology Enough?

Kevin Jennings has apologized for failing to report pedophilia to the authorities when a high school sophomore revealed that he was having an affair with an older man that he met in a bus station. Jennings told the boy, "I hope you knew to use a condom!" Jennings says now that he should have reported the incident.

It does not go without notice here, however, that Jennings only apologizes when he gets called out on the matter. He wrote about it in his memoir in 2007 and expressed no regret then. He spoke of it in a speech in 2000 and expressed no regret then, either.

Jennings, to date, has not expressed regret over his previous drug use or retreated on his seeming advocacy of such behavior. In his memoir he wrote of the hazy days of his youth when says, "I got stoned more often and went out to the beach at Bellows, overlooking Honolulu Harbor and the lights of the city, to drink with my buddies on Friday and Saturday nights, spending hours watching the planes take off and land at the airport, which is actually quite fascinating when you are drunk and stoned."

This statement wouldn't encourage some misguided youth to go do this himself? It's "quite fascinating!"

For their part, Team Obama stands behind Jennings. Vetting be damned. We don't care about his past!

Erick Erickson suggests that "At some point we must stop saying that there was a failure to vet these people and conclude that Barack Obama has no more of a problem with men like Kevin Jennings who encourage statutory rape than men like Bill Ayers who encourages cop killing."

I'd agree that there's a real pattern here. Add Van Jones to the mix, drag Jeremiah Wright back out and every other radical that Obama has had dealings with and the pattern is clear; Erickson is correct. Obama has no problem with radicals and extremists. This isn't a vetting problem, it's an attitude problem.