Iran Promises 'Blow' On Feb. 11

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has vowed that his country "will deliver [a] telling blow to global powers on Feb. 11" to coincide with the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution. During a cabinet meeting today, Ahmadinejad stated:

"The Islamic Revolution opened a window to liberty for the human race, which was trapped in the dead ends of materialism...If the Islamic Revolution had not occurred, liberalism and Marxism would have crushed all human dignity in their power-seeking and money-grubbing claws. Nothing would have remained of human and spiritual principles."

So what could this surprise possibly entail? A new fast-food chain to outperform Pizza Hut on a global scale? A star-studded women's soccer team to take on the world? Or maybe a line of Iranian luxury automobiles that will crush the likes of Mercedes, Rolls Royce, or Lexus?

Obviously, the foremost concern that comes to mind is nukes. If true, Iran will either flex its muscle with nuclear weapons on said date, or reveal to the world a functioning nuclear power plant. Regardless, the US has beefed up its presence in the region via naval ships and Patriot missile batteries. Israel, too, has vowed to prohibit Iran from going nuclear (as it did in the 1981 aerial strike against Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor).

But how did we get to this point? Wasn't this administration's savvy diplomacy supposed to convince our enemies to stand down; to lay down their arms? In the eyes of evil men, diplomacy is seen as weakness, and an opportunity to advance whatever nefarious plans they concoct (and that their own diplomats deny existing in the first place).

Commenting on the recent US build-up in the middle east, Chris McGreal of the UK Guardian said:

"The deployment comes after Obama's attempts to emphasise diplomacy over confrontation in dealing with Iran – a contrast to the Bush administration's approach – have failed to persuade Tehran to open its nuclear installations to international controls."

So diplomacy failed, huh? No surprise. Again, perceived weakness (such as Obama's recent world apology tour) only provokes our enemies. On the contrary, it has been American power that has kept free nations safe around the world for decades.

Reagan's famous motto was never "Peace Through Diplomacy" or "Peace Through Apology." It was "Peace Through Strength."

As we ride down that road to February 11th, how about another swill of that Hopium?

GDP Soars To 5.7%

"[It] confirms what we've recognized for some time, that the president’s policies have moved the economy back from the brink of depression and have created a basis for economic growth.” [Lawrence Summers, White House economic adviser]

Yesterday the Commerce Department reported that fourth quarter GDP grew at a hefty 5.7%, besting analysts' expectations of 4.7%. News stories reported the figure as being the highest level in 6 years. However, closer examination of the report elicited reactions such as these:

"It’s far too early to break out the champagne and declare ‘recovery accomplished.’ Even if this growth rate were to be sustained for 3 years we would still not create enough jobs to climb out of the hole caused by this recession. Worse, this growth will not be sustained." [Josh Bivens, Economic Policy Institute]

"It is quite obvious to us that the rebound during the quarter was not a function of some new-found economic dynamism, but rather it was the slowing pace of inventory liquidation that really dealt the winning hand. The fact that sixty percent of growth can be attributed to this correction suggests the pace of GDP growth going forward will fail to keep pace, though that is not to say growth will stall altogether." [Ian Pollick, TD Securities]

The headline figure is a preliminary one that will be revised twice more, likely downward. As mentioned above, virtually 2/3 of this gain was due to inventory build-ups by US firms that had depleted their stores due to the recession, and as such, had to replenish their supplies in the fourth quarter. Excluding this component, then, GDP grew at a much weaker rate of 2.2 %, which is still less than the 3% rate that businesses would like to see before hiring resumes. Under-reported, however, was the fact that the economy still contracted 2.4% for the year, its biggest drop since 1946.

So how did the 'smart money' react to the news? Initially rallying on the report's release, the markets sold off the rest of the day and closed lower on heavier volume (suggesting heavy institutional selling). Why would corporate America 'poo-poo' the wonderful news? As the saying goes, 'the devil is in the details' of Obama's onerous proposals. Yet, it was early last year that Obama's own head of his Council of Economic Advisors, Christina Romer, stated, “We feel very confident that eventually the markets will respond when they understand the policies, and when the policies start doing what we firmly think they’re going to do.” I think the markets understand the policies already...

Moreover, when one considers the dearth of private sector experience of Team Obama (a measly 8%), and its incessant effort to usher the economy down a toilet, there should be no surprise that markets were unimpressed. By comparison, Eisenhower's cabinet had a 58% rate; Reagan: 56%; George W Bush: 53%. Even JFK, whose cabinet had the lowest private sector experience before Obama's presidency, had a rate of 28% (A full graph can be seen here).

Investors and corporations alike know what Obamanomics represents: over-regulating, growth-stymieing, tax-punishing, intrusive Big Government (Buenos Dias, Señor Chavez?). And it's remarkably conceited of this president, the least experienced of ANY of his predecessors, to lecture corporate America on how to best run their businesses, and to dictate how the economy should work.

As Investor's Business Daily sums it up, "If things had been done differently, we'd be in a real recovery now, with job growth of 200,000 or more a month."

The Challenger Seven

Twenty-four years ago today, the space shuttle Challenger exploded 74 seconds after lift-off, killing all 7 crew members on board. On this day, I remember standing outside my high school during lunch period, and noticing trails of smoke reaching up into the northern sky. With my school some 150 miles south of Cape Canaveral, I was intrigued by the sight, and a little curious, too - something just didn't look right. So I rushed home afterwards, turned on the TV, and watched the network coverage of the horrific event. And I remember feeling numb. Never before had the nation lost an astronaut in flight.

Tragic as they are, these memories are burned into my mind. But I will always remember, too, the words with which our president, The Great Communicator, eulogized these brave explorers and consoled a nation:

"The crew of the space shuttle Challenger honored us by the manner in which they lived their lives. We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for their journey and waved goodbye and slipped the surly bonds of earth, to touch the face of God.'" [Ronald Reagan, Jan. 28, 1986]

In Memoriam:

Francis R (Dick) Scobee (Commander)
Michael J Smith (Pilot)
Ron McNair (Mission Specialist)
Ellison Onizuka (Mission Specialist)
Judy Resnick (Mission Specialist)
Gregory Jarvis (Payload Specialist)
Christa McAuliffe (Teacher In Space)

Obama's Prime Time Live Show

"There seems to be an increasing awareness of something we Americans have known for some time: That the ten most dangerous words in the English language are, 'Hi, I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help.'"

Unfortunately, this is the message that President Obama delivered to the American people tonight. Unlike Reagan's aforementioned comment to the Future Farmers of America, Obama remained resolute on government solutions to our economic woes. Tonight's SOTU Address featured several contradictions that could have very easily elicited a "You Lie!" outburst or two, but didn't.

Instead, we had Supreme Court Justice Alito mouthing the words "Not True" in response to Obama's condemnation of the Court's decision to overturn the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

We had Republican chortles and guffaws over Obama's promise to curb government's runaway spending not immediately, but next year "when the economy is stronger." (Don't hold your breath on this one - just sit there contentedly as the spending spree continues).

We had a yawning Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, and we had an absent Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton (who was attending a conference in London).

And of course we had the obligatory standing ovations and rounds of applause common to every SOTU Address, but simply wastes viewers' time.

Most salient, however, were Obama's attacks on the banking industry (which provides the seed money for entrepreneurs to create and grow their companies), and America's corporations (a source of jobs for the unemployed). Nice one-two punch to the economic recovery, huh?

Also noted was Obama's portrayal of the Republicans as the 'Party of NO.' This calls for some clarity. The loyal opposition in our system of government allows the minority party to oppose legislation that is not in the country's best interest - this the Republicans have done. The Democrats could have rammed through any piece of legislation they so desired without a single Republican vote, but Democrat in-fighting prevented them from doing so. And Obama chided them for it in his address, reminding Democrats that they have a congressional majority of historic proportions (translation: "Ram my policies through before the American voters kick you out on your duffs!"). Obama also pleaded for ideas from anyone on any of his agenda items.

But let's not forget who said 'NO' to Republican alternatives to the stimulus bill (Obama); who shut Republicans out of the health care debates (Democrats); who governs against the will of the people (Obama & Democrats); who labels Republicans as irresponsible naysayers (Obama & Democrats). Who's the 'Party of NO' again?

So it seems that the president remains steadfast in his progressive, big government agenda, but when their time comes, the electorate will issue a resounding 'NO' vote on it.

Republicans Take Heed

One week ago this evening, Scott Brown won a stunning victory in the Massachusetts Senate race, clinching the seat formerly held by the Liberal Lion himself, Ted Kennedy. A Republican win in this race has enormous implications on a national level (see my first post, 'Two Predictions for the New Year'), and Republicans should take heed of Brown's campaign.

Scott Brown ran as an unabashed conservative, espousing his beliefs at every opportunity as he campaigned across the state in his pickup truck (for which he was lampooned by President Obama, Sen. John F(bomb) Kerry, and his opponent, A.G. Martha Coakley). His core set of issues were true conservative ones that included smaller government, lower taxes, expansion of the private health insurance market, and a strong military. His most ingenious campaign message, however, was in the form of the commercial spot below, wherein he evokes the spirit of JFK:



For liberals and independents alike, watching this video and hearing JFK's conservative stance on tax policy must have been paradoxical. It clearly shows how vastly the Democrat party of today has changed since that time. It's worth noting, however, that in a different time another future president had his own day of reckoning with the Democrat party. Ronald Reagan described his party affiliation thusly, "I didn't leave the Democrat party - the party left me."

Tapping into this disillusionment was Scott Brown. Just like Reagan, he expounded upon conservative principles, and explained to audiences what it means to be a conservative. And the people of Massachusetts responded. Republicans must take this lesson to heart.

Now is the time to run conservative candidates against Democrats, RINOs, and spineless moderates. In the Massachusetts election, conservatism won, just as it did in 1980, 1984, and 1994, and just as it will wherever it's espoused.

Now is the time to take the Democrats to task for their liberal and progressive ideas that run counter to the ideals of America's founding.

Now is the time for conservatives to teach Americans the axiom of Reagan's farewell address:

"And I hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts." [Jan.11, 1989]

And the electorate has witnessed this truth firsthand with the current cast of characters in Washington, DC. As the president and congressional Democrats continue to govern against the will of the people, shoving liberty-robbing policy down our collective throats, Americans become increasingly galvanized to take appropriate action this November.

Hey, if it can happen in Massachusetts, it can happen anywhere!

The Mysterious Ellie Light

A curious letter-to-the-editor has appeared in the newspaper by someone named Ellie Light, an excerpt of which appears below (hat tip, Ben Smith). As you'll see, the writer has been imbibing the Hopium for quite some time:

"A year ago, if we had read in the paper that employers were hiring again, that health care legislation was proceeding without a bump, that Afghanistan suddenly became a nice place to take your kids, we would've known we were being lied to. Back then, we recognized that the problems Obama inherited as president wouldn't go away overnight...But today, the president is being attacked as if he were a salesman who promised us that our problems would wash off in the morning. He never made such a promise. It's time for Americans to realize that governing is hard work, and that a president can't just wave a magic wand and fix everything."

Now, what's so curious about this letter, and in which newspaper did it appear? Well, at this point the more appropriate question should be, "In which newspaper hasn't it appeared?" Yes, Ellie Light is a one-person cheer leading squad for President Obama, who has managed to dupe the editors of newspapers across the country for several weeks. Versions of this letter have appeared in some 47 newspapers in 23 different states (and 1 country - The Bangkok Post, Thailand!), and in each one she has posed as a 'concerned' resident of a local town, so as to avoid suspicion (an updated list of newspapers can be found here). So as Obama's approval numbers continue to sink, at least this itinerant supporter has not lost the faith.

Now that the scam is public knowledge, however, only the Cleveland Plain Dealer (to my knowledge) is pursuing the identity of the perp. What could possibly account for the lack of interest on the part of the mainstream media? Moreover, whatever happened to a news room's cross-checking of facts, or in this case, verification of Ms. Light's place of residence? As long as the message is in-line with its own ideological bias, why bother vetting the source, right? This is yet another example of the media's 'Slobbering Love Affair' with Barack Obama.

Inquiring minds are dying to know more about the mysterious Ellie Light. And if the mainstream media can't belly up to the job, then let's call upon an entity that can - the National Enquirer.

Obama The Fighter

"Let me tell you, so long as I have the privilege of serving as your president, I'll never stop fighting for you," Obama said yesterday during his speech in Elyria, Ohio. On the same day, however, new statistics showed that the state's unemployment rate had risen from 10.6% to 10.9%, easily eclipsing the national average. This whole 'fighting' theme seems to be a redoubling of his efforts to deliver on the promises that he made as a presidential candidate more than a year ago. So what exactly is he fighting for, and who is he fighting? Let's take a look at some his of his remarks from this speech:

"I'll never stop fighting to bring jobs back to Elyria."

"I'll never stop fighting for an economy where hard work is rewarded, where responsibility is honored, where accountability is upheld, where we're creating the jobs of tomorrow."

"I'm going to keep up the fight for real, meaningful health insurance reforms...That's why we expanded the children's health insurance program to include 4 million more kids." (I missed the part where he mentions that these 'kids' include everyone up to the age of 25. Oh, yeah - that's because he neglected to say it)

"These are some of the fights we've had...And I can promise you, there will be more fights in the days ahead."

And oh, yes...Let's not forget his declaration against the banking industry just a couple days ago in which he threw down this gauntlet:

"If these folks want a fight, it's a fight I'm ready to have."

So who is this fighter-president wanting to fight? One can only surmise that Obama is scapegoating 'special interests' and 'big business' in an effort to push through his agenda. These smoke screens just aren't effective when one considers that voters (in growing numbers) reject the Democrats' big government policies. In fact, the latest Rasmussen poll shows 58% opposition to the health care reform plan proffered by Obama and congressional Democrats.

(Side Note: We still don't know the contents of said plan since the Dems have refused to make public any debate or hearings, even shutting out Republicans, who, up until Scott Brown's win in Massachusetts, could not have blocked ANY legislation that Dems wanted to pass)

How about the president's promise to create jobs? In the real world, jobs are created by the private sector, not by the government. The best thing government can do is get out of the way of America's entrepreneurs and innovators, and let the capitalist engine bring our economy back from its doldrums. Then again, Obama's policies threaten to squash these up-and-comers with such overbearing taxes and regulation that they would have little fruit to bear in the form of new jobs and new wealth. Current economic conditions show that America's existing businesses have been suffering too, despite the Democrats' best efforts to resurrect the economy via runaway spending.

So who again is Obama fighting? Consider: Americans don't want their health care hijacked by the federal government. They don't want higher taxes. They don't want their government on a spending spree with their money (most of which has yet to be created!) And they don't want intrusive government in every aspect of their lives.

In wrapping up his Ohio speech, Obama reminded everyone, "I didn't run for president to turn away from these challenges. I didn't run for president to kick them down the road. I ran for president to confront them, once and for all."

By this, I can only presume that he means "to confront" all of us - it sounds to me like the president's picking a fight with the American people, who 'just don't get it.'

But it's Obama who doesn't 'get it.' Ironic, isn't it?

The New Deal, Part 2

"Obama Hammers Wall Street Banks" (Financial Times, Jan. 21, 2010)

"New Bank Rules Sink Stocks" (Wall Street Journal, Jan. 21, 2010)

"Obama Rips Banks, Proposes Ban On Proprietary Trading" (Investor's Business Daily, Jan.21, 2010)

Obama's latest attack on the banking sector is reminiscent of a bygone era when government intervention promised to lead the country out of depression. Like today, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt faced double-digit unemployment (topping out at 25%), and the widespread failure of the nation's banks (more than 1/3 in the early 1930s). The big government programs comprising his New Deal were to usher in a period of economic prosperity, and like Obama is doing now, he sought to vilify the businessmen and bankers who "immorally profited" at the expense of the little guy.

What economists have discovered, however, is that FDR's meddling and central planning actually extended our economic depression by 7 years, causing this period to be renamed the Great Depression. His intervention was based on the belief that because the free market's 'invisible hand' could not be trusted to restore our economy, government policies were the answer (which also allowed him to create generations of dependents on government largess, thereby earning their votes in perpetuity).

Despite the facts of history, we again have a tin-eared, big government president who is attempting to wrest ever more control over the economy. Obama's latest fulmination on the banking sector will only exacerbate our current recession, just as all of his past meddling has done. Ever wonder how everything Obama touches turns to crap? He's certainly missing the Midas touch.

In his Wall Street Journal piece, "Obama Is Killing America By Killing Wall Street," Evan Newmark astutely reminds us that "job creation in our economy comes from profits and growing incomes. [Yet,] here is America’s best-run company [Goldman Sachs] almost ashamed of its profits and bragging about how much less it’s paying its people." While many banks experienced trading and investment losses (the target of Obama's ire), an entire slew of financial institutions failed because of mortgage lending programs foisted upon them by the US government!

How far does the economy need to sink before this administration (and congressional Dems) heeds Reagan's axiom: Government is not the solution to our problems - it is the problem?

Obama: First Year Review

On this one year anniversary of Barack Obama's presidency, let's reflect on his promises of a better, stronger, fairer America. How has the Hope & Change campaign translated to reality? Touching upon Obama's penchant for Hollywood sets from which to make his pronouncements upon the hopeful (and hopeless) among us, let's begin our review with another Hollywood tool - the trailer, or in common parlance, the coming attraction. So try these headlines for a preview of what was to come post-election day:

"Floored: Dow Plunges 486 Points" (Fox Business, November 5, 2008) "Election-Day euphoria vanished in a cloud of negativity on Wednesday as the Dow plummeted almost 500 points [5.05%], its worst post-election plunge on record. The losses narrowly surpassed the Dow’s 4.51% decline the day after Franklin Roosevelt’s win in 1932 during the Great Depression."

"No Obama Bounce: Dow Falls 332, Ends Below 8K" (Fox Business, January 20, 2009) "Tuesday's losses were easily the worst in inaugural history, exceeding the 2.89% decline on the Dow when Lyndon B. Johnson assumed the presidency in 1963."

So the "smart money" knew what Obamanomics meant to our economy. While the DOW and the other indexes have since rallied off their March lows, it is due to the fact that there has been nowhere else for investors to put their money. Not one economist worth his salt (or anyone else with half a brain) can point to a single Obama policy that has spurred real economic growth.

"But what about the 3.5% growth reported for third quarter GDP?" The answer: GDP = consumption + investments + government spending. For the third quarter, there was zero consumption and zero investments, leaving only government spending as the sole component of growth. Clearly, there is no real economic growth in Obama's economy - only a growth in government. Incidentally, the headline number was subsequently revised to 2.8% and downward again to a final figure of 2.2% two months later.

Andrew Breitbart offers a by-the-numbers look at Obama's first year. Highlights include the following stats:

7,949.09 — Dow Jones Industrial Average close on Jan. 20, 2009.

10,609.65 — Dow Jones Industrial Average close on Jan. 15, 2010.

13 million — Number of people 16 and older unemployed as of January 2009.

14.7 million — Number of people 16 and older unemployed as of December 2009.

7.7 percent — Unemployment rate January 2009.

10.0 percent — Unemployment rate December 2009.

274,399 — Number of properties that received foreclosure-related notices in January 2009.

349,519 — Number of properties that received foreclosure-related notices in December 2009.

Just the kind of change the Hopiates expected, right? As the Hopium (coined by John Kass) wears off, however, Americans are realizing that they were sold a rotten bill of goods during the last presidential election cycle, and they are voicing their opposition to Obama's agenda in electoral contests around the country (i.e. - recent Republican victories in New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts). And this trend will follow through to the mid-term elections in November as the Democrats continue to govern according to their will and against the will of the people.

Let's not forget the following poll numbers either:

63.3 - RCP Average Obama Job Approval on Jan. 27, 2009

49.9 - RCP Average Obama Job Approval on Jan. 20, 2010

(The RCP Average is a compilation of the nation's major polls)

Even Obama's most ardent supporters are experiencing buyer's remorse. Consider billionaire Mort Zuckerman's column in the New York Daily News in which he laments:

"Ruinous tax increases are inevitable if spending cuts remain outside the President's agenda.

"Everybody is dazed and confused by all this talk of additional indebtedness in the trillions of dollars. Our soaring national debt will require cataclysmic adjustments to accomplish the restoration of a balance in our fiscal position.

"Otherwise, we face a dramatic erosion of U.S. economic and financial standing, raising the risk of skyrocketing interest rates and a crash in the value of the dollar. Americans can no longer rely on their stocks and the soaring value of their homes to put their kids through college and support early retirement. For the first time since the Depression, U.S. companies are not only cutting jobs; they are cutting wages. We are undersaved and underpensioned, and we will have to adjust to a more frugal life."

And yet, undeterred by reality, Obama has given himself "a good solid B-plus" grade on his first year in office.

Ugh...Please pass the Hopium.

Global Warming Destroys Mental Health

Canada's National Post is reporting on a recent study in the journal Psychological Medicine, that claims global warming could have "significant negative effects on global mental health." The report's author, British psychiatrist Lisa Page, claims that suicide rates increase during periods of hot weather, as do episodes of aggression and impulsivity. Consequently, she contends that "injuries from severe weather events, food and water scarcity, and population displacement" from global warming could cause "an increase in the overall burden of mental disorder worldwide."

Two words: Bovine Scatology (or BS for short).

The National Post article features Mardi Tindal of the United Church of Canada, who attended the global warming summit in Copenhagen, but returned with "an anxious despair that reduced her to weeping." The story continues:

She was so disappointed by the meeting's failure to reach a binding deal that she broke down in the car one day as her husband drove toward their home church in Brantford, Ont.

"I simply wept. My tears were quiet, but I spoke through them, and I was being listened to. My husband said, ‘There is great power in what you have just said, and it is a powerful message that makes clear why you are weeping.'"

"And I said, ‘Doug, I'm weeping for the millions of lives that have been lost as a result of what did and did not happen in Copenhagen," Ms. Tindal said. "My experience was that I had a place to go with my tears and my lament ... It's an expression of pain for the world's suffering."

Wow!

My contention is that those afflicted by this so-called Global Warming Depression are hysterical worrywarts, who would just as well latch onto some other issue were it not for the omnipresence of this hoax throughout the media. It is they (the media), as well as our government, who are to blame for this kind of hysteria, and it's outrageous that the hoax is still being peddled around as fact, despite recent revelations of data manipulation among the scientific community.

Have they no shame?

Republican Win In Massachusetts To Rally Markets

Stock-picking guru and former Obama supporter, CNBC's own Jim Cramer, predicted last Friday that a strong market rally could occur this Tuesday night should Scott Brown (R) win the Senate seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy. On the Brown/Coakley race he commented:

"More important, though, I think investors who are nervous about the dictatorship of the Pelosi proletariat will feel at ease, and we could have a gigantic rally off a Coakley loss and a Brown win. It will be a signal that a more pro-business, less pro-labor government could be in front of us...Everything from the banks, which are usually in the Democrats' penalty box, to the oils, which are despised by this administration for being carbon, could be propelled dramatically higher - all of this, Tuesday night."

Scott Brown has run as a 'small government, low taxes, strong military' conservative in this race, and he has vowed to vote against the health care bill in Washington (a very telling stand, since his state already has a "Washington-Light" version of a government-run health care program). His "nay" vote would put the entire health care bill into jeopardy, since his rival promises to provide the supermajority 60th vote, which would ensure passage of the bill. Brown's remarkable campaign has propelled him from a one-time 8-point deficit against Attorney General Martha Coakley to a 10-point lead as of today (in a state with a 3-to-1 majority of registered Democrats, no less). This swing has been startling to Democrats/liberals/progressives (what's the difference?), and we're sure to see some apoplectic news anchors on a Brown win tomorrow night; id est, the late Peter Jennings' summation of the Republican victories in 1994: "The voters had a temper tantrum last week...the nation can't be run by an angry two-year-old." (typical media elitism)

So how can the libs defeat Brown? By cheating, of course. Here's a recent clip of MSNBC's own Ed Schultz:



Did you happen to catch the media bias?

Even though Obama visited the state yesterday in support of Coakley, it may have been in vain. Despite Obama's vast experience as director of Project Vote (a Chicago voter registration movement à la ACORN), Massachusetts voters will likely reject their own Attorney General's candidacy in favor of the conservative Republican. Make no mistake - just as in last November's New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races (in which Republicans won), a Republican victory in this Senate race will foreshadow another "temper tantrum" in the upcoming mid-term elections.

Hope - The Obama Musical Story

Riding the coattails of such recent smashes as "Obama: The Musical" (Kenya) and "Obama On My Mind" (England) comes the latest extravaganza, "Hope - The Obama Musical Story," which debuts this weekend in Frankfurt, Germany. The American co-writer of the production, Randall Hitchins, concocted the idea during the last presidential campaign, and originally conceived a single song based on Obama's "Yes We Can" message. Upon further consideration, he and producer Roberto Emmanuele, thought the idea warranted a full-blown show. And so the finished version features songs by former 2008 presidential and vice presidential candidates that include lines from their stump speeches. And oh yes, the "love songs by the president to his wife Michelle and duets with Hillary Clinton" are not to be missed (gag me already). So what is the storyline of this likely Tony Award-winning show? It's the Hope and Change that Obama's candidacy brings to the tenants of a Chicago apartment (no surprise). Personally, I'd like to ask these fictional characters how the whole Hope & Change thing is working for them now, given our current economic malaise. Are they still living in that apartment, or have they been evicted because they've lost their jobs and haven't been able to pay their rent?

Anyway, the whole production is another example of the 'Slobbering Love Affair' (to quote Bernard Goldberg's book of the same name) that Hollywood and media elites have with Obama. Do you doubt me? The perfect counterpoint to this Oba-maniacal rash of musicals is the 2006 movie production, "Death Of A President," which won the International Federation of Film Critics Award at the Toronto International Film Festival. And what does this movie portray? The assassination of George W. Bush, of course.

Given Obama's continuing slide in the polls (in virtually every policy measure that he is advocating), one can only wonder if the producers dare bring "Hope!" stateside. Then again, why would they bring over a cast of pretenders, when we've got the real deal in Washington D.C.?

Global Warming Caused Haitian Earthquake

Preeminent seismic geologist (and Hollywood actor), Danny Glover, professed as much in an interview yesterday on GRITtv. His scientific analysis begins at the 1:50 mark.



It irks me when Hollywood entertainers (be they actors, singers, artists, etc.) latch onto the issue du jour, and peddle their opinions as indisputable fact. It's no different than the oft-mentioned commercial spoof wherein an actor states, "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV." In the same vein, what makes these elites think that they are omniscient in any field other than their primary craft? This is not meant to criticize celebrities for using their stardom to draw attention to a disaster such as the one in Haiti - in fact, it's a good thing. But why would Mr. Glover go beyond that and proclaim that this natural disaster is a result of the failed global warming meetings in Copenhagen? Just what are his credentials in seismic geology? Or for that matter, what are Al Gore's credentials in climatology? Or Ted Danson's credentials in marine biology and oceanology?

In 2003, Laura Ingraham published her book, "Shut Up & Sing." Our world's entertainers should recognize the limits of their talents and abilities, and acknowledge their ignorance of subject matter in which they have absolutely no expertise (no matter how earnestly they plead their cases to the public). So to all those faux scientist-entertainers, I say, "Just shut up and sing."

WHO To Review Self On H1N1 Scare

Reuters reported this week that the World Health Organization (WHO) would review its role in the great Swine Flu panic. This announcement comes amid harsh criticism from the international community regarding the agency's wildly inaccurate predictions on the spread of H1N1 worldwide. As reported in the Daily Mail (UK), the European Union's Health Committee Chairman, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg (an epidemiologist), has labelled the H1N1 pandemic "one of the greatest medical scandals of the century." And of the global hysteria surrounding it he commented, "We have had a mild flu - and a false pandemic." In his criticism over WHO's handling of the outbreak, however, Dr. Wodarg points the finger of blame at [hold your breath] the pharmaceutical industry. Huh? According to the doctor, Big Pharma must have pressured WHO into over-hyping the seriousness of H1N1 so as to capitalize on worldwide fear and rake in billions in profits.

So now the finger-pointing begins. When apocalyptic death tolls fail to materialize, those who fanned the flames of fear have targeted the dreaded drug companies as their scapegoat, which doesn't make sense to me. Based on their own analyses (faulty as they have proven to be time and again), it is WHO and world governments who are to blame here. Weren't they the ones who demanded Big Pharma to develop the needed vaccine post-haste? Weren't they the ones who urged us to take these vaccinations immediately, or risk death?

In my earlier post, I credited Michael Fumento with covering the developing (and eventual fizzling) of this H1N1 scare. In a National Review column from this past November, Fumento surmised that "what’s truly unprecedented about swine flu is its incredible mildness." Using CDC figures on both H1N1 and seasonal flu, he concluded that "seasonal flu is three to 12 times deadlier per case." How then could we (the world) have been so misled by the so-called experts?

When the avian flu pandemic fizzled some six years ago, the World Health Organization was left standing with egg on its face (and millions of unused doses of vaccine). So just prior to the swine flu outbreak last April, WHO conveniently reworked its own definition of a pandemic; one that was not based on death rates (which would help explain how on earth the agency could declare swine flu a pandemic with only 144 deaths worldwide!) I'm not a mathematician, but I think their computations could be summed up as garbage in = garbage out.

It'll be interesting to learn the findings of the review that WHO promises, but don't hold your breath. WHO spokeswoman, Fadela Chaib, has not set a date certain for such a review, nor has she mentioned the names of any experts who may conduct said review. Until then we can only ponder who the real bogeyman is - our public health officials or the pharmaceutical industry. And given these choices, which outcome is more frightening?

Swine Flu A Bust

"News flash: Swine flu is a massively overrated threat — overrated not only in the media but by the World Health Organization, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and others who have a duty to know better." [Michael Fumento, New York Post, October 8, 2009]

Doing yeoman's work on the swine flu pandemic (that wasn't) is Michael Fumento, attorney and writer specializing in health and science issues. Since the H1N1 outbreak last April, Mr. Fumento has pored over the statistics, analyses, and predictions by national and international health agencies. At every turn he has proven wrong the prognosticators from the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, the World Health Organization (WHO), and the media.

To review:

April 2009: The Obama administration sounds the first alarm on Swine Flu with hardly any deaths.

June 2009: Eleven weeks into the outbreak, WHO declares H1N1 a pandemic with only 144 deaths worldwide.

August 2009: The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology predicts as many as 90,000 deaths, with a peak occurring in mid-October. The same month the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) reports 1,544 "flu-related" deaths, of which only 240 are lab-verified as any kind of flu.

October 2009: CDC reports 22 million infections with 4,000 deaths. However, the seasonal flu infects about 15 million Americans a month and kills 36,000 annually over a 4 month period - hardly numbers to warrant such panic.

So what about international figures? Did other countries experience pandemic-sized death rates from the swine flu? London's Independent lays out Britain's numbers in the following manner:

65,000 - Number of deaths in worst-case scenario for Britain published in July.

19,000 - Revised worst-case scenario outlined in September.

1,000 - Revised worst-case scenario last month (October).

154 - Number of deaths in Britain so far (as of November).

4,000 - 8,000 - Average annual death toll in Britain from seasonal winter flu.

Similarly, Health Canada reports annual deaths from seasonal flu as 2,000 - 8,000, but after 8 months into the H1N1 pandemic only 138 Canadians had died. To date, WHO is reporting approximately 13,000 deaths worldwide since the April outbreak, and the CDC is claiming 10,000 of these deaths here in the US. For some perspective, the Spanish Flu of 1918-19 killed 675,000 Americans and up to 50 million worldwide.

And forget about attributing these low death rates to successful vaccination programs. Remember all the news stories surrounding the vaccine shortages here in the US?

"Anticipated H1N1 Vaccine Shortage Has U.S. Officials Scrambling To Bring On New Manufacturing" [Fox News, August 8, 2009]

"Behind The H1N1 Vaccine Shortage" [Forbes.com, October 30, 2009]

"Health Officials Frustrated By H1N1 Vaccine Shortage" [Wall Street Journal, November 4, 2009]

So then why the alarm? As Fumento states, "Maybe because government, H.L Mencken has observed, ever seeks 'to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.'" Such as the Avian Flu crisis? And the SARS crisis? It seems to me that government and the World Health Organization have a lot of 'splainin' to do.

Where's The Racism?

Consider:

"I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years either." [Sen. Trent Lott (R), speaking in a tribute to Sen. Strom Thurmond (R) on his 100th birthday, December 2002] Shortly afterwards, Lott resigned his Senate leadership position, of which House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D) commented, "It's an important step." Senate Historian Don Ritchie pointed out that, "We've never had a Senate Republican leader or Senate Democratic leader step down like this before." Trent Lott's remarks were extemporaneous, and meant to honor the institution's sole centenarian during a combination birthday/retirement celebration. To divine any other nefarious meaning from his remarks (i.e. - the country would have been better off with a segregationist as president) is utterly ridiculous. Despite Lott's apologies and explanations, pressure from Democrats and the media forced him to resign.

Now consider this:

He was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a "light-skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." [On Sen. Harry Reid (D) in the forthcoming book, Game Change] So does he mean that having dark skin and a Negro dialect makes one less acceptable to the public? And what would he have to say about this clip?



The firestorm over Reid's comments is quite different from the one that flared up over Lott's, and here's how: The media and the entire liberal establishment have circled the wagons and continue to provide cover for Harry Reid. He, too, has apologized. Yet, his remarks are divined as nothing other than misspeak (i.e. - "He couldn't possibly have meant what he said.") But the PC Thought Police are convinced that Trent Lott absolutely did? Is this not a double standard? Let's not forget vice president Joe Biden's description of Obama as "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."[February 2007] And what about Sen. Robert Byrd (D)? You know, the former Kleagle (official recruiter) of the KKK? The one "who vowed never to fight 'with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.'" (hat tip, Michelle Malkin)

Let us recall that it was a Republican president who led the charge in abolishing slavery, and changed the course of history in fighting and winning the civil war. Let us also recall that were it not for Republican votes, the Civil Rights Act would not have passed in 1964.

The liberal mindset is the cornerstone of political correctness, and it is this movement that sees our citizens as hyphenated Americans (i.e - African-, Mexican-, etc.) And by extension, conservative blacks are derided as Uncle Toms (à la the despicable Pat Oliphant cartoon at the top of this post) On the contrary, it is the conservative mindset that sees our citizens as Americans, no matter what their background. Id est: e pluribus unum. Out of many, one.

So again, where's the racism?

The Russkies Are Ba-aack

A recent Discover Magazine photo depicts the death throes of a failed Russian ICBM test flight over Norwegian skies. Launched last month from a nuclear submarine submerged in the White Sea, Russian officials would not specify the cause of the failure. Uh-huh...So three months after the US scraps its plan for a missile defense shield in Europe, Russia pulls off a stunt like this? Just what does this portend? Perceived weakness only emboldens our enemies. How quick are we to forget the lessons of history.

Earth: A Global Warming Denier

Despite the "scientific consensus" on man-made global warming, planet Earth (and its accomplice, Almighty God) continues to deny its very existence. With record low temperatures and earliest recorded snowfalls around the world, widespread plant destruction and risks of crop failures, natural gas shortages in Europe (for home heating), fish freezing in Mississippi lakes, and iguanas falling out of trees in Florida, global warming advocates (many of whom are former 70s-era global coolers) are redefining their cause as “global climate change.” So who are you to believe? Them, or your own lying eyes? Consider these recent headlines:

"Cool Weather Continues To Set Records" (WSMV-TV Nashville, July 21, 2009)

"August Ends With Near-Record Cold" (CBS2 Chicago, August 31, 2009)

"Denver Breaks 104 Year Old Cold Temperature Record As Arctic Chill Sets In" (Denver Weather Examiner, October 10, 2009)

"Houston Wakes Up To Earliest Snowfall Ever" (MSNBC, December 4, 2009)

"Blizzard Dumps Snow on Copenhagen as Leaders Battle Warming" (Bloomberg, December 17, 2009)

"Record Snow Continues To Fall As Deadly East Coast Storm Lingers" (CNN, December 19, 2009)

"Record Cold In Miami As South Turns Icebox" (Fox News, January 11, 2010)

Compounding these theory-smashing events is the recent email dump from East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit (CRU). The contents of these emails reveal a concerted effort among CRU scientists to manipulate, omit, and fix their data to lend continued support for their faux theory. What makes this news all the more disturbing is that the CRU provides data to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has been leading the effort to punish advanced nations (i.e. - the USA) via huge transfers of wealth to poorer countries. Such transfers would supposedly allow these modern, greedy nations to atone for their environmental sins.

Anthropogenic global warming is pure bovine scatology (to borrow a phrase from Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf). The founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, has said as much: "Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a high jacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history." Planet Earth gets it - how about you?

If You Want To Win, Employ A Finn

So goes the saying in auto racing. Watching a past episode of BBC's Top Gear, I was pleasantly surprised to see a segment about Finland's dominance in this sport. And why are the Finns so good? The answer lies within the video below. As you will see, one of the show's hosts, James May, is given an amusing driving lesson from two-time Formula 1 champion, Mika Häkkinen (whom he refers to as a "retired bloke").



On the 23rd of last month it was announced that Häkkinen's former nemesis, F1 racing legend Michael Schumacher, would be coming out of retirement to race for Mercedes GP. While a disappointment for Ferrari fans (with whom he raced for 10 years), the announcement set the broader F1 community abuzz. What makes this interesting for me is that his new teammate will be Nico Rosberg, who is the son of my own racing idol, Keke (Keijo) Rosberg. This new Mercedes team will be headed by Ross Brawn, whose eponymous team, Brawn GP, clinched both the driver's and constructor's championships last year. Needless to say, I'm looking forward to an exciting 2010 season.

Blaming Bush For Terror

"...the Bush administration substituted fear-mongering for sound policy and led the nation into an unnecessary war in Iraq while starving the necessary fight against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and elsewhere," states John F(bomb) Kerry(*) in today's Boston Globe.

In a collective effort to pin the blame on Bush/Cheney for the attempted terror attack on board flight 253, the Obama administration and his lapdog media have tried to explicate themselves from any criticism. In fact, MSNBC has been reporting that the failure to nab the perp in this failed attack "might have been intentional and not accidental," and that the intelligence community's "information was in some way deliberately withheld from some higher or broader authority to make someone look bad." After all, how could something like this happen only 11 months into Obama's presidency? Wasn't he the anointed one who set out to right all of America's past transgressions? Well, wait a minute. A quick review is in order here.

Barely 8 months into Bush's first term, the US was attacked by these same Islamo-fascists. Immediately afterwards, Bush assembled his team to restructure our nation's security measures, and essentially told them, "never again." It didn't take long for congressional democrats, the media, and the ACLU to start harping on the outrageous privacy violations these new rules implied (such as wiretapping suspect phone conversations with known terrorist groups overseas). Despite the never-ending and over-hyped complaints, the fact is that the Bush administration's policies kept our nation safe thereafter. Do you not recall the predictions for further attacks shortly after 9/11? How ungrateful and shameful it is for these elites to bash Bush in the face of historical fact. It's high time for the Obama administration to own up to its own failings and stop blaming everyone else.

Let us recall just one year ago when the stimulus bill was being negotiated. All revisions or alternatives offered by Republicans were shot down. Why? Because in the words of Obama, "I won." This same 'go-it-alone, I-know-best' attitude permeates all of this president's policies, so the laying of blame on others just doesn't stick.

Since Obama's swearing-in ceremony, the US has been faced with an attack on an army recruiting station in Arkansas, the attack on Fort Hood, and the most recent terrorist plot on board flight 253 (which was foiled by alert passengers). All the perps were young radicalized Muslim men. Do these attacks come as a surprise? They shouldn't, if you are of the mentality that we are at war. On the other hand, if you believe these are isolated criminal acts perpetrated by deranged nut-jobs, then you should (and will continue to be) surprised.

Furthermore, let us not forget our then-vice presidential candidate's admonition that “it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking...Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.” Is there any doubt on the part of the world as to this president's mettle? Consider Obama's refusal to cut short his Hawaiian vacation on the news of the flight 253 incident. The same could be said about Michael Leiter's refusal to return from his ski vacation (by the way, he is Obama's director of the National Counterterrorism Center) Or how about Obama's fifth attempt at addressing this recent terror plot before finally uttering the words, "war on terror." One can't help but feel the lackadaisical approach the Obama team is taking with these attacks.

Prior to his aforementioned statement, however, the same Joe Biden (running as presidential candidate) said of Obama's aspirations for the same office, "The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training." With the challenges Obama faces everyday, how true this statement resonates for us all. God help us.

(*) Refers to Statesman Kerry's dropping of the F-bomb while describing Bush's handling of the Iraq war.

One Step Forward, 85,000 Steps Back

So said JPMorgan economist Michael Feroli in regards to today's "disappointing" unemployment report. While experts had predicted a flat jobs report, reality in the new era of Hope & Change proved them all wrong once again as 85,000 Americans lost their jobs last month. The December data now puts the total number of lost jobs for 2009 at 4.2 million and an average rate of unemployment at 9.3%. So how does this compare to the "disastrous" Bush years? Let's consider: the 2008 average rate was 5.8%; the 2007 average rate was 4.6%. Today it stands at 10%, and this is on the heels of Obama's insistence that an unemployment rate of 8.0% would not be eclipsed if the stimulus bill was passed post-haste! Moreover, when one mixes in the number of discouraged workers and part-timers (due to down-sizing), the broader underemployment rate is 17.3%! Commenting on the accelerated jump in the number of discouraged workers, Bank of Toyko-Mitsubishi economist Chris Rupkey said it's "a simply astonishing number that borders on the frightening...If they were still looking for work and counted as the unemployed, the unemployment rate would have been 10.5%" I'm not so sure about the hope, but I can certainly see the change, and it's one for the worse.

Finally bellying up to the bar is the GOP, which has produced its latest research briefing that can be viewed here. Citing BLS statistics, press releases, and newspaper reports, the briefing lists the annual jobs gained during Bush's 2 terms, and the concomitant Democrat attacks surrounding the economy's supposed horrid performance. How refreshing it is to read the facts alongside quotes from these nattering nabobs of negativism. As Reagan used to say, "Facts are stubborn things."

The bottom line here is that the economy grows fastest when it is unleashed from central planning. This has been proven time and again, and yet liberals constantly try to bully the free market into submission for fairness' sake. What other nation can equal the performance of our markets in such a short period of time? None. Why? Because our founders appreciated and understood the sanctity of God's freedom bestowed upon us all. Government can only take away those freedoms, which is why our forefathers left Europe to establish something unique here in the US; something the world had never seen. A country with a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. When private citizens and the entrepreneurs who create, build, and run our businesses, are allowed to keep more of the income they produce, then our economy grows like no other. Despite Obama's comment that "we have to continue to explore every avenue to accelerate the return to hiring," he still refuses to drop his centrally planned economic policy. Tax cuts are verboten. And yet when those moneys are retained by the private sector, they are used to purchase more goods, which creates more demand, which builds business, which then requires a larger labor force, and so on. Think it can't happen? Well, it already has - right here in the USA! No other country has produced as much as we have in such a relatively short period of time. And as such, we have become envied by other nations that have much longer histories than we do.

So while the Obama administration and Democrats on Capitol Hill revert to their core beliefs on the economy (i.e. - if it moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it; if it stops moving, subsidize it), we must bear in mind the following axiom:

"When the government takes away incentives to work and save, the economy goes flat - millions are thrown out of work and government revenues plunge."[Reagan, White House briefing, February 1985] It's a fact.

Obama To Nation: You Get 1 Hour

Contradicting candidate Obama, president Obama has granted the American public a generous 1 hour of debate over health care reform, which amounts to little more than a propaganda spot. C-SPAN's CEO, Brian Lamb, has said as much in this recent radio interview:



Given that a likely compromise bill would tally around 2,000 pages (both House and Senate versions were of similar size), 60 minutes of debate would necessitate the negotiation of some 33 pages per minute. Nice and thorough, huh? But again, why all the fuss over public disclosure? Notwithstanding the constitutional question of forcing all Americans to buy something via government fiat, how can Obama and the Democrats continue with this ruse? Furthermore, why the rush? Because it's an effort to shove this giant crap sandwich down our collective throats before we can even taste it and outright reject it.

People get sick here in the US every day, and whether you have insurance or not, an emergency room is required to treat you. This is the law. Our system is so great that illegals from Mexico and elsewhere (about 15 million) use it to treat themselves and their families. So what's at issue is NOT health care itself (we have the best health care in the world; the best doctors, technologies, hospitals, research facilities, etc.), but rather health insurance coverage. And here lies the root of the problem.

Health insurance was originally thought up as a product by which an individual or a family could protect themselves from financial ruin should a catastrophic illness or accident land them in the hospital. Nowadays, however, an individual's health has become the focus, so that a bevy of procedures ranging from annual checkups to gender reassignment surgeries must be covered by insurance carriers. This is a far cry from the original intention of health insurance, and with government intervention via the whole HMO gambit, it's no wonder that costs have skyrocketed. True reform would be one based on the free market. One that allows the consumer to research the best deals nationwide and purchase a policy out-of-state if he so desires. There are more than 1,700 insurance companies across the country. Surely there is a big enough market already from which consumers can choose a plan. The other option being considered would introduce yet another government bureaucracy that will drive all its competitors out of business because no private company could possibly undercut the government. Does this sound like a good thing? Then consider the current conditions of Medicare and Medicaid - both are debt-ridden entities. Things are going so swimmingly well for these government behemoths that the Mayo Clinic has refused treating Medicare patients altogether. And this is just a glimpse of what's to come (i.e. - denial of service) should a health care bill be signed into law.

Health Care Debate Closed To Public

C-SPAN's CEO, Brian Lamb, has requested congressional leaders to make public all debate on health care reform. Given that then-candidate Obama ran on such a promise, how could Dems refuse? Check out the following montage:



But refuse they have. Madame Pelosi was quoted thusly, "There has never been a more open process for any legislation in anyone who’s served here’s experience." Obviously then there's no need for cameras. How many times have you or a friend or a neighbor or an acquaintance seen ANY coverage of this debate on Capitol Hill? Is it not in the best interest of all Americans to hear the debate on legislation that will ultimately consume 1/6 of the nation's economy and turn over the care of our own bodies to faceless bureaucrats? Sounds scary, huh? Maybe this is the reason the Dems don't want the cameras in there with them as they deal-make and reshape a whopping portion of the country.

By the way, CBS News is now reporting "Obama Reneges on Health Care Transparency." The story also cites Press Secretary Gibbs (AKA - The Family Guy), as stressing that "the president wants to get a bill to his desk as quickly as possible." So what's the rush, especially since no changes will occur until 2013 (but tax hikes on everyone and most everything will go into effect immediately)? It's because everyone knows that this legislation is a stinking deal that reeks to high heaven (which is where the good among us will go to after expiring on a gurney in some hospital hallway awaiting treatment). This whole health care reform debate is nothing but a sham. To paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke, "If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it's free."

Airport Security Screw Up

In the 1982 movie, Airplane II: The Sequel, there is a scene in which security agents monitoring the metal detector allow a terrorist carrying assorted weapons to pass through. But when the next passenger, a little old lady carrying a purse, walks up, she is immediately pulled aside and frisked by one agent while the other one stands by holding a gun to her head. Meanwhile, 3 more terrorists walk on through carrying a panoply of weapons in their arms and slung over their shoulders. Granny is then promptly handcuffed, only to be taken away for further questioning I suppose. I remember watching this scene as a teenager and laughing at the sheer stupidity of the security team (I also couldn't help but wonder how Sonny Bono's crazy character even got on the plane! Remember him? He was the nervous guy carrying the bomb in a briefcase that had Pearl Harbor and Nagasaki tourist stickers on it.) With the recent security breaches in today's world, however, this comedic scene could be interpreted as drama.

When the police are on the hunt for a criminal, an APB and a photo are issued to help apprehend the perp, which makes sense to me. However, our TSA personnel are restrained by PC policy, enabling scenarios such as those parodied in Airplane II, to occur. Case in point - Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian who attempted to blow up flight 253 over Detroit by way of explosives hidden in his underpants. One thing is certain about the terrorists who are at war with us: They are all young radicalized Muslim men. How is it then that children, the elderly, and men and women of all different backgrounds still clog the security checkpoints in our airports? Are they not also being profiled for NOT fitting the profile of a likely terrorist? Until we come to terms with this fact, political correctness will eventually become another suicide pact. And given the recent headlines one could rightly ask, "Is life imitating art?"

Two Predictions For The New Year

As we get on with the new year, two momentous events will unfold before us. One is the Super Bowl (although the Stanley Cup playoffs rank right up there too, but that's best left for another post), and the other is the mid-year elections. So here goes...

Prediction #1: Favored by 3 points, the Saints of New Orleans will defeat the Indianapolis Colts in Super Bowl XLIV.

Am I that good a prognosticator? Well, no. I would say that I only have a passing interest in the NFL. Then how do I know? Because Bud Goode says so. Who is Bud Goode? The following link to the Wall Street Journal article provides an interesting bio. You can find it here.

Prediction #2: The Republicans will win majorities in both houses of Congress.

Why? America is a center-right country, and the current administration's efforts to radically morph it into a quasi-European state has rubbed the electorate the wrong way. Americans recognize these moves for what they represent: statism. Gone are the days when our president said, "Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed."[Reagan - Inaugural Address, January 20, 1981] By contrast, our current president's chief of staff proclaims, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."[Emanuel - Wall Street Journal Digital Network, November 2008] Such as what? How about drastically outspending all prior administrations (combined!) Remember when the media and democrats howled at Bush's $400 billion deficits? Apparently the trillions to be spent by Obama mean nothing...Or how about the federal takeover of health care? Of GM? Of regulation of CEO salaries and bonuses? Investor's Business Daily points out that the salary of Bank of America's president is now $0 (yes, zero), "effectively making him a government slave." And on and on, ad nauseam. Actions like these used to be the modus operandi of podunk dictatorships and other socialist nations. Not so today, and Democrats will feel the backlash come election day. While the current Intrade betting lines favor the Dems in retaining both the House (65-35) and Senate (95-5), my prediction stands.