Senator Obama gets more delusional each time he opens his mouth on foreign affairs.

In a interview with an Orlando Sentinel, Obama has this to say regarding our favorite Central American thug (H/T):

I would be willing to initiate such talks with leaders of countries adversarial to the United States. There would be a lot of preparation. The first steps would not be to pre-judge all the items on the list.

…

One of the obvious high priorities in my talks with President Hugo Chavez would be the fermentation of anti-American sentiment in Latin America, his support of FARC in Colombia and other issues he would want to talk about. It is important to understand that ignoring these countries has not led to improved behavior on their part and it has not served our national security interests.

There needs to be a shift in foreign politics and return to traditional foreign politics that were supported by both Republicans and Democrats in the past.

What a lovely Orwellian twist you’ve provided at the end, where you claim that your approach represents a return to traditional U.S. foreign policy practiced by both Democrats and Republicans. So you evidently must be longing for a return of the Clinton administration’s naked diplomacy, or lusting in your heart for the glorious bipartisan era of Jimmy Carter and his foreign policy triumphs… (Now that’s a list shorter than the list of French Military Victories.)

Traditional foreign policy, my ass!

Indeed, we haven’t seen a genuine bipartisan consensus on foreign policy since the Eisenhower administration, or perhaps the early days of the Kennedy administration, before the Democratic Party made a hard-left turn.

The only phrase missing from Sen. Obama’s interview is his solemnly declaring that all previous statements are now inoperative. But then again, surely we’ve heard and know that Messiah means never having to be held accountable to the same standards as other political leaders. (Sound vaguely familiar?)

Among Sen. Obama’s disturbingly illogical and dangerous blather, what was most absurd and fatally misguided is that second-to-last sentence, which I’ll quote again so that you can let it sink in:

It is important to understand that ignoring these countries has not led to improved behavior on their part and it has not served our national security interests.

Excuse me, Senator Obama? We’re clearly not ignoring Hugo Chavez. Certainly Hugo doesn’t feel we’re ignoring him, as he keeps claiming that the U.S. is trying to overthrow him and invoking that threat as a pretextual justification for his dictatorial action.

(Note to you Chavez apologists out there: the U.S. doesn’t force Hugo Chavez to behave dictatorially, we’re not responsible for his actions: Hugo Chavez is responsible for his perceptions and for his choice of response.)

So clearly we’re not ignoring Chavez, as our support for Columbia demonstrates.

(Or is it that the ignoring is actually coming from Obama and his Democratic big-labor, anti-trade fellow-travellers, who willfully ignore Hugo Chavez by betraying our friends, the Columbian government, to curry domestic partisan advantage. Nothing like attributing to one’s opponent the very behavior one is acting out.)

Indeed, Sen. Obama could only title as “ignoring” our present administration’s actions toward Hugo Chavez if he defines “ignoring” strictly as “not talking” and nothing else. Or if he defines “ignoring” as choosing to not dance to their tune at their whim.

If so, Sen. Obama, then by all means we need to “ignore” your pronouncements: there’s nothing to discuss. While you blunder onwards, we adults in the room are going to continue to “ignore” Hugo Chavez by your definition while we take effective measures to deal with his unacceptable behavior

Senator, have you ever raised children or had to deal with bullies? Then you know damn well that you don’t reward misconduct by trying to talk with them without any demands or preconditions, as though the mere act of talking will turn around their behavior. That rightly is called appeasement. In child rearing or controlling bullies, while appeasing misbehavior may buy a moment’s peace, it’s disastrous in the longer term.

Same with dealing with Hugo Chavez, a bully at heart.

I wish it were possible to ignore you, Sen Obama. If this is the drivel that the advisors you listen to are feeding you, God help our country if you become our next President!

Many headlines this morning are informing us of Senator Kennedy’s diagnoses of a cancerous brain tumor. It’s a nasty form of cancer and survival rates aren’t too high. I detest the man’s politics as well as his shady past; even so, I would never wish THIS fate to anyone.

The candidates react:

Obama:

“I would not be sitting here as a presidential candidate were it not for some of the battles he fought as a senator: He battled for voting rights and civil rights when I was a child. I stand on his shoulders,” Obama said.

Hillary:

Sen. Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that Kennedy’s “courage and resolve are unmatched, and they have made him one of the greatest legislators in Senate history.”

“Our thoughts are with him and [his wife,] Vicki, and we are praying for a quick and full recovery,” she said. “Obviously, he’s a fighter.”

She called him the “most effective” senator ever.

John McCain:

Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican who is the GOP’s presumptive nominee for president, had a similar statement.

“Our thoughts and prayers go out to his family and to him. We hope and pray that they will be able to treat it and that he will experience a full recovery,” he said.

“I have described Ted Kennedy as the last lion in the Senate,” a tearful McCain said on his campaign bus in Florida. “And I have held that view because he remains the single most effective member of the Senate.”

I will pray for Senator Kennedy. He will need as many prayers as he can get and there are times to put aside the politics and disrespect. Now is one of those times.

Now this is different and refreshing news.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Despite numerous veto threats, senators in both parties have loaded up President Bush’s war funding bill with a grab bag of domestic programs, including work permits for immigrant farm labor and heating subsidies for the poor.

How unusual. And out of the box planning on the part of the Dems.

The Senate was scheduled to begin debate on the measure Tuesday, just days after a key panel added more about $28 billion to Bush’s budget request for this year and next, with almost $50 billion more for a big expansion of veterans benefits under the GI Bill over 2010-2018.

The new GI Bill and Democratic priorities like extending unemployment benefits are simply the big-ticket add-ons, both of which have drawn veto threats. There’s also $50 million to track down child predators, $400 million to help rural schools and $350 million fight western wildfires, just for starters.

Spend, spend, and spend. But it’s not just Democrats- it’s Republicans too. This is crazy.

BWAHAHA

Hillary? An ordinary average working class American? Hmm. I want her to come to work with me. And do what I do for, oh, say, 16 hours. At the hourly rate I earn. We’ll see how long she claims to be of my class…there is nothing she can do to improve my working conditions either. After all, nursing is nursing and it is what it IS.

How dare she even make such claims? What a lying sack of shit.

As many are whining about the costs of being insured, they pander to the Democrats universal health care promise.

On Fox News Wednesday, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton told Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, “If we don’t get universal health care, we will continue to bleed money.” Funny. The more Washington politicians promise to control health care costs, the higher they go. As humorist P.J. O’Rourke famously said, “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free.”

Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama both promise to provide access to health care for all Americans by mandating that employers provide or contribute to the cost of health plans for employees.

What’s with the glory of mandated employer provided health care insurance? There really is no glory; and what’s happening now should give warning to what would be happening if EVERYONE who works gets their insurance through government mandates.

The economic slowdown has swelled the ranks of people without health insurance. But now it is also threatening millions of people who have insurance but find that the coverage is too limited or that they cannot afford their own share of medical costs.

Many of the 158 million people covered by employer health insurance are struggling to meet medical expenses that are much higher than they used to be — often because of some combination of higher premiums, less extensive coverage, and bigger out-of-pocket deductibles and co-payments.

With medical costs soaring, the coverage many people have may not adequately protect them from the financial shock of an emergency room visit or a major surgery. For some, even routine doctor visits might now take a back seat to basic expenses like food and gasoline.

Let’s blame the economic slowdown? No. Let’s blame people who make poor financial choices. Who don’t plan and anticipate for their medical needs. Who think they are entitled to free, or very low costs health care.

Will we ask people to truly cut their budgets? Take classes in Economics 101? Or spread the burden across the tax payers’ shoulders and ask everyone to accept very high premiums, high deductables, little to no access to their own doctors and hospitals…and more.

Once again, people need to make choices: Health care costs or the cell phone; the medication co pay or the Internet access, and so on. Oh the choices they must make. Or not. Forcing businesses to provide insurance isn’t an answer. Health care is not a right. It’s not free. Even when the out of pocket costs are low, someone else is paying…and now that burden is coming down to average people. It can only get worse.

Pessimism at work here?

Americans are glum at the moment. No, I mean really glum. In April, a new poll revealed that 81 percent of the American people believe that the country is on the “wrong track.” In the 25 years that pollsters have asked this question, last month’s response was by far the most negative. Other polls, asking similar questions, found levels of gloom that were even more alarming, often at 30- and 40-year highs. There are reasons to be pessimistic—a financial panic and looming recession, a seemingly endless war in Iraq, and the ongoing threat of terrorism. But the facts on the ground—unemployment numbers, foreclosure rates, deaths from terror attacks—are simply not dire enough to explain the present atmosphere of malaise.

American anxiety springs from something much deeper, a sense that large and disruptive forces are coursing through the world. In almost every industry, in every aspect of life, it feels like the patterns of the past are being scrambled. “Whirl is king, having driven out Zeus,” wrote Aristophanes 2,400 years ago. And—for the first time in living memory—the United States does not seem to be leading the charge. Americans see that a new world is coming into being, but fear it is one being shaped in distant lands and by foreign people.

I say the Democrats are successful at creating home grown dis-content among Americans. They are making Americans feel gloomy and depressed; policies and government meddling into our lives has taken away that CAN DO spirit once held to such high place by Americans. I’m not nearly as pessimistic and I have faith this country will survive- but- and this is A BIG BUT- if we allow liberals to continue on the HATE AMERICA path they are forever wandering down, we will no longer exist, in my kids’ or grankids’ lifetime. Liberals are destroying America. It’s pretty clear to me.

The scary headline of the day:

Many states appear to be in recession
The finances of many states have deteriorated so badly that they appear to be in a recession, regardless of whether that’s true for the nation as a whole, a survey of all 50 state fiscal directors concludes.

The situation looks even worse for the fiscal year that begins July 1 in most states.

“Whether or not the national economy is in recession - a subject of ongoing debate - is almost beside the point for some states,” said the report to be released Friday by the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Oh my.

By mid-April, 16 states and Puerto Rico were reporting shortfalls in their current budgets as the revenue those budgets were built on - typically, taxes - fell short of estimates. That’s double the number of states reporting a deficit six months ago.

The NCSL said the news is even worse for the upcoming fiscal year, with 23 states and Puerto Rico already reporting budget shortfalls totaling $26 billion. More than two-thirds of states said they are concerned about next year’s budgets.

Yikes. It’s not good folks.

Massachusetts is one of the states shown in the graphic above that has a problem. Yet they allow these foolish and wasteful expenses to be paid for out of the tax payers’ pocket.

State lawmakers are responding to warnings of a fiscal meltdown by larding the budget with $1.3 billion in new spending - much of it pork - that would double next year’s deficit and shower money on golf courses, merry-go-rounds and local parades.

A Herald review of House budget amendments shows that individual lawmakers have proposed hundreds of millions in new expenses, even as their leaders and the state treasurer have cautioned that revenues could drop sharply in the months ahead.

Among the spending requests:

• $1.5 million by Newton Rep. Kay Khan to repair an irrigation system at a Newton golf course;

• $250,000 by Dorchester Rep. Martin Walsh for the Hub’s First Night celebration;

• $100,000 by Holyoke Rep. Michael Kane for his town’s St. Patrick’s Day Parade;

• $50,000 by Kane for a merry-go-round at a state park in Holyoke.

“There’s been all this talk of a $1.3 billion deficit, but I guess we found out where it’s really going,” said House Minority Leader Brad Jones, who has railed against excessive spending. “It’s frustrating, but it’s not surprising.”

They defend these expenses as needed items and reject the call for cutting back on the budget, like the peons must do in order to buy their food and gas:

Democratic legislators defend their proposals, saying that many of the amendments would pay for legitimate needs such as elder care and substance abuse treatment.

They also argue that the spending items that often bring criticism - the proposals for gazebos and local summer festivals - are a reflection of the myriad requests they get from constituents.

“I strenuously disagree with the notion that this is irresponsible,” said state Rep. Kathi-Anne Reinstein (D-Revere). “We have an obligation to the people of our districts to advocate for things that are important to them.”

Reinstein’s $50 million in requests include tens of millions for elder care and home heating assistance. She also proposes $150,000 for repairs to a local park and $25,000 for summer programs on Revere Beach.

State Rep. Barbara L’Italien (D-Andover) proposes $125 million in new spending, the second most in the Legislature. She said much of the money would pay for special education services - both to expand key programs and help communities cope with ever-rising costs.

We all have wish lists. When times are tight though, and the money isn’t or shouldn’t be rolling in at the speed of roller coasters, we have to make some sacrifices. Trim out unneeded expenses. Cut back on wasteful spending. Budget better.

But who am I to speak of such things? I don’t live in MA (THANK GAWD) and this is one reason why.

Who will the white men vote for?

Political commentators’ brains grew new crevices as they pondered the imponderable: Would white males go for the woman or the black? Or as Nora Ephron more pointedly posed the question: Whom do white men hate more — women or blacks?

By Ephron’s calculus, if a white male votes for a black man, it couldn’t possibly be because he finds the man a more suitable candidate. He simply hates women more.

And if he votes for the woman, he’s probably got his nutty uncle’s white-sheet ensemble stashed upstairs in an attic trunk just in case cross burning enjoys a revival. He couldn’t possibly deem any woman superior to any man. He simply hates blacks more.

Are all white males really so monolithically repugnant and predictable?

The media loves to stroke the ego of Democrats, by writing articles like this:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Homeowners staggering under mounting mortgage debt and facing foreclosure could get cheaper, government-backed loans under Democrats’ housing rescue plan.

There’s just one problem with this…those pesky Republicans who can and probably will stand up to block such efforts.

But first, lenders would have to agree to wipe out part of their debt. And the borrowers would have to show they could afford the new mortgage. They also would have to agree to share any future profits on the home with the government.

The plan would be a massive expansion of the Federal Housing Administration, the Depression-era mortgage insurer. FHA would take on $300 billion in new loans for as many as 1 million distressed homeowners, most of whom otherwise wouldn’t qualify for a government-backed loan.

So one million people who don’t qualify for loans will be given the same shady deals these sub prime lenders gave? Our government, Democrats’ plan- is now a sub prime lender. Oh sweet. All on my dime or penny….

…and people will be stupid enough to swap their profits for a feel-good loan that saves their debt-laden asses right now. We can only hope this stays in the realm of a plan and that it never becomes LAW.

Hehe.

How damaging “Bittergate” will be for Obama is as yet unclear, but one thing already seems obvious: It has done tremendous damage to a Democratic party already strained by internecine warfare. Among other things, it seems likely further to stratify the Democratic Party by race. As others have noted, Clinton is already the clear favorite among white, working-class Democrats, who have backed her in overwhelming numbers in places like Appalachia, Ohio. The fact that Obama apparently views these voters as a pitiable assortment of religious crazies, gun nuts and xenophobes seems unlikely to endear them to the party’s presumptive nominee.

Bonehead. Obama is SNOBAMA- a true snot of the highest order. As with all snots, he’s also weak and very stupid when it comes to choosing the right words to express himself. Or more perhaps, choosing the words that don’t express how he really feels. Snobs are like that. The sprout off and continue their aura of arrogance. But people, liberals, will still vote for him. The dumb and the dumber.

When I question his patriotism, don’t dare ask me why.

NEW YORK CITY — Former President Jimmy Carter is reportedly preparing an unprecedented meeting with the leader of Hamas, an organization that the U.S. government considers one of the leading terrorist threats in the world.

The Arabic-language newspaper Al-Hayat reported Tuesday that Carter was planning a trip to Syria for mid-April, during which he would meet with Khaled Meshal, the exiled head of the Palestinian terror group Hamas, on April 18.

Deanna Congileo, Carter’s press secretary, confirmed in an e-mail to FOXNews.com that Carter will be in the Mideast in April. Pressed for comment, Congileo did not deny that the former president is considering visiting Meshal.

“President Carter is planning a trip to the Mideast next week; however, we are still confirming details of the trip and will issue a press release by the end of this week,” wrote Congileo. “I cannot confirm any specific meetings at this point in time.”

Meshal, who lives in Syria to avoid being arrested by the Israeli government, leads Hamas from his seat in Damascus, where he is a guest of Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

The State Department has designated Hamas a “foreign terrorist organization,” and some groups hold Meshal personally responsible for ordering the kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack once said of the prospect of meeting with Meshal, “That’s not something that we could possibly conceive of.”

Hmm..what kind of diplomacy could possibly work for people like this? Who think nothing of killing, maiming, beheading, raping, beating….oh wait…this is the former peanut farmer who has shown us his remarkable peacemaking skills. Didn’t he try this one time already? And did it work??

Today’s edition of the comic strip Pearls before Swine contains the most concise précis of the program of the Democratic Party that I’ve seen to date.

Since I couldn’t copy it here, you’ll have to follow this link to read the original comic.

However, I’ve copied the essential dialog here below:

Panel 1:
Danny Donkey was sad

Panel 2:
Sad because everyone around him was good-looking. And he was not

Panel 3:
So Danny Donkey went to a genie and asked to be good looking.

Panel 4:
“That is too much work on my part,” said the genie, “But I can give you this.”

Panel 5:
And with that, the genie handed over what appeared to be some magical wand, and told Danny what it was and how to use it.

Panel 6:
And so, later that day, Danny went out and hit every good-looking person he could find with his own Ugly Stick.

Panel 7:
“Because kids, if you can’t make yourself better, make those around you worse.”

Stephen Paskis, the comic’s creator, clearly was channeling George Orwell today, as in Animal Farm.

This strip describes socialism (the politics of envy) at its purest essence.

And like Orwell’s farm denizens at the end of his novel, I can’t see any difference between this strip and the patent medicine that our Democratic Presidential candidates and Congressional representatives are peddling.

Sorry to report this news clip…

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said in an interview on Wednesday that if elected president she would push for a universal health care plan that would limit what Americans pay for health insurance to no more than 10 percent of their income, a significant reduction for some families.

Yes, but it’s also a significant increase for some of us who aren’t of the high income class people. Oh but wait…I forgot…she’s not about FAIR really. She’s about fair to her well defined idea of who is poor. The rest of us can cough up extra cash to cover these people. It used to be about shared risks. Now it’s about shared paid equal access. One only has to look at MA Health Care to see how this idea sounds good but doesn’t work. At all. The ten percent has already turned into twice that amount, and now businesses are going to be taxed and fined more as well….and they still can’t afford their own mandated health care for everyone.

Cross Posted @ Michael’s

When I was in 5th grade my class did a project about racism. We learned all about the personalities of those who brought forth this issue in American history, and how they came to be who they were. And, what happened to them throughout their lives. Dr. King and others were subjects of study.

Once upon a time there was another Reverend Wright, who stood up for racial justice. With the modern day Rev. Wright, of Obama fame, I see a very different but similar series of events taking place. Racism could end in America, if only those who chose to use it as an excuse for their shortcomings would stop doing so.

Once upon a time, America’s soul was stirred by a brilliant man whose words provoked a national conversation about race, a black man who firmly believed in so-called “social justice”, a man of consequence whose struggles and achievements formed the backdrop of a quintessentially American story.

Who was this man? Not Barack Obama, but the late Richard Wright.

Wright, the author of the iconic 1940 novel Native Son, bore witness to the horrors of the pre-civil-rights South; the anti-black violence of his Mississippi childhood left emotional scars that took decades to heal. Like Obama, Wright settled in Chicago as a young adult and began a long march to national fame; by the mid-1940s, Wright became the most famous African-American author in the United States, a man hailed worldwide for his vivid depictions of racial injustice.

Like Obama, Wright aligned himself with a politically radical entity–in Wright’s case, the American Communist Party. Wright spent years
writing for Communist publications and defending the party’s doctrines. His commitment to Communism was not just professional, but personal; in 1941, shortly after a failed first marriage, he wed Ellen Poplar, a New York Communist Party organizer.

Yet, unlike Obama, Wright gradually opened his eyes to the deep flaws of the radical group he had joined. Wright realized that despite the party’s proclamations of colorblindness, an inflexible racial caste system existed in the organization. He was denounced when he tried to question the party’s orthodoxy, and was rebuked when he raised questions about the treatment of those living in the Soviet Union. Slowly but surely, Wright realized that Communism was oppression disguised as freedom; by the late-1940s, he had severed his ties to the Communist Party.

Wright remained a liberal until the end of his life, but he understood that Communism was poisonous, corrosive, dangerous to the ideals of freedom upon which his vision of liberalism stood. He was loathed by former Communist colleagues for his apostasy, but he never apologized for seeing the truth behind Communism’s lie.

Obama and Hillary and their supporters are seeking a form of communism for America. They’re using examples of social injustice as reasons for this. Do we ever learn from our history? Do liberals even know of it? I don’t think so. Why does a conservative author such as D.R. Tucker write and remind some of us about the other Rev. Wright? Why the silence from those on the left? Do they not want this history recalled and it’s lesson’s re-taught? I think so.