All the links that are fit to print

Aside from the wonderful comments you all left during my week on the ski slopes, I got dozens of fascinating emails with links I wanted to pass on to you, but couldn’t because of the limitations inherent in blogging on the iPhone.  First, though, I have to share with you something incredibly funny I saw when I made my Costco run on the way home from the airport today.  The picture below is sort of bad, because I was trying to take it unobtrusively, but I think you can see that someone with either a very good sense of humor, or no sense of humor at all, arranged side by side Bernard Goldberg’s A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media, and the New York Times’ Obama: The Historic Journey, which is the ultimate slobbering book:

And now back to the link fest:

The Anchoress has a twofer post that discusses both the way in which, in true 1984 fashion, the major media outlets are scrubbing the news to delete any criticisms about Obama and the fact that Obama is threatening America’s mayors.  Obama seems a little bit unclear on the Constitutiona limitations placed on his office.  Let’s hope that even the Democratic mayors are sufficiently protective of their powers that they too contemplate a little uprising.

And speaking of little uprisings, I know I’m late to the party, but I wanted to make sure all of you saw the video coming from the Chicago Trading Floor.  Obama did, and he threw his toothless and drooling attack dog, Pres. Secy Robert Gibbs, into the fray. American Thinker explains why Gibbs is out of his league when he says that Santelli doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Watching Gibbs launch his ill-informed, juvenile fizzy little missiles against Rick Santelli would be amusing if it weren’t yet another reminder of the striking ineptitudes that characterize the vast majority of Obama’s appointments.  I mentioned earlier today that his guys and gals have mastered antisemitism (at least some have), but I left out that their other area of mastery is, of course, tax evasion (with Rahm Emanuel’s sins, known for months, finally hitting the public eye).

Once again doing the work the MSM refuses to do, Dr. Rusty Shackleford noticed that the feds caught a California resident with very close ties to Al Qaeda.  Hellllooo, MSM!!!  There’s a story out here.

Steve Schippert is also keeping an eye on things and reminds us that our Southern Border is a very, very dangerous place.  It looks as if Obama, who has never held a meaningful job in his life, is going to have to master very quickly the art of focusing on more than one highly charged issue at a time.

Watching the Obama/Congressional team at work, I feel it’s imperative that we keep reminding American people that Governments don’t make wealth.  They only print money, which is mere paper.  People make wealth.  The more money the government team takes away from the American people, the less wealth they can create.  You and I understand that this is the Obama team’s goal, because it doesn’t want to enrich America, it wants to enslave America to socialist economic principles (and I recognize that it’s an oxymoron to use the words socialist and economic in the same sentence).  However, he’s flim-flammed at least some Americans into thinking government creates and we must just repeat over and over and over that this simply isn’t true.

We all feared it would happen, and so it has come to pass, but trust Charles Krauthammer to spell out in excruciating detail the large “kick me” sign Obama has affixed to America’s backside.  (Incidentally, the WaPo article was apparently originally titled “Obama’s ‘Kick-Me’ Diplomacy,” which still appears on the web page tab banner, only to have been changed in the print version to the more genteel “Obama’s Supine Diplomacy.”)  Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, with less verve but with equally compelling facts, also report on Obama’s determined efforts to paint a yellow stripe down America’s back.

Fred Barnes has some interesting thoughts about Obama’s first month (has it only been a month?) in office.  Although it’s early days yet, there are definite patterns emerging.

We’ve been hearing lots and lots about the resurgence of patriotism now that Obama is president.  (Sally Zelikovsky wrote a great article on the subject and, having seen her neighbor’s house, I can tell why she was inspired to do so.)  I also like James Taranto’s pithy distinction between patriotism and partisanship, something that seems to elude the new flag-wavers.  His starting point is an article in a Brown University magazine crowing and glowing about the way in which students now feel free to show their love for America:

Yes, Barack Obama’s election prompted an outpouring of latent or brand new patriotic sentiments. “It was the first time in our lives we felt proud to be American,” says Sarah Schoenbrun, class of ’09. Elliott Gorn, a professor, says his students “seem less negative about America” than they had before. Kaitlyn Scott ’10 says of her American flag T-shirt: “I haven’t taken this out of the drawer in years, and finally I feel like I can wear it again.”

And on and on. “Some students also believe that Obama has reclaimed a broader definition of patriotism,” Goodman writes. It never seems to occur to him that what he is describing is exactly the opposite of this. The sentiment he chronicles, if it can be called patriotism at all, is as cramped a definition of patriotism as one can imagine: Now that my party is in power, I love America.

There is no contradiction between patriotism and partisanship: One can love one’s country while disapproving of its current government. That, however, is decidedly not the sentiment Goodman found at Brown.

If you haven’t already read it, you’ll find some hope in Michelle Malkin’s column about Americans voicing their dismay with the pork package.  As I noted earlier this week, the people I’ve spoken to on ski slopes and airplanes are completely dismayed with the spendulus bill but, like the good sheep they are, they’re going along with it because they feel they have no options.  Malkin points out that politely taking to the street (not in a replay of the anarchistic violence of 1968, but simply as a visible symbol of protest) may be a good thing.  I mean, you know citizens are figuring things out when even San Franciscans have let it be known that they want to pay fewer City taxes, and will cut City services if that’s what it takes.

Here’s a novel idea:  how about if our legislators read the bills before they vote? Nah.  You’re right.  Too radical.  Assumes literacy and intelligence on their parts.

One of the virtues of being in the opposition is that people can coalesce around a single big idea — we’re opposed to the spendulus bill — and gloss over the myriad differences that have previously weekend them.  However, once spendulus is grinding through the government mills, conservatives are once again going to have to tackle their divisions so that they can create a coherent political machine that will offset the Progressives’ rape and pillage of the taxpayers.  Over at Bent Notes, you can see a good start at defining what unites conservatives.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Pingback: Right Wing News()

  • Charles Martel

    Speaking of Colorado. . . In southwest Colorado is the town of Durango, gateway to the San Juan Mountains, the remotest range in the state. The two-lane highway that heads north from there, old U.S. 550, eventually leads to Ouray, population 1,000. Laid in a narrow valley between towering 1,500-foot cliffs, Ouray, at 7,800 feet, is the place where Ayn Rand got the inspiration for the vale to which John Galt and his peers exiled themselves in “Atlas Shrugged.”

    This is a part of the state where people don’t take too kindly to socialism or metrosexualism. The weather is pretty good (Durango is not in the mountains themselves), and Utah, home to manly men and womanly women, is not that far to the west. On the way to Ouray, you can stop at Silverton (9,300 feet) where the inhabitants wrestle with bitter winters and a bare landscape—not exactly the makings of a Democratic whinerville like Berkeley or Boulder.

    (The drawback here is Telluride, which the Bobos have discovered and are now in the process of ruining, lies only a few miles west of Ouray. However, there are 13,000-foot mountains between the two towns, and it is widely known that “progressives” are not big brown pants fans. Brown pants are the clothing that prudent people wear if they choose to take the Jeep “shortcut” that connects the the two burgs. Otherwise it’s 62 miles between them by paved road.)

    If you look hard enough, there are pleasant places in the States where you can find independent, well-armed people who really don’t want to live immersed in progressive bullshit.

  • Charles Martel

    My bad, I mistakenly posted the above here. It belongs on the “Last Open Thread” thread. I apologize.

  • Quisp

    If you go to the article linked in by The Anchoress and Instapundit, you find this message:

    To our readers: Due to a technical error, this story was temporarily removed from our Web site. We apologize for the inconvenience.

    But it wasn’t removed, it was rewritten to be favorable to Obama. There’s a difference.

  • Mike Devx

    When you look at the list around which conservative opposition might coalesce, doesn’t it remind you of one Ronald Wilson Reagan?

    a.) the disingenuous use of the word “diversity” as a way for such institutions as schools, arts councils and human-rights councils to erode a cohesive sense of what the West is about

    b.) the whole “green” movement

    c.) the notion that one should regard human sexuality in an utterly casual manner

    d.) the notion that there is some magic alternative to free-market economics

    e.) the notion that some kind of lasting “peace” for all humankind forevermore is achievable

    f.) the notion that you can build the kind of vital and durable civilization that we have in fact built without having an ongoing public conversation about God be part of the exchange of ideas that builds it”

    The problem today, as I see is, is that we conservatives have split into mostly two constituent camps: The social conservatives and the economic conservatives, and we are refusing to consider the other camp as worthy equals.

    Newt and many blogs (ie Rick Moran and Villianous Company) are focused on the economic arguments and have nothing to say – or are quite hostile to – the social conservatism expressed by the idea of “a return to decency and traditional values”. I would ask them: Do you really think that free market reforms and libertarian-style individualism alone can combat what the far-left is doing to us?

    The social conservatives are outraged by social trends but couldn’t care less about the Porkulus Spendulus bill’s outrages against the free-market, nor the Obama-ite intrusion of government control over more and more of our lives. Most of THEM couldn’t give a damn about free-market economics, and the importance of individual responsibility and individual freedom.

    There’s a natural incompatibility between the individualistic libertarian philosophies behind the economic conservatives, and the social controls required by social conservatives. We were somehow able to bridge that during the Reagan years and the years following that via Reagan’s legacy. But it’s come apart.

    Can we again find common ground? I’m not seeing it happen yet.

  • Danny Lemieux

    Charles, I wish that you were right about Durango but things have changed (I have family there).

    Durango’s become a hotbed of Obama Lefties – first, there is the huge influx of monied Lefty Californians fleeing their own socialist Utopia but determined to inflict their diseased ideas and values upon every location to which they flee (remember Einstein’s definition of insanity…to repeat the same actions over and over again while expecting a different result), and then there is Fort Lewis College which is…well, a college. Still love Durango, but the natives are a bit overwhelmed.

  • David Foster

    In a letter to Financial Times (2/19), an associate professor of law at Hofstra makes the following point:

    “For as Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) frankly admitted, neither he, or any of his colleagues, were likely to read the entire version of the $790bn stimulus bill before voting upon it. Were Mr Lautenberg and his colleagues corporate directors and officers, shareholders would have a prima facie case against them for breaching their duty of care.

    Aiding and abetting this breach was a Congressional leadership and an administration that demanded a vote on the 1,000-plus page bill (and a complex one at that) before anyone could fairly review–let along digest it.”

  • Charles Martel

    Danny, oy. I haven’t been through Durango since the late 20th century, so I guess my fond memories of the town are due for some drastic revision.

    What a shame. Leftists simply cannot stop themselves from fouling every place they move.

    Speaking of Obamites, I’m wondering if, when the realization hits that Obama is a disaster, that instead of seeing the light and mending their ways, liberals won’t turn with a vengeance on people like us to vent their anger and preserve their world view. We conservatives will become the new George Bush.

  • suek

    >>The social conservatives and the economic conservatives…>>

    I think you need to add a third group – the defense conservatives. Other than that, I agree with you on the lack of unity. Unfortunately, I think that elements of each are necessary for each of the others – the struggle isn’t between A _or_ B _or_C, but which will be the dominant theme in any particular campaign. Personally, I’m inclined to make economic considerations the dominant theme, since it will include both of the other two. If either the social or the defense groups are dominant, it will tend to exclude members of the other two. That doesn’t mean I think either are less important but I recognize that there is more resistance to a return to earlier social values as well as a tendency to favor a certain amount of isolationism. The problem in any campaign is whether you can afford to lose any members of your less than preferred groups and still win the election. McCain lost the social conservatives – the religious right – and couldn’t win without them.

    I think this is a “hang together or we’ll all hang alone” thing. The problem is how you convince people that a candidate who doesn’t place _their_ preference at the top of the heap can still benefit them enough to overcome their reluctance to support him. Possibly the election of Obama will be instructional…

  • Danny Lemieux

    “I’m wondering if, when the realization hits that Obama is a disaster, that instead of seeing the light and mending their ways, liberals won’t turn with a vengeance on people like us to vent their anger and preserve their world view. We conservatives will become the new George Bush.”

    Charles, I think that you are on to something here. It is, after all, how narcissists react. We’ll be ready. Lock ‘n load, my friend. Remember, the military’s allegiance is to the Constitution, not the government in power.

  • Danny Lemieux

    However, that being said…I believe most people that supported Obama did so only because they were only marginally paying attention to world and national events and simply didn’t bother investigating Obama and the Democrats…and what they stood for. My hope (and it is only a hope) is that there will be an awakening among this group to the danger that these people have put us in. Otherwise…I am going go look for some remote place to hide.

  • Zhombre

    Danny, I know people who already regret that vote. Geithner and Daschle do not represent the change they sought by voting for Obama; they are antithetical to that change, a Wall Street elitist who can’t bother to pay his taxes and a privileged Washington insider as corrupt as a Renaissance pope. I suspect there is a mass of voters who were disillusioned with Bush and the Republican Congress but will in short order become as disillusioned and hostile toward Obama and the runaway Stepford liberal Democrat one.

  • suek

    “So, let’s see if we have this straight. Political hack since college, Robert Gibbs, invited seasoned financial executive Santelli to the White House where Gibbs (the bureaucratic factotum) will lecture Santelli (the trader/financial executive) on the markets. Rick said he’ll come.”

    Heh. From the AT article. I’d pay to see that. The only problem I see is that Gibbs might not know even enough to understand when Santelli embarrasses him. Hey…as far as that goes, I might not either. It’s a bit like trying to explain algebra to a fifth grader – they hear the words, but they just don’t have any concept of what you’re trying to explain.

  • suek

    Found a real goodie…this is an interview of Mark Steyn on the Human Rights commission thing. Not sure exactly why or what it accomplished, but as usual, Steyn is right on the mark. Heh. Names again…

  • suek

    Obviously I disagree with Book – she did _not_ provide all the links that are fit to print! Here’s another…a discussion of love and marriage from a slightly different angle.

  • rockdalian


    I think this is a “hang together or we’ll all hang alone” thing. The problem is how you convince people that a candidate who doesn’t place _their_ preference at the top of the heap can still benefit them enough to overcome their reluctance to support him.

    My view. If a candidate does not support the social facet , think life, guns, speech, etc,. then what use is the economic facet? With out any means to protect life and property money is useless. There will always be a more powerful entity willing to kill you and take what they wish.

    Call me extreme, but I will vote social issues over economic issues. I will cling to my guns and religion.

  • Earl

    Well, I’m a conservative on all three of the counts mentioned here….but I think Rockadalian makes a good point….

    I ask myself – would I rather live in a socialist country where every life is valued from beginning to natural end, or in a wealthy free-market country where inconvenient children and old people are murdered (Oh, Pardon Me! I should have said “aborted or euthanized”), and anyone who’s fairly expensive to keep alive is either denied care or “lethally treated”?

    That’s not too difficult a question for me to answer…how about you?

  • suek

    Ok…thinking about this from the beginning…

    What are the social issues: abortion and euthanasia are a given. Gay marriage? Any others? Does welfare fall into this category? or in the economic category? There might be some crossover on some of these…

    Economic issues: what should government be doing for citizens? how shall it be paid for? Defense, welfare, education, road building, emergency situations, commercial regulation (including bank guarantees)… others?

    Defense issues: As the single dominant country in the world, we have been made the unofficial world policeman. Should we accept that role, should we limit our role to those situations where we have a viable interest, or anywhere wrong is being done? (as decided by whom?) or should we just pull back and let the world solve its own problems?

    Care to add or subtract?

  • Ymarsakar

    My priorities are based upon my enemy’s plans. Calculate the strategy of the enemy and then calculate a defense for it, as well as a counter-attack.

    If the enemy prioritizes their artillery on, say, Sarah Palin, then you know she is an important strategic objective for them that you shouldn’t deprive resources and support of. If the enemy prioritizes gun control, healthcare spending on Muslims terrorists, and high risk mortgages to blacks and other poor minorities, then you know where to focus your attention at.

    That is the fundamental over arching facet of importance here, not people’s individual preferences. Individuals will always have different priorities compared to others. But what cannot be argued, what cannot be a subjective thing where “everybody’s views are right, no matter how different” concerns actual military and political strategy. Those things, those things of the enemy, are not “subjective”. They are either true or they are false. They are either accurate renditions of enemy intent and ability or they are not accurate.

    There is no such leeway here for “I prefer this issue over this other issue”. None of it will matter once the enemy wins or achieves a strategic advantage.

    Now, having said that, I believe Obama intends to make a economic crisis, which has already happened due to Obama’s Fannie Mae lobbyists and other factors, to create socialism and communism, expensive and unavailable healthcare combined with Nationalization, complete with the fascist “patriotism” required to push thugs through the street to blackmail legislators into voting for “Change”.

    Now, this is a two pronged strategy in my view. First it requires immigrants, terrorists, and criminals (gangs or free lancers) to make our lives a living hell. At the same time we are suffering from economic collapse, we get hit from the other side with the thuggish club. This is Obama’s strategy to make us come begging with hat in hand for Federal or State largesse and mercy. Then they will own us.

    As a counter-strategy, you need to save up some economic capital that Obama can’t confiscate. Stash up ammo and guns (which people have already been doing the moment Obama was elected and even some time before). Get yourself training now, before Obama starts “tracking you” or your Fake Lib friends turn you in and maybe take your children away too.

    If you can’t or won’t own a gun, get some hand to hand killing skills. If you feel you need some kind of aid, learn the basics of club and knife usage. (They are very simple to use, if you know the basic principles. They don’t require more than a few hours of training on the mat, although more time leads to proficiency and efficiency.)

    As for politics, people will do whatever they feel like doing or whatever they feel they have to do. Pain is nature’s gift to allow us to learn wisdom. And there will be quite a large amount of wisdom to be gained in the future.

    At the end of it all, we have will. If you don’t want to get things done, then it won’t get done. If you don’t want to defeat our enemies but our enemies want to make slaves of all of us very very much, then we’re going to lose. As Iraq showed, local insurgencies and counter-insurgencies are fought based upon the morale and will power available to each side, in addition to the resources. But all the resources in the world, all the resources, military and political, that the United States could bring to bear did shat good until the locals got a spine up their back.

  • Ymarsakar

    The picture below is sort of bad, because I was trying to take it unobtrusively

    Keep working on those spy and subterfuge skills, Book.