Political Correctness to the Nth degree

I can just hear Obama thinking……..

Apparently during a speech on Friday to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute Obama made a little [as in huge] adjustment to the Declaration of Independence.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal [pause], endowed with certain unalienable rights: life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

He completely omitted the "Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

That pause is telling. He had forgotten about that part and now he has to mention God. But who's God? Hmmmm. How can I fix this? And then he just rewrites it in his head and out it comes from his lips.

Jeffrey Anderson of the Weekly Standard has two possible explanations for this.
1) Obama is unfamiliar with the passage
2) Obama doesn't believe the passage.

It think it's 3
Obama is so far left that any mention of God in any situation is just no longer acceptable.

However - if God hasn't endowed us with these rights, then man did. If man did, then man can withhold them.

God's endowment (no matter what god, or "universal energy" or spirit etc) is what makes the Declaration a declaration of true freedom!

JK Wins

I linked last week to a story about Michelle Obama talking with the restaurant industry, hoping for some change their in default offerings to help counter her cause of obesity.

I gave her a little “this is ok with me”. It didn’t sound threatening, it didn’t sound like she was seeking government action, just suggesting that maybe fries shouldn’t be the default.

Jk disagreed. Big Lizards now posts on this in “The War on Judgment” and I am seeing the light.

I surrender. They’re correct. It’s time to shut her up and let the restaurant industry sell the items we keep ordering!

That Scary, “Extremist” Tea Party

I am apparently still a naive doofus because I just don’t get how a professional columnist like David Brooks can be either so idiotic or so steeped in his own bias to write this drivel.

I asked the election guru Charlie Cook if there were signs that the Tea Party was scaring away the independents. “I haven’t seen any,” he replied.

How/Why on earth would the Tea Party scare away independents, when it’s independents who are at the core of this movement?

He goes on to link the Tea Party with the GOP at the hip. Yet not does he mention who the Tea Party is in an honest way or what they are about. Instead he focuses on whackjob individuals that are quite clearly not representative of the movement and dismisses Palin and Beck outright as not being attractive to moderates.

It doesn’t matter that public approval of the G.O.P. is now at its all-time low. It doesn’t matter that the Tea Party rhetoric is sometimes extreme. The poll suggests that roughly 50 percent of Americans haven’t thought about the Tea Parties enough to form an opinion. They’re not paying attention because they don’t see it as one of the important dangers they face. Who knows? Maybe they even sort of like the fact that a ragtag band of outsiders is taking on the establishment and winning.

This doesn’t mean that the Tea Party influence will be positive for Republicans over the long haul. The movement carries viruses that may infect the G.O.P. in the years ahead. Its members seek traditional, conservative ends, but they use radical means. Along the way, the movement has picked up some of the worst excesses of modern American culture: a narcissistic sense of victimization, an egomaniacal belief in one’s own rightness and purity, a willingness to distort the truth so that every conflict becomes a contest of pure good versus pure evil.

The bold and italics are mine. The bold, just to draw your attention to Brook’s completely immature and unprofessional writing without analysis and the italics to highlight that what I would use as a description of the far left Obamaites he’s using to describe Tea Partiers.

The Tea Party started after Rick Santelli had a big cow about the government refinancing people’s mortgages for them. Feb 2009.

He suggested holding a tea party for traders to gather and dump the derivatives in the Chicago river on July 1.

It was not a bad idea.

People from all walks of life came. Democrats came who couldn’t believe the amounts of money being thrown around by this government.

It still isn’t very organized. It’s still independent though of course leaning right as it’s all (yes, I said all) about fiscal conservatism. Anything else is just individuals speaking their peace, be it about gay marriage, or illegal immigration or even Obama’s birthplace.

The movement is about fiscal conservatism. The rest is bull. Here is it’s “contract”.

The Contract lists 10 agenda items that it encourages congressional candidates to follow:[64][65]

1. Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. (82.03%)
2. Reject emissions trading: Stop the “cap and trade” administrative approach used to control carbon dioxide emissions by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of carbon dioxide. (72.20%)
3. Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification. (69.69%)
4. Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words – the length of the original Constitution. (64.9%)
5. Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities. (63.37%)
6. Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%)
7. Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010: Defund, repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (56.39%)
8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above’ Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation. (55.5%)
9. Reduce Earmarks: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%)
10. Reduce Taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, and extend current temporary reductions in income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes, currently scheduled to end in 2011. (53.38%)

Sorry Mr. Brooks, there is nothing “extreme” or “dangerous” in that.


This disgusts me. (link to the WSJ)

Lobbyists all over Washington are privately complaining about getting undue pressure to contribute to House Democrats, who are frantically dialing for dollars to save their House majority.

For all the bullcrapahooie you hear out there about the evil lobbyists and how they are a wing of the GOP and the previous administration and about the ‘revolving door of lobbying/government service for the big bucks’ here we have ACTUAL SHAKEDOWNS of lobbyists for cash for Democrats.

Unbelievable and highly illegal and just plain hypocritical.

For all the whackysmack you hear about how John Boehner is friends with sooooo many lobbyists in a city full to the brim of them , let me just say, I would rather my representatives be friends of people who are representatives of industries than be the owners of same.

Of course the hilarious thing is that lobbyists know who will be in charge next.


It’s funny, I read this column by Michael Kinsley yesterday about baby boomers. His suggestion is that it would be really a great thing if baby boomers vowed to pay off the debt before we’re all dead and gone.

Be it higher taxes and/or lower spending we come up with a plan to not pass this huge amount of debt onto the next generation.

My first thought was kudos. Then….nah, any money collected to pay down debt would only go to some new program and I forgot about the generational sacrifice at once.

Then I read this column on the Delaware race today at Ace of Spades by Russ from Winterset. He has a “doh” sort of suggestion for the Delaware GOP. Put your convention after your primary so that you can get your ducks back in a row where they belong and be ready for the actual election.

This year, their convention knighted Castle only to have O’Donnell win the primary. Everyone’s nose is out of joint and it’s going to take national interest to get O’Donnell elected.

As Russ says:

Get your shit together, Delaware. Don’t make us send Chris Christie in to knock some heads together.

My first thought was…yeah…Chris Christie could actually straighten things out and lead. If Christie suggested we pay off the national debt before our grandkids take over and he had a plan that would follow him even out of office…..I’d follow.

Leadership. Look for it, promote it. That’s when you’ll find followers.

Quote of the Day

This one is concerning all the hand wringing from the GOP about the O’Donnell win in Delaware.
Ed Morrissey nails it:

Oh, please.

Go read the whole thing. I didn’t follow this race until the very end and still don’t know what the problem is with Christine O’Donnell exactly other than that “she can’t win”. Sometimes actual voters trump politics.


This one needs it’s own post.

Keith Hennessey who writes a blog on Economics and was at the White House with Bush has a post up that describes what was going on September 14th when Bush visited ground zero.
Bring a hanky.


Back from another great weekend away, so I’ll just run some links through.

Hot Air has a post about money, big money, though not in the trillions like we’ve come to just brush off, spent on watching for any negative media coverage of the oil spill.

The first lady asking restaurants to do what they’ve slowly been starting to do over the years due to the private sector. I’m ok with her asking the restaurants for their help in her cause.

Michael Barone has a good column out on the threats from Sebelius to Karen Ignani last week concerning the price of insurance.


The tone of Ms. Sebelius’s letter suggests that she doesn’t understand that money is exchanged for goods and services, and that if Congress mandates new benefits, premiums will rise.

This is in response to Ms Sebelius’s letter to some insurers:

The Health and Human Services secretary wrote that some insurers have been attributing part of their 2011 premium increases to ObamaCare and warned that “there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases.”

In other words, don’t raise rates or blame us because we are forcing you to cover “children” to the age of 26 or because co-pays are no longer allowed, or because guaranteed issue is guaranteed.

In other other words, Ms Sebelius doesn’t seem to understand that money is to be exchanged for goods and services in this country.