Illusionist in Chief

I've long argued that the basic premise behind liberalism is that you, as an individual, aren't capable of taking care of yourself properly. You need help. You need to be protected from your own mistakes, and further inured from being hurt by the countless others out there who are equally inept at life. Its a confederacy of dunces out there -- a mass population of the victimized, vanquished and violated. You need help, you poor thing. You can see this now at work in every aspect of the Obama presidency. Government has stepped in to remake industry and finance with your tax dollars to ensure that the UAW keeps their jobs and that banks don't have to suffer the penalty of making bad decisions. On the horizon are massive new rules on what you can eat, what cars you can drive, how much heat you can have in the winter and how much air conditioning you can use in the summer. And don't forget the impending health care entitlement, which is going to force you into a massive government-run insurance program. You need the government to provide -- and ration -- health care, because you just aren't capable of getting the coverage you need on your own. You are helpless, after all -- so in the great spirit of paternalism, the government is going to treat you like the child you are give it to you. For your own good, of course.

Remember, people! You are s-t-u-p-i-d!

And further proof is how Obama is saying one thing and doing another -- talking about "balanced budgets" and "being fiscally responsible", and yet embarking on the runaway spending that will result in crippling deficits for years to come. He has packages his health care reform as a "public option" -- that will preserve private insurance. But that's also a lie -- everyone knows that this is just a feint to a single payer system that ultimately forces out private insurance. Once there is a government (read "tax-payer" funded) option on the table, employers who are now footing the bill for their employee's insurance will quickly dump it. Why not have tax payers foot the bill? It's clear that Obama believes that the most important thing about universal health care is the "universal" part. The "health care" aspect -- meaning the quality of care -- is really secondary. Again, this is in line with the left's cornerstone belief that equality of access is more important than the outcomes it produces.

Today's Wall Street Journal has more on the Obama deception machine and its worth reading: Some things in politics you can't make up, such as President Obama's re-re-endorsement Tuesday of "pay-as-you-go" budgeting. Coming after $787 billion in nonstimulating stimulus, a $410 billion omnibus to wrap up fiscal 2009, a $3.5 trillion 2010 budget proposal, sundry bailouts and a 13-figure health-care spending expansion still to come, this latest vow of fiscal chastity is like Donald Trump denouncing self-promotion.

Check that. Even The Donald would find this one too much to sell.

But Mr. Obama must think the press and public are dumb enough to buy it, because there he was Tuesday re-selling the same "paygo" promises that Democrats roll out every election. Paygo is "very simple," the President claimed. "Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere."

That's what Democrats also promised in 2006, with Nancy Pelosi vowing that "the first thing" House Democrats would do if they took Congress was reimpose paygo rules that "Republicans had let lapse." By 2008, Speaker Pelosi had let those rules lapse no fewer than 12 times, to make way for $400 billion in deficit spending. Mr. Obama repeated the paygo pledge during his 2008 campaign, and instead we have witnessed the greatest peacetime spending binge in U.S. history. As a share of GDP, spending will hit an astonishing 28.5% in fiscal 2009, with the deficit hitting 13% and projected to stay at 4% to 5% for years to come.

The truth is that paygo is the kind of budget gimmick that gives gimmickry a bad name. As Mr. Obama knows but won't tell voters, paygo only applies to new or expanded entitlement programs, not to existing programs such as Medicare, this year growing at a 9.2% annual rate. Nor does paygo apply to discretionary spending, set to hit $1.4 trillion in fiscal 2010, or 40% of the budget...

The real game here is that the President is trying to give Democrats in Congress political cover for the health-care blowout and tax-increase votes that he knows are coming. The polls are showing that Mr. Obama's spending plans are far less popular than the President himself, and Democrats in swing districts are getting nervous. The paygo ruse gives Blue Dog Democrats cover to say they voted for "fiscal discipline," even as they vote to pass the greatest entitlement expansion in modern history. The Blue Dogs always play this double game.

The other goal of this new paygo campaign is to make it easier to raise taxes in 2011, and impossible to cut taxes for years after that. In the near term, paygo gives Mr. Obama another excuse to let the Bush tax cuts he dislikes expire after 2010, while exempting those (for lower-income voters) that he likes. In the longer term, if a GOP Congress or President ever want to cut taxes, paygo applies a straitjacket that pits those tax cuts against, say, spending cuts in Medicare. The Reagan tax reductions would never have happened under paygo.

The main political question now is when Americans will start to figure out Mr. Obama's pattern of spend, repent and repeat. The President is still sailing along on his charm and the fact that Americans are cheering for an economic recovery. But eventually they'll see that he isn't telling them the truth, and when they do, the very Blue Dogs he's trying to protect will pay the price. And they'll deserve what they get.

Obama is betting, of course, that we are all too dumb to see past the charm offensive, and that he can keep peddling his programs with a wink and a nod, talking about fiscal discipline all the while enacting the biggest expansion of government largess since...well...since forever.

Watch the shiny thing...see how it moves back and forth...isn't it pretty?

Ritter policies mirror Obama's

Monday headlines in newspapers across the nation proclaimed, “Conservatives score big wins in European Union parliament voting in France, Germany and many other nations.” But this is the opposite of what is happening in the United States as our government appears to be rushing toward an ultra liberal, socialist (or dare we say Marxist agenda) faster than a soft ice cream cone drips onto the hands of a child on a 100 degree summer day in middle America.

And it doesn’t stop in Washington, D.C. Colorado Governor Bill Ritter in his 2006 campaign (and United States Senator Ken Salazar in his 2004 campaign, for that matter) “ran to the right” with a somewhat non-offensive, mild agenda. With no record to run on they both appeared to be palatable candidates to many. What followed in the ensuing years, by any definition and to their detriment, was a liberal, far left agenda and list of accomplishments that would make Marx, Joseph Stalin, Lenin and Hugo Chavez proud. One historical internet reference to socialism suggests that ‘Socialism, to Marxists, is simply the transitional phase between capitalism and a higher phase of communist society.’ Is that the direction you want our State or our Country pursue?

Early this year, and again last week, conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh said that he hoped that President Obama would fail. Liberal members of Congress fell all over themselves rushing to open microphones provided by willing media and stating their outrage as to how Limbaugh could wish such a thing upon our President. But we know it was not a personal attack on our president but, rather, Rush’s opinion that President Obama’s policies will destroy this nation. He is entitled to his opinion.

The sad reality is that within his first twenty weeks as President, Mr. Obama’s actions have created a tectonic plate shift perhaps one hundred times greater than the history making 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake with regard to the long-lasting effect in will have on our nation’s economy. Additionally, more than one million lives were lost between the Shaanxi, China 8+ magnitude earthquake of 1556 A.D. (830,000) and the December 26, 2004 Sumatra 9.1 magnitude earthquake (227,898). Yet the economic disaster being crafted by current Administration policies and actions in Washington, D.C. will negatively affect the lives of tens of millions of U.S. citizens for generations to come.

The late Dr. Adrian Rogers (1931-2005) observed "You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

Americans voted for “the change we need,” and the change we have experienced in the last four months is more than enough to send our collective heads spinning…and more than enough for a Hollywood producer to consider a remake of “Poltergeist.”

In our own backyard, in Colorado, many are paraphrasing Mr. Limbaugh’s remarks by hoping that Governor Ritter, or to be clear his agenda, will fail. Running to the right in 2004, legislating from the left since, and now beginning his 2010 re-election efforts from the middle as a moderate, makes it quite clear that he is the consummate politician…speaking out of both sides of his mouth. While some would suggest this is fraud it is, in the very least, disingenuous. Governor Ritter’s movement on his political positions gives new meaning to "Where in the world is Waldo,” or more recently “Where in the world is Matt Lauer?” Where in the world is Governor Ritter?

Former Colorado State Senate leader Mark Hillman, in the June 8, 2009 edition of Capital Review observation of President Obama stated “His actions, as well as his words, betray him.” The same can be said for Governor Ritter and his cronies and their out-of-control, reckless and irresponsible spending habits.

In 2009: · Governor Ritter and his cronies eliminated the Senior Property Tax Exemption for approximately ten percent of the population, or 450,000 senior citizens. · Governor Ritter and his cronies created a brand new State Fee on Marriage License applications of $20, for NO services rendered; this to be added to the $10 fee a county office gets for providing the service. · Governor Ritter and his cronies created a brand new State Fee for late vehicle registrations. Previously counties could charge up to $10, one time, for late registrants. Now the State wants up to $90 more for late registrations. · Governor Ritter and his cronies raised motor vehicle fees for everyone. · Governor Ritter and his cronies have created a new surcharge for roads and another for bridges. · Governor Ritter and his cronies have forced through a green vehicle bill. I prefer white or silver vehicles. · Governor Ritter and his cronies have passed a bill to eliminate the ability of any vendor to retain any amount of state sales tax revenues to compensate for the vendor’s expenses incurred in the collection and remittance of the tax revenues to the state. · Governor Ritter and his cronies believe illegal immigrants are ‘entitled’ to in-state tuition, and · Governor Ritter and his cronies repealed the long-standing state measure which placed a 6 percent annual growth limit on appropriations to the state’s general fund with excess monies diverted to two spending areas. This, to many, destroys The Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR), passed in the early 1990s, which took tax-increasing authority away from the Legislature and gave it to the voters. Voters down in El Paso County should note that Senator John Morse was the bill’s primary sponsor.

The list of irresponsible spending and fee happy legislation goes on and on.

It is also worth mentioning that Governor Ritter’s hand-picked Chairman of the 2008-2009 Election Reform Commission said in November 2006 that “access to the ballot for everyone is more important that determining their eligibility to vote.” Really? Really.

The fabric of our great nation is being destroyed in a matter of months as surely as the original American Flag by Betsy Ross has deteriorated over the last 233 years. Thankfully, our flag has been restored and now resides in the National Museum of American History, one of the Smithsonian museums on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. We can only hope that our nation, too, can be saved.

President Obama and Governor Ritter, your reckless spending spree and policies are killing us.

From Europe, hope for conservatism

The left in this country has made much of the big electoral victories that the Democrats won in 2006 and 2008 -- and for good reason.  Not since 1977, when Jimmy Carter swept to victory along with huge Democrat majorities in the House and Senate, has there been such lopsided partisan rule in this country. With Al Franken seemingly a lock to win the Minnesota Senate seat, the Democrats are on the verge of a 60 vote "supra majority" that is virtually filibuster proof. The immediate future seems to all be swinging the left's way, and all the things that come with it are now a foregone conclusion: major health care reform, tax increases, deficit spending and a spate of intensive, restrictive environmental regulation. But will it last? As we know, Jimmy Carter's 1977 victory gave way in just four years to the Reagan Revolution -- and though Barack Obama is much more politically sophisticated than was Carter, a former Georgia peanut farmer who was poorly schooled in the ways of Washington, there are many similarities thus far between the two presidencies. Carter took over after a period of eight years of Republican rule and in the wake of an unpopular war and scandal; his campaign was based on a promise to "change" Washington -- to clean up government and restore the nation's image in the world. The economy he inherited was suffering from high unemployment and high inflation -- and Carter's typical "tax and spend" policies made both worse. He oversaw the expansion of government with the creation of the Departments of Energy and Education, instituted price controls and rationing on energy, oversaw the bailout of a Detroit automaker (Chrysler) and pursued Middle East Peace by promoting the cause of the Arab states over those of Israel.

Sound familiar?

But it is not a lost cause, for as Carter gave way to Reagan, Obama's left-wing policies and programs may lead to a new conservative revolution.  In fact, there are now signs from Europe that the purported "death of conservatism" has been greatly exaggerated. As the BBC reports tonight, in European Parliament elections this weekend it appears that Center-right parties have made major gains: "Centre-right parties have done well in elections to the European Parliament at the expense of the left. Far-right and anti-immigrant parties also made gains, as turnout figures plunged to between 43 and 44%.

The UK Labour Party, Germany's Social Democrats and France's Socialist Party were heading for historic defeats.

• French President Nicolas Sarkozy's UMP trounced socialist opponents, while greens from the Europe-Ecologie party also made gains
• German Chancellor Angela Merkel's governing centre-right grouping lost ground but finished ahead of its rivals. The Social Democrats, Ms Merkel's partners in the grand coalition, saw their worst election showing since World War II
• In Italy, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's centre-right coalition is ahead of the socialist opposition, with 36% of the vote
• In the UK, the governing Labour Party is expecting a serious defeat, gaining its lower share of the vote for a century
• Spain's governing Socialists were slightly behind the opposition Popular Party, according to partial results
• Poland's governing centre-right Civic Platform has gained ground at the expense of the Eurosceptic Law and Justice Party
• Early results show Portugal's ruling Socialists dropped a massive 18 percentage points, losing out mainly to Greens and far-left parties

It is no surprise, of course, that the UK Labour party under the inept leadership of Gordon Browne is in trouble, but the general performance of Center-right parties elsewhere shows that the leftward swing of Europe is now at a low-ebb. The victories in recent years of Sarkozy in France, Berlusconi in Italy and Merkel in Germany has put Center-right leadership in power in the three largest European states; should David Cameron of the Conservative party in the UK sweep to power in the next general election sometime in 2010, it will be a clean sweep. Granted, conservatism in Europe is of a different sort than that in the U.S., operating as it does within an extensive social democratic framework. But the fact remains that Europe is showing a fatigue with the kind of leftist socialism that has been in vogue there over the past decade.

Will the same thing happen here? Will America reject the big government policies of Obama, Pelosi and Reid in 2010 and 2012? Or will it take longer for the fatigue associated with big government, over-reguation and high taxation to set in?

My guess is that it will. Whatever Obama's personal popularity, the fact remains that America is essentially still a center-right country that generally dislikes both big government and high taxes. It won't be long until the honeymoon associated with the economic crisis of 2008-09 to run its course; Obama will soon own the deficit spending we are embarking on, and when Americans get a taste of Canada-style health care (and taxes), it won't be pretty.

It took Carter to give us Reagan. Obama will give us another historic opportunity to move the nation back toward individual liberty and economic freedom.

Obama is no friend of Israel

Last year I wrote a piece that examined the stark dichotomy in political views between American and Israeli Jews. American Jews vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, and see liberal policies -- both domestic and foreign -- as largely consistent with their world view. Indeed, in the 2008 election, 78% of American Jews voted for Obama -- an outcome that was a full 10 points better than most of the pre-election polling. Contrasted with the pre-election polling of Israeli Jews, which preferred John McCain by better than 2:1, and it is clear that their is a wide gulf between the reflexive idealism of American Jews and the sober realism of their Israeli counterparts. Today we have proof that Israeli Jews understood Obama better than those in America. In a widely anticipated speech today in Cairo, Obama gave his version of Kennedy's famous "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech, pandering to Muslims by showing that he "feels their pain", apologizing for a litany of American sins, while drawing a stark moral relativism between Israeli and Palestinian violence. Indeed, Obama has now made clear that he sees Israel as just as much to blame for the continuing violence in the West Bank and Gaza, and has openly called for a "two state" solution to be the stated policy of the United States. Before he left on his trip to the Middle East -- where he pointedly chose not to visit Israel -- Obama called for a freeze on settlements in the West Bank -- a message he conveyed directly to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last month.

For anyone paying attention, Obama's statements toward Israel are chilling -- and reflect the generally accepted belief among the left that the Palestinians are the victims and the Israelis are the aggressors.  Obama is quickly proving that old adage: with friends like these, who needs enemies?

There was much to dislike about Obama's message in Cairo, where he attempted to draw linkages between our Judeo-Christian history and Islam. It was pandering at its finest. Further, he gave this speech in Egypt -- one of the most repressive regimes in the Middle East, and spent a good portion of the speech trying to explain away our efforts to bring democracy to millions in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was yet another example of the leader of our nation taking great pains to minimize the good and noble sacrifices we have made in the name of freedom, while attempting to curry favor with regimes that continue to repress their people.

To American Jews I can only say this: you've been hoodwinked. Though you say overwhelmingly that the security of Israel is important to you, you have voted for a man who actively supports the appeasement of your terrorist enemies. By voting for Barack Obama, you have actually created a new existential threat -- that of an American administration focused on Palestinian rights and grievances, and committed to diplomacy with Iran and Syria. In one presidential election, you have done great damage to Israel -- a nation that you claim to love and cherish.

One can only hope that Benjamin Netanyahu has the moral courage to defy Obama and his appeasers; to remain steadfast in facing down the threats from Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. It is Israel's only real hope for survival.

Judicial impartiality and the Constitution

With President Barack Obama’s nomination of federal judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter, the nation is in a debate about both the qualifications of the nominee and the proper criteria for selection. That the nation is divided over both obligates us to clarify their relationship to each other. Judge Sotomayor, whose Puerto Rican descent should not matter but it does because the President and she have that said it matters, is undergoing the by-now familiar microscopic examination that has attended these nominations since Judge Robert Bork was savaged by Senate Democrats in 1986. On paper the lady who has made much of her ethnicity is qualified, and she will be confirmed because her party has the votes.

I oppose this nomination for the simple reason that Judge Sotomayor does not understand, if she does not actively oppose, the United States Constitution as it was understood by its framers and ratifiers. But it is more important to set forth the grounds upon which this decision should be made than to emphasize the reasons why she should be rejected.

Both liberals and conservatives have a legitimate point about the requirements of constitutional jurisprudence but both have a blind spot. Liberals make much of the fact that the judges will inevitably bring to the table certain predispositions and preconceptions which will shape their decisions. This can hardly be doubted, but the question is whether the judges’ "baggage" will keep them from performing their duties well.

For if those predispositions and preconceptions are inconsistent with the character of the Constitution, not to mention the political philosophy which informs it in the Declaration of Independence, they carry no weight and should be disregarded. Hence, what race or gender one belongs to is irrelevant.

Conservatives contend that judges should not legislate from the bench but apply the Constitution and laws to the case before them. Their logic is unassailable but they are too prone to give bad laws the benefit of the doubt when they may in fact be unconstitutional. After all, most conservatives believe that Roe v. Wade (1973) was wrongly decided and even unconstitutional.

If this criticism seems unfair, consider the oft-repeated conservative criticism of "activist" judges who, pretty much as conservatives claim, go well beyond the role of judge and make up constitutional law that has no warrant in either the language of the Constitution or the judicial precedents relevant to a case. Is a judge who upholds the Constitution by striking down a state or federal statue in conflict with it a "passivist" judge?

Liberals criticize conservatives on the grounds that judges of their political philosophy are no less activist than liberals when it comes to their constitutional priorities. I grant the criticism, at least to this extent, that defense of the Constitution demands more of judges than simply applying the laws to a case.

However, judging is fundamentally different from legislating, as the former deals with specific cases and the latter devises general rules. We don’t want a Congress to decide who has violated its laws or to affix penalties for doing so. But we want all our public officials to abide by the Constitution because it is the supreme law and because it embodies justice.

The Constitution requires judges to be neutral between the parties in the cases which they decide, but it is not neutral about the requirements of justice. Its conception of justice entails "secur[ing] the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." The document empowers the federal and state governments to rule but also limits their powers in numerous ways. Beyond these limitations, ours is a republican constitution, that establishes rule by the people through their chosen representatives on behalf of purposes which their constitution spells out.

Our quarrel with judicial activism should be focused on a judge’s predilection to corrupt our Constitution with doctrines calculated to "transform" it from a guarantee of equal rights for all to a device for empowering government officials to favor allegedly underprivileged groups at the expense of everyone else. It is no accident that President Obama nominated a Latina woman with a class-based notion of justice, for such is what both of them want.

Our Constitution should be protected from the efforts of anyone to subvert it for unjust ends. The judges’ impartiality is in the service not of a neutral constitution but one which favors equal justice over class rule.