With a 60 to 39 vote, the Senate has passed the motion to proceed to move on with the debate over Obamacare. Again, it is important to note that this is only a vote to begin the floor debate on the bill. It is not a vote to pass Obamacare.

In the Washington Examiner, Byron York has an excellent point when he asks, “why was it so hard for Democrats even to start the healthcare debate?”

The extraordinary thing about the dramatic events surrounding the health care bill in the Senate is that there is any drama in it at all. Lawmakers are simply voting to begin debate on their version of health care reform. Just begin debate — not end it, and not move on to a final vote.

If Democrats, with a 60-vote majority in the Senate, were not able to begin debate on the top Democratic policy priority in a generation — well, that would be a devastating turn of events, both for the party and for President Obama. And yet just starting debate has proved difficult, and only today did the 60th Democratic vote fall in place in favor of beginning the process.

I have made this point myself as it happens. On Nov. 19, I was writing about the sly, underhanded tricks that Reid was using to advance the Senate debate on Obamacare but why, I wondered, are these tricks even necessary? If this bill has the wide-spread support that the Democrats keep claiming it has, why all the dirty tricks, obfuscations, and rules bending?

If this bill was a legitimate bill would all of these dirty tricks be necessary? Further, if this bill had such wide acceptance and agreement among Congress and the people alike, why are Democrats afraid to let everyone see the bill?

York is essentially echoing my point and adding that this bill does not have wide support in Congress or among the voters that Reid, Pelosi, and the President are pretending it has. The fact that Reid had to work so hard to get this thing even to a stage where further debate could be had is telling.

We still have a chance to kill this bill, people. We must keep the pressure on our Congressmen.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Either today or later this week, Senate Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev) wants the Senate to vote on a “motion to proceed” on the Senate’s version of the healthcare bill. That wouldn’t be so bad except for the fact that it has barely been seen by anyone in the Senate. At least not as far as most Senators are concerned. Why is that? Because the bill has not been shown to them with sufficient time to study it, that’s why.

What Reid wants is for the Senate to vote to proceed on a bill that has not been seen, not read, not studied by the very Senators from whom he wants to force a vote. If this bill is so important, why isn’t it imperative that our Senators actually get to see the thing they are expected to vote on?

And that isn’t the worst of the unconscionable dirty tricks that Reid is playing with this “important” legislation. He’s also planning on a bait and switch tactic once he gets his vote to proceed.

News is that Reid wants to use a Senate procedure where a bill can be swapped out with another on the floor. He wants to bring an unassociated bill to the floor and once it gets there he wants to swap that bill out with the healthcare bill. In other words, he wants to bring a fake bill to the floor and pull a bait-and-switch act to suddenly plop before the Senate the heretofore unseen healthcare bill. Then he wants to force a quick vote.

Alarmingly, Reid is making an effort to eliminate any time for Senators to see what is in this economy killing, liberty slaying, big government leviathan before a vote is forced down their throats.

If this bill was a legitimate bill would all of these dirty tricks be necessary? Further, if this bill had such wide acceptance and agreement among Congress and the people alike, why are Democrats afraid to let everyone see the bill?

Reid isn’t a fool, though. He knows that once America gets to see what is in this mess it will become nearly impossible to pass this thing. Naturally, that is why he is trying to eliminate any possibility that anyone might get a glimpse of what is in the bill before it is passed.

The fact is, though, if Reid cannot get his 60-vote “motion to proceed” his sly maneuvers will be stymied for now. So, call your Senators and tell them where you stand on these underhanded tactics, won’t you? Tell them not to vote to proceed until they’ve at least gotten a chance to see this mysterious, invisible healthcare bill.

Lastly, one wonders why the most “transparent” president in history is allowing the Congress to continue day in and day out to press votes on legislation no one has ever seen on bills that haven’t been written? What ever happened to the hoary days of campaigning when Obama kept promising that we’d all get 5 days to see a bill before a vote?

How times change.

Note: As of today, the bill has been posted online so that we can see it. But Reid wants to vote on the motion to proceed today or tomorrow. This is hardly the 72 hours timeline that transparency advocates have pressed for, nor is it anywhere close to the five days that President Obama promised us all.

You can see the bill at http://www.scribd.com/doc/22734971/Senate-Democrats-Health-Care-Reform-Bill.

(Cross posted at BigGovernment.com.)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Power-hungry TVs will be banned from store shelves in California after state regulators adopted a first-in-the nation mandate to lower electricity demand.

On a unanimous vote, the California Energy Commission on Wednesday required all new televisions up to 58 inches to be more energy efficient beginning in 2011. The requirement will be tougher in 2013, and only a quarter of all TVs on the market currently meet that standard.

And then I found out that Los Federales did the same thing.

There will be three consequences of the Nannyfornia law. 1st, the costs will skyrocket for those that meet the standards. 2nd, people will go out of state, or even down to Mexico, to purchase their TV’s. 3rd, there will be fewer choices. I witnessed something similar first hand in NJ back in the day when they jacked the taxes on automobiles. So, people went to Pa., NY, and Delaware to purchase. Cars in NJ were on short supply. Dealers were going out of business. NJ repealed those taxes quickly, though. Something like this will never go away.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

President Barack Obama’s approval rating has fallen below 50 percent for the first time in polling by Quinnipiac University as U.S. voter discontent grows over the war in Afghanistan.
Obama’s job approval rating fell to 48 percent in the Nov. 9-16 survey of registered voters nationwide by the Hamden, Connecticut-based university, with 42 percent polled saying they disapproved of the job he is doing.
“In politics, symbols matter, and this is not a good symbol for the White House,” Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, said in a statement.
Obama’s approval rating was 59 percent in a Quinnipiac survey conducted Feb. 25 to March 2.

Here are the details:

Economy: 43/52, 47/46 in October – independents 38/58
Foreign policy: 49/42, 49/37 in October – independents 45/49
Afghanistan: 38/49, 42/40 in October – inds 30/57

He can’t make a decision on Afghanistan, he bows to Communist dictators, pushing an unpopular socialist healthcare takeover, the National debt tops $12 trillion, and he is allowing stupid decisions like the 911 conspirators get a show trial. None of this can be helping much, and he isn’t near his bottom yet. He and the Democrats are losing Independents fast. At least some Dems are recognizing it!

Mounting evidence that independent voters have soured on the Democrats is prompting a debate among party officials about what rhetorical and substantive changes are needed to halt the damage.

Following serious setbacks with independents in off-year elections earlier this month, White House officials attributed the defeats to local factors and said President Barack Obama sees no need to reposition his own image or the Democratic message.

Since then, however, a flurry of new polls makes clear that Democrats are facing deeper problems with independents—the swing voters who swung dramatically toward the party in 2006 and 2008 but who now are registering deep unease with the amount of spending and debt called for under Obama’s agenda in an era of one-party rule in Washington.

A Gallup Poll released last week offered a disturbing glimpse about the state of play: just 14 percent of independents approve of the job Congress is doing, the lowest figure all year. In just the past few days alone, surveys have shown Democratic incumbents trailing Republicans among independent voters by double-digit margins in competitive statewide contests in places as varied as Connecticut, Ohio and Iowa.

Meanwhile Sarah Palin gives Oprah her highest ratings in two years…even higher than when Obama was on! 1500 people waited in the freezing weather for her autograph! She is making an impact and making her critics sweat. The pendalum is swinging!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

On November 11, I wrote of the statements that Charlie Crist made denying that he ever supported Obama’s $787 billion stimulus bill in his role as Florida’s Governor. Unfortunately for his obfuscation, though, I noted that he and 17 other governors signed a letter in February of this year announcing support for the Stimulus. Apparently Crist had forgotten he signed this letter… conveniently. Yes, he was for the porkulus bill before he was against it.

Well now there is even more proof than that mere signature on a piece of paper showing Charlie’s support for the porkulus bill. From Ed Morrissey we find an interview that Rolling Stone hackster Tim Dickinson did with Crist back in the spring. In that piece Dickinson was celebratory that Crist was a stimulus supporter.

Dickinson then noted, “For his part, Crist is weighing a run for the Senate — where, he tells Rolling Stone, he would have given the president a fourth Republican vote on the stimulus bill.”

Due to the controversy of whether Crist did or didn’t support the Obama Administration’s bill, Dickinson recently posted a transcript of the actual exchange:

Rolling Stone: Just a final question: Had you been in the Senate, would you have voted with the other Republicans for the stimulus package?

Crist: Absolutely.

This all adds more to the story I reported on Nov. 5. As I said, Crist has lately been saying that he didn’t support the stimulus in particular, but that he did in spirit. Charlie Crist absolutely did, however, support Obama’s stimulus directly and in particular. His current spin to the contrary isn’t just a subtle re-reading of his actions. His new claim is an outright lie.

It all adds up to an outing of Charlie Crist on porkulus. Sorry Charlie, but you did support the $787 billion pork bill before you tried to claim you didn’t.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

BEIJING – President Barack Obama prodded China about Internet censorship and free speech, but the message was not widely heard in China where his words were blocked online and shown on only one regional television channel.

Irony? Serendipity? Coincidence? Or just plain pwned?

“I’m a big supporter of non-censorship,” Obama said. “I recognize that different countries have different traditions. I can tell you that in the United States, the fact that we have free Internet — or unrestricted Internet access — is a source of strength, and I think should be encouraged.”

Hmm, we’ll see how that non-censoring thing will work out as Democrats put together plans to take down Conservative talk radio. Oh, and then there was that little spat with Fox News, initiated by the White House.

Obama may have been hoping to set a personal example for China’s leaders when he said he believes that free discussion, including criticism that may be annoying to him, makes him “a better leader because it forces me to hear opinions that I don’t want to hear.”

Spat. Fox News. Fight with Limbaugh. Fight with Hannity. Joe the Plumber. Kevin Miller. Barbara West. Hiring Cass Sunstein, a man who is all about censoring the Internet.

Look, I applaud Obama’s cajones in answering the question in that manner as he stands on Chinese soil. Kudos to him, in all seriousness. But, considering his own opinions and actions here in the US, he really does not have the moral authority to lecture the Chinese.

Just for reference, Pirate’s Cove is banned in China, along with my test site. Not sure about Stop The ACLU or Right Wing News, since the site designed to tell you if your site is blocked has been taken down. Unsurprisingly, The Huffington Post is now unblocked in China, though, the Huff Post’s opinions are farther left then the Chinese governments. But, they have blocked I Can Has Cheeseburger! That’s just mean. See here and here for lists of some who have been blocked.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn’t change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.

Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.

Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.

“If the city requires this, we can’t do it,” Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. “The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that’s really a problem.”

Several D.C. Council members said the Catholic Church is trying to erode the city’s long-standing laws protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination.

The clash escalates the dispute over the same-sex marriage proposal between the council and the archdiocese, which has generally stayed out of city politics.

Catholic Charities, the church’s social services arm, is one of dozens of nonprofit organizations that partner with the District. It serves 68,000 people in the city, including the one-third of Washington’s homeless people who go to city-owned shelters managed by the church. City leaders said the church is not the dominant provider of any particular social service, but the church pointed out that it supplements funding for city programs with $10 million from its own coffers.

“All of those services will be adversely impacted if the exemption language remains so narrow,” Jane G. Belford, chancellor of the Washington Archdiocese, wrote to the council this week.

The church’s influence seems limited. In separate interviews Wednesday, council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) referred to the church as “somewhat childish.” Another council member, David A. Catania (I-At Large), said he would rather end the city’s relationship with the church than give in to its demands.

“They don’t represent, in my mind, an indispensable component of our social services infrastructure,” said Catania, the sponsor of the same-sex marriage bill and the chairman of the Health Committee.

The standoff appears to be among the harshest between a government and a faith-based group over the rights of same-sex couples. Advocates for same-sex couples said they could not immediately think of other places where a same-sex marriage law had set off a break with a major faith-based provider of social services.

The council is expected to pass the same-sex marriage bill next month, but the measure continues to face strong opposition from a number of groups that are pushing for a referendum on the issue.

The archdiocese’s statement follows a vote Tuesday by the council’s Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary to reject an amendment that would have allowed individuals, based on their religious beliefs, to decline to provide services for same-sex weddings.

How pathetic. D.C.’s stance is basically that the Catholic Church should abandon its principles if it wants to keep working with the city, because this is going to pass whether they like it or not, and they have to make this awful choice — but they, of course, are the bad guys. This is, of course, the liberal meme, because anyone who is against gay marriage is prejudiced and backward and wrong and might as well be the KKK. Check out this explanation from Feministing:

The closing of a major homeless shelter and budget cuts have worsened the situation in a city already struggling to serve its poor and homeless residents. As someone who organizes for access to abortion I have obvious problems with gaps in the services provided by Catholic Charities. But that does not discount the vital work they do for the 68,000 D.C. residents who rely on Catholic Charities for shelters, health care, and food programs.

The Archdiosese is making a clear statement: it considers keeping rights from same sex couples more important than the needs of this city’s most vulnerable. Their willingness to use the lives and health of 68,000 people in need as pawns in their fight for the right to discriminate is unconscionable. D.C. needs more social services, not less. I hope the Archdiosese can put aside the politics of hate for a moment to recognize what I would think they would consider a moral obligation to do vital life saving work.

With all due respect, this isn’t a choice the church can fairly make. They didn’t ask for this bill, and their input was completely ignored when it came to amendments in the bill. The passage of this bill puts Catholic Charities in the worst kind of situation. For the Catholic Church, this isn’t a political situation, which is what liberals want to make it into. For the Catholic Church, this is a religious issue, it’s a moral one. The church cannot just abandon its principles, and that’s what liberals are forcing the church to do. And if the church caves on this, it won’t stop here. Liberals will start putting the pressure on about abortion, and performing gay marriages, and who knows what else. Where will it stop? It’s disgusting that liberals are putting the blame on the church here, when they are the ones being forced between a rock and a hard place. The church is not the one using homeless people as pawns; the city is. And it is wrong for the government to be legislating religious beliefs, which is basically what has happened here. This is, at its core, a subtle attack on our rights to religious freedom. And apparently, there is no one who is going to stand up for religion in this case.

If this is the change you voted for, then I hope you’re happy.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary, or follow her on Twitter!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

As health care legislation moves toward a crucial airing in the Senate, the White House is facing a growing revolt from some Democrats and analysts who say the bills Congress is considering do not fulfill President Obama’s promise to slow the runaway rise in health care spending.

The bills that Democrats have submitted and have forced a vote on, were never about costs but about control of 1/6 of the economy, and control of you, the People.

Mr. Obama has made cost containment a centerpiece of his health reform agenda, and in May he stood up at the White House with industry groups who pledged voluntary efforts to trim the growth of health care spending by 1.5 percent, or $2 trillion, over the next decade.

Now, that might actually be Obama’s goal (how are we to know, he is all over the map when he yaps), yet, there is a whopper of a problem with that, namely, that Obama has really had nothing to do with crafting the House health monstrosity beyond some cajoling and pretty partisan speeches. Then again, Obama says quite a few things, makes lots of promises, and rarely fulfills any of them.

But health economists say it is impossible to know whether the bills, including one passed by the House on Saturday night, would meet that goal, and many are skeptical that they even come close.

That should be a big red flag for everyone, but, then, as stated time and time again, except in the liberal MSM, this legislation really has little to do with saving anyone money.

Experts — including some who have consulted closely with the White House, like Dr. Denis A. Cortese, chief executive of the Mayo Clinic — say the measures take only baby steps toward revamping the current fee-for-service system, which drives up costs by paying health providers for each visit or procedure performed. Some senators are also dissatisfied.

?????? Well, yes, health providers are paid for patients coming to see them and providing medical care. Shocking, eh? I guess the cost of birthday cakes goes up because people come and buy birthday cakes.

It couldn’t have anything to do with

There is quite a bit of difference, including cost, between a 1908 Model T and a 2101 Aston Martin, eh?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Andrew Bast of Newsweek thinks he’s got the real reason behind Major Nidal Hasan’s murderously criminal rampage at Fort Hood last Thursday. Could it be that Hasan was steadily radicalized and steeped in hateful Islamofascism? Could it be a jihad mindset that sent Hasan into that military clinic yelling Allahu Akbar as he shot at anyone that got in his way?

Nope. Ridiculously, it was a “military on the brink,” it was the “stress” an uncaring U.S. military is forcing upon its members that was at fault as far as Bast is concerned. This is his obtuse conclusion in Newsweek’s piece headlined, “Is Fort Hood a Harbinger? Nidal Malik Hasan May Be a Symptom of a Military on the Brink.”

Ominously, Bast begins with his worry that there could be more members of the military about to follow Hasan’s murderous example. Bast absurdly starts his piece with this: “What if Thursday’s atrocious slaughter at Fort Hood only signals that the worst is yet to come?” And why would it be a sing(sic) that “the worst is yet to come,” you might wonder? Why else but that all that “stress” the military is putting everyone under is about to cause the whole combined services to explode?

[Hasan's is a] killing spree that may momentarily remind us of a reality that most Americans can readily forget: soldiers and their families are living, and bending, under a harrowing and unrelenting stress that will not let up any time soon. And the U.S. military could well be reaching a breaking point as the president decides to send more troops into Afghanistan.

Once again we see a member of the Old Media entirely dismissing the role that radical Islam played in Hasan’s crimes. In fact, Bast seems to suffer the fantasy that at any minute hoards of “stressed” soldiers will soon be roaming military bases across the world indiscriminately shooting at their fellows. One wonders if Bast thinks that they will all be yelling Allahu Akbar in their “stress” as Hasan did? Likely he doesn’t because he doesn’t think Islam had any role in this incident.

Saying that it is “hard to draw too many conclusions” about Hasan’s rampage, Bast then incongruously goes on to ascribe his actions to “stress” instead of radical Islam and that this stress is hampering our armed forces.

… it comes at a time when the stress of combat has affected so many soldiers individually that it makes it increasingly difficult for the military as a whole to deploy for wars abroad.

Bast then goes on to ascribe motivations to Base Commander Cone’s actions in the aftermath of the attack that make no logical sense at all.

In an abrupt news conference, Lt. Gen. Robert Cone, the top commander at Fort Hood, said in response to the shooting that authorities would “increase the security presence” on the military base. On the surface, it seemed like a logical enough plan. But it makes one wonder how much any kind of lockdown will either get at the root causes of soldier stresses or better prepare them for more battle.

General Cone’s lock down of Fort Hood, Mr. Bast, had nothing at all to do with getting “at the root” of stress. It was a security effort meant to get a handle on that particular incident. Why Bast made the illogical jump from a decision made to quell a crisis to the military’s overall efforts to deal with soldier stress is anyone’s guess.

Naturally, radical Islam couldn’t possibly be at fault here Bast obviously thinks. “Hasan’s perspective is unknown,” the Newsweek hack says. Oh? Yelling “Allahu Akbar” during his criminal actions, his past conversations expressing Islamic jihadism, and his radical Islamic Internet postings aren’t any indication of Hasan’s “perspective,” Mr. Bast? Couldn’t the fact that Hasan attended the same radical mosque that the 9/11 hijackers attended serve as even a tiny hint of his “perspective,” Mr. Bast?

Then Bast goes on to compare soldier suicide rates with Hasan’s crimes as if they are comparable.

Listen, no one denies that concern for the mental health of our soldiers is an important issue nor that stress really is rising in the services today. No one will deny that these issues should be carefully investigated and that solutions to these issues are supremely important to our uniformed personnel. No one dismisses the oft times devastating effects of posttraumatic stress disorder on our troops and no one wants to just sweep these problems under the proverbial rug.

But neither “stress” nor any assumptions of posttraumatic stress disorder have any bearing on what this murderous Muslim did at Fort Hood. It is plain that radical Islam served as Hasan’s chief motivation and for the Old Media to wish this fact away is criminally negligent on its part.

Of course, the real reason that Bast grafted this “stress” issue onto Hasan’s criminal actions is clear by his last paragraph. It is obvious that Bast’s chief aim here is to discredit the military and try to force the nation to accept a loss in Afghanistan as his ilk did at the end of the Vietnam Conflict. His only goal is to undermine the troops and lead to the end of a war of which he obviously disapproves.

The U.S. is drawing down troops in Iraq at a quick clip, but Gen. Stanley McChrystal has requested tens of thousands more to fight in Afghanistan. Though President Obama has made no decision about the way forward, some suggest that as many 80,000 more could be sent in as reinforcements. That would put nearly 150,000 American soldiers in country for at least the foreseeable future, pushing a thumb down on an already stressed-out military. Of course, the vast majority of those under that stress, no matter how brutal, will not pick up a gun and shoot indiscriminately, like Hasan did. But the situation is bad, and getting much worse. From there, it isn’t much of a leap to argue that to further tax our military would do as much as anything to guarantee that the homegrown terror on display today could well repeat itself in the future.

Bast’s real message is that it’s all “bad and getting much worse,” that the U.S. military is too “stressed-out” to be effective. It is plain that he thinks we need to end the efforts in Afghanistan and bring all our troops home now. Sadly, Bast is not above illegitimately using this Hasan incident to push his political ends, either. It’s all just another unprincipled effort by a member of the Old Media to push the anti-war meme.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

For most of the last century, the West faced real enemies: totalitarian, aggressive, armed to the teeth. Between 1918 and 1989, it was possible to believe that liberal democracy was a parenthesis in history, destined to be undone by revolution, ground under by jackboots, or burned like chaff in the fire of the atom bomb.

Twenty years ago today, this threat disappeared. An East German functionary named Günther Schabowski threw open his country’s border crossings, and by nightfall the youth of Germany were dancing atop the Berlin Wall, taking hammers to its graffiti-scarred facade. It was Nov. 9, 1989. The cold war was finished.

Bark Bark Woof Woof actually has a pretty good summation of this

So perhaps the reason we’re not making a bigger deal out of the anniversary of the opening of the Berlin Wall is because it did not come after a brutal and bloody struggle. No shots were fired; after weeks of peaceful protests without repression from the state — a sign of impending capitulation itself — an East German bureaucrat mistakenly announced the lifting of visa requirements and the dreaded VoPos of East Germany stood meekly aside as the Trabants trundled through Checkpoint Charlie to the rhythm of rock music and dancing teenagers. What had been the stuff of James Bond and John Le Carre became Woodstock.

Still, BBWW failed to mention Reagan’s contribution to this. Without his economic war, disguised as a military one, we would not have seen what occurred on 11/9/89. Back to Ross

There will be speeches and celebrations to mark this anniversary, but not as many as the day deserves. (Barack Obama couldn’t even fit a visit to Berlin into his schedule.) By rights, the Ninth of November should be a holiday across the Western world, celebrated with the kind of pomp and spectacle reserved for our own Independence Day.

A nice little shot at Obama. I understand him not wanting to go. His writings showed that he had no clue what Reagan was doing, and, seriously, Obama has more in common with the Soviet leaders of that day than with strong American leaders willing to stand up for Freedom around the world at all costs. Plus, it would be difficult to turn the event into one about The One.

Never has liberation come to so many people all at once — to Eastern Europe’s millions, released from decades of bondage; to the world, freed from the shadow of nuclear Armageddon; and to the democratic West, victorious after a century of ideological struggle.

Thank you, Ronald Reagan!

Meanwhile, our domestic politics are shot through with antitotalitarian obsessions, even as real totalitarianism recedes in history’s rear-view mirror. Plenty of liberals were convinced that a vote for George W. Bush was a vote for theocracy or fascism. Too many conservatives are persuaded that Barack Obama’s liberalism is a step removed from Leninism.

Plenty? How about a majority of them, unhinged, constantly comparing Bush to Hitler, thinking that Bush was personally placing bugs in their homes and cars, spying on them, building detention centers for liberals, that he would not leave the White House on January 20th, 2009, but would stay as a dictator…..you know the whole thing.

Obama could never achieve Leninism, and doesn’t match up. He doesn’t have the leadership skills, nor the will power to make the tough decisions. He just floats from one PC to another, sprinkling campaign stops in between. But, he has way more in common with Lenin’s view points than with American viewpoints.

Problem being, totalitarianism is not dead and gone. Islamists exist, and their movement is growing. Is it as dangerous right now as the Soviet Union? Not even close. But, all it takes is people looking away, wishing the problem didn’t exist, treating it strictly like we can use RICO statues against it, for it to grow.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post