The Democrat Majority

.
Yesterday the House of Representatives, along strict party lines, approved the expenditure of nearly $900 BILLION of our tax dollars (which do not exist by the way) to be used to 'rescue' the economy. While $335 million of that is for STD prevention, clearly unrelated to any economic issues facing us, we need to think about just how big this Democrat majority is.

Obama won the presidential election by a vote of 54% to 46%. How big was that majority?

Imagine yourself in a room with 50 people. 27 of them voted for Obama, and 23 of them voted for an alternative. If THREE people had voted the other way, the alternative, John McCain, would have prevailed by 52% to 48%.

So our country's financial future is being determined by three people in fifty. These three voters in our room of fifty are the reason this deficit spending plan is being steamrollered through Congress.

Three in fifty.

Is that what we wanted?

Obama attempts to split Republicans

.
Some very interesting news reported yesterday.

During a conference on the bailout, Obama is said to have told the Republican conferees who objected to some points of his economic plan 'I won,' implying of course that they didn't. President Bush said something quite similar about spending political capital after his 2004 re-election. The press pilloried Bush, but has given Obama a free ride. Nothing new there, but worth pointing out -- as we know that at least MSNBC's political reporter Chris Matthews thinks the free press must do everything it can to make Obama successful.

The second point was that Obama told Republicans that if they thought they wanted to get anything into his economic recovery plan, they needed to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. This too is getting plenty of press coverage.

Both of these points make a great deal of sense, and conform to the Republican malaise - the split between conservatives and Republican liberals like McCain.

Obama is merely doing what Democrats do -- he is trying to lead the consolidation of power not by cooperating with the opposition as far as possible, but trying to hasten its demise.

At the end of the month of January, Republicans will elect an RNC leader. They will demonstrate with their choice whether they wish to be conservatives, or what one pundit has called 'Democrats-lite." McCain is already signaling he will go along with some number of Obama policies.

Unfortunately, my view is that George Bush himself brought this split along in two areas: refusing to fund the War on Terror with even a symbolic tax surcharge, and ultimately (and more significantly) generating huge deficits by allowing the Treasury to print unbacked dollars to 'rescue' some companies, AIG - BAC - Citi - GM to name a few, and not rescue others, Bear-Stearns being the big name there.

If the Republicans choose to position themselves as Democrats-lite, it will leave many of us small government conservatives looking for a new home -- much as we did in 1992 with none other than George Herbert Walker Bush. Sometimes symmetry is striking, isn't it?

We await the end of January.

Its time to criticize Obama

In a recent Wall Street Journal column, African-American political commentator Juan Williams made the following point concerning criticism of the Obama administration:

“If his presidency is to represent the full power of the idea that black Americans are just like everyone else — fully human and fully capable of intellect, courage, and patriotism — then Barack Obama has to be subject to the same rough and tumble of political criticism experienced by his predecessors.”

Williams' implication is clear - to treat Obama as a 'fragile flower' is in itself racist.

I hear too many, particular on the right, saying they must help this president, they must stifle their criticism of his policies.

I do not think so.

In fact, I think the political discourse should be as vigorous now from the right, as it has been from the left the past eight years.

The re-education of reporters

.
In private discussions I often argue that reporters need to be re-educated in American government. This example is from a Wall Street Journal piece about the inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama as president.

That's just one of the new policies symbolizing the change to come as Washington shifts from eight years of Republican rule under George W. Bush. Within days, Mr. Obama also is expected to issue executive orders to begin closing the prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, one of the most controversial symbols of the Bush administration's war on terror; reversing Mr. Bush's restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, and restoring funding for family-planning programs overseas.

Lets look at the paragraph.

1. Republican rule - In the United States our politicians govern, they do not rule. Monarchs rule, Presidents govern. Its that simple, and seemingly not understood by the Fifth Estate.

2. Bush's restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research - the Bush administration really increased funding for stem cell research. What they did do is restrict the harvesting of new stem cell lines from aborted embryos. There is a difference.

3. Restoring funding for family-planning overseas - while the question should be asked why the United States is funding actions in other countries, the fact is that the restriction was on using U. S. funding to support abortion.

We need accuracy in language which will lead to accuracy in reporting. But I doubt we will get it.

Be open-minded

.
I see that George W. Bush is reported to have advised Republicans to be "open-minded" on the issues relating to immigrants.

Let me see if I get this straight:

- to oppose illegally entering this country is closed minded?

- to suggest some sort of amnesty for those who are here illegally is open minded?

- to think that we need a "time out" on even legal immigration to determine just what our future policies should be is closed minded?

- to fail to secure our borders is open minded?

There is a limit to the resources available in the United States. We cannot allow legal immigration to stress those resources, let alone allow illegal immigration to overwhelm them.

Thanks George, but I'll just stay closed-minded -- as you see it. Your record on the economy is far from stellar anyway.

Why Franken Won

.
As you probably know, after a long "recount" Al Franken holds the lead by some 225 votes in the Minnesota senatorial election. While Coleman has legally challenged this result citing something in the neighborhood of 2,500 ballots which were not counted, I have a theory about why the citizens of Minnesota would vote for a person as unqualified for office as Franken.

It is this: They thought they were voting for Garrison Keillor.

'Nuf said.