A Real Medicare Solution

More good stuff from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity:

I'm sure we'll hear more about this as time goes on. Once again, the key question here is: who should control your health insurance decisions? Liberals like Barack Obama think the government should. Conservatives think that you should.

It is possible to reform Medicare without causing everything to collapse in on itself, but only if we use free market solutions like the one described above. Of course, that means power reverts back to the hands of the people rather than a centralized government...which is precisely why liberals hate it and will fight it every step of the way. If they succeed, it's not a question of if our system will collapse...it's simply a question of when.

Liberalism Portrayed Honestly = Self-Parody

Seriously, you just can't make this stuff up:

For much, much more on this and other transparency issues, check this out.

Illegal Immigration Pops Up Again

Trying to distract Americans from the ailing economy, Barack Obama gave a major speech on illegal immigration last week. It was basically the typical liberal amnesty pap designed to rile up the Hispanic base, full of recycled slogans and political buzzwords. Of course, it was so toothless that even the New York Times suggested that it will take a lot more than the same old words to garner the same kind of support Obama got from Hispanic voters in 2008. Here's why:

Here’s the complete transcript in case you’re moved to read it, although I don’t know why you would be. You’ve heard this speech a hundred times before, and not just from Obama. Enforcement is better than it’s ever been, we have too many people “living in the shadows,” etc etc, so it’s time we got serious about amnesty. Even so, this is good politics for him insofar as there’s a lot of upside and little downside. No one expects it to go anywhere in Congress, and even if it did he’d have bipartisan cover, so the risk of alienating voters who think the solution to high unemployment might not be a sudden glut of legal labor is small. (In fact, so horrible has the economy been that America’s illegal population actually dropped by the largest amount in 30 years in 2009 and is presumably dropping still. Enforcement, Hopenchange-style.) Meanwhile, he gets to reassure Latinos that he’s serious enough about this issue to put his face to it in a major speech, even if he’s not quite serious enough to do anything about it via an executive order.

It's just pandering, but it's so shallow that even liberals recognize it as just pandering. I thought this was interesting, too:

He also assured the audience that the border fence is now “basically complete,” which is news to Jim DeMint and news to anyone else who remembers the “virtual fence” being touted as a deus ex machina in policing the border. The feds finally abandoned that idea just four months ago because — surprise — it wasn’t working. But maybe that’s a good thing. If we slide back into a recession, we might start seeing Americans try to sneak over into Mexico.

The problem with that, of course, is that Mexico has an extremely harsh illegal immigration policy that includes instant imprisonment or worse. Go figure, huh?

Jim Geraghty, in a recent issue of his NRO newsletter, offered the following synopsis and analysis:

I think it's safe to say that Obama's post-OBL kill bump turned out to be pretty modest on his overall approval rating. One poll had it as little as a point, the New York Times one had it as large as 11 percentage points, and most had it in the significant-but-not-overwhelming single digits. There was little or no spillover effect on Obama's approval rating on the economy.

At some point, Obama was going to have to move from celebrating the bin Laden kill to some other issue, and I wondered what policy agenda item he would try to push. The surprising answer: Immigration.

Dan Foster summarizes: "The president just concluded what was billed as a major policy speech on immigration in El Paso. In fact there was little news in it. Obama reaffirmed his support for the DREAM Act and for a path to citizenship for large numbers of illegal aliens, while touting his efforts to increase deportations and improve border enforcement. Perhaps the most colorful bit of rhetoric was his dinging of Republicans for being unsatisfied with border security. 'All the stuff they've asked for, we've done,' he said, and the fence along the Mexican border 'is now basically complete.' (That's not true, by the bye). But Republicans want still more, he said. 'Maybe they'll need a moat, maybe they'll need alligators.'"

Was he serious? Because that sounds a lot better than what we've got now. It's revealing that Obama's idea of a laugh line is probably actually appealing to a majority of the American people.

Jill at Pundit & Pundette thinks we'll be hearing a lot of that "punchline": "I hope you enjoyed that one; you'll be hearing it at least thirty more times as candidate Obama travels the country, cynically using amnesty as a reelection tool. I fear the 'moat with alligators' is the new sippin'-on-a-Slurpy line. Sigh. I suddenly feel the urge to go have a little lie-down; it's going to be a long, long summer/fall/winter/spring/summer/fall."

Kevin Williamson just flays Obama's muddy priorities:

In case you've missed it, Texas has seen about 3,400 square miles of land -- an area about the size of Puerto Rico -- destroyed by wildfires. Pres. Barack Obama hit Texas to do some political fund-raising and give some speeches about immigration; Gov. Rick Perry suggested that he take a gubernatorially guided tour of some of the damage. The president couldn't be bothered, but asked the governor to come to El Paso to act as a prop at a political event. Governor Perry declined.

Governor Perry often complains that the federal government simultaneously fails to do its real work and involves itself in things that are not real national priorities. The last time the president visited Texas, Governor Perry greeted him with a letter in hand demanding that the federal government execute its border-security duties. (It still won't.) The governor is asking for a federal emergency declaration that will make additional firefighting resources available. The Obama administration is not budging. Never mind that the Federal Emergency Management Agency has seen fit to declare a snowstorm -- in Connecticut, in the winter -- a federal disaster this year, along with "severe winter storms" in Oklahoma and Missouri. . . .

In Texas, President Obama has more important things to do, such as raising money and pandering to Hispanic voters by dangling the promise of "comprehensive" immigration reform before them, knowing that it's a go-nowhere proposition. He'll visit a city on a border that his government controls about as well as President Zardari controls his, and which is at times about as dangerous.

The BlogProf asks, "How about just enforcing immigration law? Is that too much to ask since 1) it's the feds responsibility via the US Constitution, 2) it's the law as passed by the Congress pursuant to said responsibility, and 3) you swore an oath to uphold the US Constitution and those those laws you smug illegal alien-enabling community organizer!"

People who live and work on the border -- and are thus intimately familiar with the reality of the dangerous nature of the situation -- are disappointed with Obama's belittling of the opposition into the imagery of moats and alligators, especially in the wake of a devastating fire most likely started by illegal immigrant criminals:

"It is with great wonderment and sadness that we listened to your May 10 speech on immigration issues. All of the joking about moats and alligators cut residents of Portal, AZ, to the core as we sheltered with friends or at a Red Cross evacuation site, to survive a terrible fire that still threatens our lives and property, as well as our ecotourism-based economy," ...

“I’m really disappointed at current border security, I’m really disappointed at the president’s speech saying that people like me wants moats with alligators, but moats with alligators might work..."

Because at least that would be something - right now, most of the border is an unobserved stretch of sandy ground, so even a moat with alligators would be an improvement. They, unlike Obama and liberals like him, recognize that crime, drugs, and violence threaten the border states and cities, but also spill over into other states and cities, as well. Too bad those in charge are either too stupid or too politically correct to recognize genuine danger when it's staring them in the face. Or they don't care...

Anyway, let's look at some other illegal immigration-related subjects, like the Arizona law that mirrored the federal law that Obama and the Democrats blasted loudly, and that the DOJ took to court. The short update is that Arizona is taking it to the Supreme Court. At the same time, since the federal government is failing its responsibility to protect Americans close to the border, Arizona is also taking private donations to build their own fence. I very much look forward to hearing how that works out, and how much money they raise. I'm guessing it'll be a lot!

Speaking of border security, only 30% think that the border is even minimally secure, while a whopping 64% disagree. Most voters think that it's more important to address border security before dealing with the illegals already here. I think it's also interesting to note that 59% of Americans think that federal funding should be cut off from sanctuary cities (cities where they deliberately publicize the fact that they won't ask about immigration status, or do anything about it even if they accidentally find out).

Georgia is the latest state to adopt tough new immigration laws in the vacuum caused by federal failures on the issue. I'm sure it won't be the last. Kansas recently adopted a more stringent voter ID law, a no-brainer if there ever was one.

You see, every day Americans like you and me understand that illegal immigration is a massive, massive problem. With the federal government consistently failing or refusing to protect American citizens from this problem -- like with the idiot Clinton-appointed judge in Connecticut who ruled that illegal immigrants can sue border agents for abuse -- it is left to the states and individual citizens to protect themselves.

It's a tragedy when states and citizens have to protect themselves not only from the enemy, but from our own federal government, as well.

Green Birthdays

I've said it before, and I'll say it again...I'd be a lot more likely to jump on board the 'green' movement if it all went down like this (trust me when I tell you this is much more satisfying to watch full-screen):

Oh, and in case anyone's looking for a last-minute birthday gift...look no further!

:)

A Fork In The Road

I really like this opinion piece from Mark Alexander at the Patriot Post.  It provides some excellent long-term perspective on where we are in American history, and what this time means for the future of our nation.  Read the whole thing:

Sunset or Sunrise on Liberty?

By Mark Alexander · Thursday, May 12, 2011

The Current Crisis and the Opportunity of a New Dawn for Liberty

"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman." --Thomas Paine

A few decades ago, one of the national service opportunities I pursued required a battery of examinations including a comprehensive personality profile. After three days of psychological tests, a career profiler compiled my assessment. In a later interview with said profiler, he looked at me and declared with candor, "You are crazy!"

That decree got no rise out of me. I have received that appraisal numerous times, but he did put a fresh perspective on it. He continued, "Not crazy in the pathological sense, but crazy in that you are one of very few people I have profiled who actually thrives in the midst of crisis and conflict." Apparently, most "normal people" try to avoid crisis and conflict. He labeled my folder, "Warrior."

In light of this assessment and its outcome, my penchant for what Sam Adams called "the animated contest for freedom," I offer the following opinion about the future of American Liberty.

On occasion I have been critical of Barack Hussein Obama, a phony "community organizer" con man, who, with the help of his Leftist puppeteers, masterfully duped 69 million Americans into giving him the most expensive public housing and benefits in the nation.

I am most critical of this charlatan's political endeavor to demolish free enterprise with a debt bomb, and from the economic rubble, resurrect a transformed USSA subject to tyrannical rule under the oppression of Democratic Socialism.

Obama built his presidential campaign around the "change" theme: "This is our moment, this is our time to turn the page on the policies of the past, to offer a new direction. We are fundamentally transforming the United States of America."

His former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said infamously, "Never allow a crisis to go to waste," which was the basis for Obama's assertion, "this painful [economic] crisis provides us with an opportunity to transform our economy to improve the lives of ordinary people."

By no means will the full implementation of Democratic Socialism "improve the lives of ordinary people." As I have noted previously, Democratic Socialism, like Nationalist Socialism, is nothing more than Marxist Socialism repackaged. Likewise, it seeks a centrally planned economy directed by a single-party state that controls economic production by way of regulation and income redistribution.

The success of Democrat Socialism depends upon supplanting Essential Liberty -- the rights "endowed by our Creator" -- primarily by refuting such endowment.

Indeed, Obama's mission is transformation, and economic crisis is the horse he rode in on. It can also be the horse that he and his socialist cadre are chased out on.

Truth be told, I want to "fundamentally transform" what our nation has become after years of incremental encroachment upon Rule of Law by socialist predators, the most brazen offender in history being Obama. Indeed, I do not want the current economic "crisis to go to waste," and see it as a great opportunity to "change" our economy in such a way as to improve the lives of all Americans.

Of course, the opportunity I see in the current crisis is diametrically opposed to that which Obama and his Leftist cadres envision. I see a new dawn for Liberty on the horizon.

For all Patriots, steadfast in our devotion to Freedom, the sun is rising on one of two options to preserve the legacy of Liberty for this and future generations. The first and more desirable option is the transformational restoration of constitutional Rule of Law and the second is the transformational reformation of government, in fulfillment of Thomas Jefferson's contention, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

The current economic crisis, which manifested in 2006 with the surprisingly ubiquitous collapse in real estate values and subsequent banking crisis, poses an ominous threat to Liberty. The Obama administration used the cover of this crisis to implement its so-called "stimulus plan," which primarily stimulated the growth of central government at an enormous cost.

The result was accelerated accumulation of crushing national debt, now approaching $15 trillion, which has placed our economy on a collision course with catastrophic collapse, short of bold intervention.

The economic indicators foretelling that collision abound.

The Commerce Department reports that the American economy grew at an annualized rate of 1.8 percent in the first quarter of 2011. (You might have missed that report amid all the political campaigning over OBL's demise.)

Home values fell three percent in the first quarter and it is estimated that more than 28 percent of homeowners now owe more than the value of their property.

Energy and commodity costs are highly volatile, in large measure due to abysmal domestic economic and energy policies plus weak foreign policy. One way to devalue outstanding debt is inflation, and there are plenty of indicators that inflation is underway.

Imports are up and exports are down. The International Monetary Fund estimates that China's economy will surpass ours by 2016.

Unemployment inched back up to 9 percent last month, but the "real" unemployment rate, those who have given up the search and part-time workers seeking full-time employment, is almost 16 percent.

More Americans are dependent upon government assistance payouts than ever before. More than 18 percent of total personal income was redistributed in the form of "government benefits." Almost one in seven households receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (food stamps).

The declining status of the U.S. dollar as the world's safest fiat currency is a metaphor for the decline of our standing as the world's beacon of liberty, the decline of "American exceptionalism."

Having a good recollection of the Carter administration, I invoke Yogi Berra's sentiment, "It is like déjà vu all over again."

Despite the considerable barriers these indicators pose to economic recovery, there is still time for a transformational restoration of constitutional Rule of Law and the consequential rescaling of our central government to comport with the limits placed upon it by our Constitution. But as noted above, that will require bold intervention, and it will require that a majority of the members of Congress honor and abide by their oath of office.

At present, there are outstanding plans on the table to put prosperity over poverty, including the Republican Study Committee Budget for FY 2012 and Heritage Foundation's comprehensive plan to restore prosperity.

House and Senate leaders are stepping out with bolder propositions to cut government spending. As a prerequisite to raising the national debt ceiling to avoid default, Speaker John Boehner has drawn the line, and may even hold it: "Without significant spending cuts and reforms to reduce our debt, there will be no debt limit increase, and the cuts should be greater than the accompanying increase in debt authority the president is given. We should be talking about cuts of trillions, not just billions."

Conservative Senate leaders are calling for a Balanced Budget Amendment as a condition to any agreement on increasing the national debt limit.

Of course, Obama, the consummate socialist, trotted out the class warfare card in response: "Their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America, [pitting] children with autism or Down's syndrome against every millionaire and billionaire in our society."

Then, in his fatuous display of faux bipartisan, Obama insisted the budget talks must "start by being honest about what's causing our deficit."

Apparently, Obama thinks the budget deficit is caused by a lack of government spending and regulation, as he is proposing a lot more of both.

So, given the current crisis and the long odds against the restoration of Rule of Law, would you concede that this portends a Sunset or Sunrise on Liberty?

Call me crazy -- that profiler certainly did -- but I clearly see a new dawn for Liberty, whether it be transformational restoration of constitutional Rule of Law or the transformational reformation of government. Count me in for either option.

I believe, as did my mentor, President Ronald Reagan: "America's best days are yet to come. Our proudest moments are yet to be. Our most glorious achievements are just ahead."

But I also know, as did he, that "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States when men were free."

That extinction will arrive only if we "shrink from the service of our country," so as Paine also said, "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace."

I think Alexander is right, and that we are living in very consequential times; I believe the future of our nation is quite literally at stake.  The next two or three election cycles will determine the course that our nation takes, and I believe we will be on that course for a number of years.  The key is that we will all be propelled forward on this course, even if only a small percentage of us dictate what the course will be.  If you don't speak up, others will.  If you don't speak up now, it may soon be too late.

So...which course would you prefer America take concerning liberty?  Sunrise, or sunset?  And what will you do about it?

Idiotic Idiots Acting Stupid (i.e. Congress Being Itself)

Seriously?!

As if Congress had nothing more important to do, ABC News brings us word that Congress will hold hearings on the use of the code name Geronimo as a reference to Osama Bin Laden.

"The hearing was scheduled well before the Osama bin Laden operation became news, but the concerns over the linking of the name of Geronimo, one of the greatest Native American heroes, with the most hated enemies of the United States is an example of the kinds of issues we intended to address at Thursday's hearing," Loretta Tuell, the committee's chief counsel, said in a statement.

"These inappropriate uses of Native American icons and cultures are prevalent throughout our society, and the impacts to Native and non-Native children are devastating," Tuell said. "We intend to open the forum to talk about them."

Some of you are wondering if we can send SEAL Team 6 to Congress. I would never wonder that. I just wonder how exactly Congress ever hopes to improve its dazzling popularity rating when it plays on the hypersensitive humorlessness of lefties race warriors.

Got any ideas of just how 'dazzling' that popularity rating is?

9%.

Offhand, I'd say there's not much reason to debate why.

Does This Set Off Quiet Alarm Bells For Anyone Else?

Just stop and think about this:

A new national alert system is set to begin in New York City that will alert the public to emergencies via cell phones.

Okay, so far so good.  Sounds perfectly reasonable, especially for a city like New York that's a constant high-profile target.  Let's keep reading.

Presidential and local emergency messages as well as Amber Alerts would appear on cell phones equipped with special chips and software.

The Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Emergency Management Agency said the system would also warn about terrorist attacks and natural disasters.

Verizon and AT&T, the nation's largest cell phone carriers, are already on board. Consumers would be able to opt out of all but those presidential messages.

Errrrrmmmm...okay.  I'm less than thrilled about being forced to pay attention to 'presidential messages', but I assume those would be pretty rare.  Let's go a little further into the article.

For now, the system is capable on certain high-end cell phones but starting next year, all cell phones will be required to have the chip that receives alerts.

By the end of the year, the new system will be in place in New York City and Washington and in cities around the country by the end of 2012.

ALERT! ALERT! ALERT!

I get off this train at the part where 'all cell phones will be required to have a chip'.  I wouldn't want to have a cell phone with a required chip controlled by the government that cannot be disabled no matter what administration is in power, much less the current one that has made no secret about trying to take over vast swaths of the American business sector, health care, banking, insurance, and the Internet.  What else is hiding in those required permanent chips?  Tracking code or GPS features?  Are they listening in on our conversations or reading our texts (a la Carnivore and Echelon)?  Can they actually take control of the phone itself?

These are not trivial questions, and someone needs to start asking them.

Move Along...There's Nothing To See Here...

That's the message of the White House and its full-time propaganda wing, the mainstream media, in regard to the single biggest issue facing most Americans today: the economy.

They're in full gutsy swing over Obama's manly-man decision to take out Osama bin Laden. So much so, in fact, that most people aren't really hearing much about what's going on with the economy. Let's take a few moments to correct that, shall we?

First of all, unemployment is back up to 9% despite about 244,000 jobs being added in April. Huh?? If you're like me, you don't see how those numbers go together. Here's an explanation:

The economy added 244,000 jobs but the unemployment rate went up to 9 percent. Is this a political problem for President Obama — as the economy improves, more enter the workforce and the unemployment rate looks horrible?

It’s actually even worse than it looks. The unemployment rate went up because of a divergence of the surveys, not an increase in the number of people looking for jobs. In the household survey, which determines the unemployment rate, we lost 190,000 jobs in April, and only 15,000 new people entered the workforce. Hopefully, the two?????? surveys will both indicate robust job growth soon, but not this month.

Hot Air also throws in this bit of trivia:

What was the highest unemployment rate, post-Great Depression, for which an incumbent President won re-election? 7.2% in 1984.

If there was any recovery going on -- personally I don't believe there was -- this is a sign of that recovery slowing down. This is why the Obama administration is desperate to get the economy off the front pages as often as possible. The more people are thinking about the economy, the less likely Obama (and many other Dems with him) will get re-elected.

But it doesn't just stop with unemployment. Remember all those dire warnings about real estate going into a double-dip recession? Now we've got it. World food prices are shooting up partly due to the fact that the U.S. is now experiencing inflation because of Obama's policies, and dragging the rest of the world along with it. Tighter budgets are forcing California schools to consider shortening their school year (though given what the schools in California teach, that may actually be a good thing). Pennsylvania school districts are considering 4-day weeks. About 1 in 7 Americans receive food stamps. And just wait'll you hear the latest on energy. It deserves its own post and is coming soon.

Anyway, these are the results of liberal economic policies. Their solution? More taxes, this time on the mileage you put on your car:

Among other things, CBO suggested that a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax could be tracked by installing electronic equipment on each car to determine how many miles were driven; payment could take place electronically at filling stations.

And you thought driving was expensive now, and that government was already too intrusive...just wait, it gets better!

All of this has earned Obama new low poll numbers on the economy, with Americans disapproving of his policies almost 2:1.

The real question is: how is the GOP responding? It's kind of hard to tell. They sound good...

How much room will Boehner have in negotiating [on the coming debt ceiling debate]? Declaring himself “a regular guy with a big job,” Boehner declares tax hikes “off the table.” Lauer tries offering a misleading statistic to force Boehner to defend the Bush tax cuts, using unemployment numbers from June 2001 and comparing them to today’s rates. The tax cuts to which Democrats object passed in 2003, not 2001 (which lowered the top rate to its current 35% and reduced capital-gains tax rates), and unemployment at the time had gone into the 6% range. It resulted in an explosion of job growth that only ended in 2008 with the housing bubble’s collapse.

Boehner has declared tax hikes “off the table,” but says everything else will be up for discussion — everything else necessarily being spending cuts, especially in entitlements.

Mm-hmmm. But we've heard all this before, the last time being just a few weeks ago when the GOP swore they'd settle for nothing less than $100 billion cut out of the budget...right before settling for about $350 million cut out of the budget. Am I the only one skeptical of their ability/will to see this tough talk through? If they did, it would be a major surprise, albeit a welcome one.

I suppose it's progress to even get them talking this way. After all, on the other side of the debate is Barack Obama, who is too busy inviting rappers who glorify cop-killing and the assassination of George W. Bush to the White House for parties to even do that much.

We'll be lucky to survive another year and a half of this bunch; even if we do, it will be years before we clean up the mess they've made, and that's only if we get exactly the right people into office for the next two or three election cycles.

God help us!

The Obama/Osama Chronicles

It's time to post a follow-up to my previous post about the successful raid against Osama bin Laden's hideout a few days ago. On the one hand, it's a tremendous success for our military and a devastating morale blow to our enemies. On the other hand, it's yet another instance where our infantile President has narcissistically sought to take credit for something he actively campaigned and fought against for years when Bush was advocating it; in fact, he only grudgingly signed off on the operation in the first place. Oh, also, the media is fawning over his 'gutsiness' in a shameless display of verbal and emotional emetic. Finally, there has been so much...um...strangeness...around the whole thing that in some ways it's hard to take the victory seriously. Allow me to explain.

Less than 24 hours after OBL was killed, he was given a burial at sea and a nice Muslim funeral ceremony. I personally find the idea of honoring this mass murderer of innocent civilians with a burial in accordance with Sharia law -- which is directly antithetical to the concepts of liberty and freedom -- incredibly offensive, and I find the reasons given for such actions to be incredibly lame, but what's done is done.

Apparently, the U.S. government knew of the hideout since last August...but Obama refused to take action for months. The intelligence was 'solid' by mid-February, but still he wouldn't take action. Why? My bet is that, as time wore on and the case became more and more ironclad, there were simply too many people who knew that we knew where OBL was, and that if Obama didn't take action he would be forever tainted as the man who let the architect of 9/11 slip through his fingers. He was forced to give the order through circumstance.

And here's where it gets muddy. The White House initially stated that the goal of the mission was to kill OBL, not capture him. Then that was reversed, and the White House said they wanted to capture him, but only if he was unarmed (but he wasn't). Initial reports also said that OBL used his wife as a human shield, and that she was killed. Then she wasn't. The story was also reversed on whether or not OBL and the other people at the house were armed. Then the story was reversed on whether or not there was resistance to the raid. There was also confusion on whether or not OBL was killed in an active gun battle or shot in the head as a captive. The point is that the White House looked like a bunch of crazy chickens running around sans heads.

There is apparently a fair amount of suspicion that Pakistan was knowingly protecting OBL from American forces. They're unhappy about the U.S. not including them in the planning of the raid, but it's unclear what (if anything) they're going to do about it. Or what we're going to do about them doing something about it...

As I mentioned before, President Obama and his entire staff made it clear he was the one responsible for making the call to go get him. What great leadership. Speaking of leadership, the mythical SEAL Team 6 (a legend in counter-terrorism circles) was not confirmed to be involved in the raid...until VP Joe Doofus Biden opened his big yap. Congratulations, America, we've got Captain Infant and his loyal sidekick Bozo the Clown running the country.

Then came the debate about whether or not the White House would release photos of OBL's dead body. They needed proof to show the world that we got him, but they're squeamish about showing such vivid details of our enemies for fear of reprisals. I would point out that when your enemies have sworn to see your death simply because you exist, it's hard to imagine them being any more angry at you just for showing a few pictures, but that's just me. Anyway, the White House vacillated back and forth for several days, and eventually decided not to release the photos. Ironically, they have no problem taking naked pictures of law-abiding American citizens with airport scanners, but they feel it's inappropriate to show America's Public Enemy #1 dead. Go figure. Anyway, eventually both OBL's daughter and Al Qaeda officially acknowledged OBL's death, putting the issue to bed. There is some speculation that OBL's final location was given up by his own deputy to help him take over the whole kit and kaboodle, but I suspect we'll only find out more about that as time goes on.

Al Qaeda is, of course, promising retribution of all kinds. Interestingly, OBL left a video encouraging his own children not to join Al Qaeda. Apparently the holy calling of jihad wasn't all it was made out to be. Or maybe it had something to do with living in squalor and fear for the past decade. Eh, whatever; if they feel the need to martyr themselves against American military might, then (in the words of good ol' Rummy) we'll oblige them.

I think the most interesting aspect of all this is how the enhanced interrogations conducted at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, those secret CIA prisons around the world, and operations in Iraq were critical in locating OBL. Even Obama's man admitted as much. Ooooh...you know liberals from Obama on down are having difficulty swallowing that one! Still, facts are facts, and if George W. Bush hadn't authorized and fought for those measures, OBL would still be alive today. My, how history has a way of thrashing liberals for their hypocrisy and stupid politically-correctness-driven policies (that's why they try to ignore history so much)! Regardless, it's a clear vindication of Bush's policies and actions, and an equally clear repudiation of the vehement opposition of those policies and actions by Obama and the Left...even if the liberal elites refuse to admit it.

One of the major long-term victories in this whole thing was the recovery of several computers and a huge cache of information. Treasure troves like this are what intelligence operatives love to see, and will hopefully prove incredibly useful in dismantling huge swaths of Al Qaeda and its affiliates. Taking out OBL is the PR victory; this data could be the real key to tearing apart one of America's deadliest enemies.

All of this begs the question: precisely how much credit should Barack Obama take? Well, let's back up and look at the big picture. Essentially everything that Obama has done on the basis of his own beliefs and world view -- the stimulus, Obamacare, foreign policy in general, deficit spending, etc. -- has demonstrably failed or is at the minimum directly opposed by most of the American people. On the other hand, everything he's done right -- mainly, this OBL thing, and continuing the fight against the War on Terror -- are an extension of policies implemented (at significant political cost) by George W. Bush. I think we can all do the math on that question.

Let's just hope Obama doesn't use this success as justification to wind down the war on terror at large. I suspect he'll do just that, but I really, really hope I'm wrong. There is no lack of danger when it comes to radical Islamic terrorists still alive and kicking, and we would be foolish to think anything otherwise. Time will tell, of course, whether or not Obama will push forward with his dangerous and reckless liberal policies on terrorism or continue many of the policies Bush implemented (and Obama fought against) that have landed America with this major victory. The questions involved are completely legitimate, and need to be answered.

Quite predictably, the Left is already gleefully announcing the results of the 2012 election based on this one event.

Of course, his poll numbers have gotten a temporary bump...but will that last through to the election? Don't count on it, says Rush Limbaugh:

See, I got a question real quickly for those of you who are a little worried (maybe, oh, paranoid) that the Osama Bin Laden kill operation will give Obama a bump in the polls. Ceremony question: Were Obama's poll numbers falling -- were they, in fact, in freefall -- because he had not gotten Osama? No. They were in freefall for purely domestic, primarily economic reasons. Have circumstances changed in that regard? No. ...

Now, get this. This is quite telling. Washington Post Pew poll out now that says Obama has had his approval for the way he handled terrorism boosted to an all-time high of 69%. Washington Post Pew poll, Obama, all-time high in approval of how he handles terrorism, 69%. ... Weirdly, though, on the economy, Obama still sits at 40% approval, a career low. How is that possible? It's because you can't put Osama Bin Laden's blood in your gas tank. It's because you can't take Osama Bin Laden's turban to Walmart and exchange it for a box of crispies. ... the point is we come together on issues we all agree on. But we are not unifying around liberalism here, folks. We are not unifying around Obama.

Every narcissist's dream is to have the world agree with them and adore them but that's not our dream here, that's not what this unity is all about. No, the American dream concerns our families, our life goals, jobs, homes, those that still have them, our disposable income, those that still have that, and the liberty, those that still have that. I mean there's really nothing to leverage here. The celebration over Osama's assassination isn't transferable to a domestic political agenda. But they're trying. You see, the American people know what to celebrate. We did that. We know what not to celebrate, too. And that's liberalism. We don't do that no matter how it's positioned. And asking us to set aside our principles as a means of showing unity is absurd. Transparently absurd, but that's what they're doing.

And in the meantime, while the media and the White House are trumpeting Obama's gutsiness and heroism in single-handedly taking out Osama bin Laden, the economy continues to tank. More on that coming soon...



Additional Links:
How it took years to find him but just minutes to kill him
Meet SEAL Team 6, the guys who killed OBL... (even though they don't exist)
...and their titanium-fanged dog...
...and the 'Beast of Kandahar'
Europe talks about 'war crimes'?!

Hilarity Ensues

A while back some very good friends of ours introduced us to a tremendously talented guy named Jim Gaffigan who had a strange and inventive perspective on Hot Pockets. It was quite unforgettable, and our kids still offer up a melodious 'hot pockeeeeeet...!' every now and then. Gaffigan is a top-notch comedian, and one of the most hilarious people I've ever watched. He has a way of capturing the minutiae of real life from a quirky perspective that lends itself well to hilarity. Here's a small sample:

There's much, much more. If you have a Netflix subscription, he's got at least two full DVDs that you can get right away, and both are hysterical from start to finish. Check 'em out, and enjoy!

PS - you'll never look at Hot Pockets -- or cake, or bacon, or polar bears -- the same way again...

To Get Bin Laden, Obama Relied On Policies He Decried

Throughout all the media frenzy on just how awesomely awesome and gutsily gutsy Barack Obama was for authorizing the operation that killed Osama bin Laden, this excellent article by Michael Barone is something we need to keep in mind:

Let's cheerfully and ungrudgingly give credit to Barack Obama for approving the military operation that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden.

In my Washington Examiner column last Sunday I criticized Obama's foreign policy, which was characterized by one of his advisers in an interview with the New Yorker's Ryan Lizza as "lead from behind." That criticism still stands.

But in tracking down and nailing bin Laden, Obama led from behind the right way -- behind the scenes he made a right but risky decision, without any leaks to the press, to achieve an objective sought by two presidents and thousands in the American government and military since Sept. 11, 2001.

The decision was risky because the operation could have failed, like Jimmy Carter's Desert One operation to rescue American hostages in Iran failed in April 1980.

But this time, even though one helicopter was lost, the operation succeeded. There was evidently a lot of redundancy in the plan and a lot of flexibility on the ground. A lot of good people did a lot of good things right.

While we may not know all the details about and behind this operation, it's fascinating to see how many of the things that made the success of this operation possible were not so long ago decried by many of the president's fans and fellow partisans.

For one thing, it apparently would not have happened without those infamous enhanced interrogation techniques -- "torture," according to critics of the Bush administration.

The enhanced interrogation techniques reportedly led to identification of the courier who eventually led our forces to bin Laden's hiding place. Critics of waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques assured us that "torture" could not produce reliable information.

They were probably right that sometimes such techniques yield false information. But the bin Laden operation shows that they can also produce actionable intelligence.

You may remember that many Democrats called for criminal prosecution of CIA interrogators who were acting under orders vetted by legal counsel. Attorney General Eric Holder actually considered bringing such prosecutions.

Fortunately he decided not to do so -- fortunately for the individuals involved but fortunately also for his own reputation. Who would want to be known for prosecuting the people who helped track down bin Laden?

It has also been reported that in hunting down bin Laden our forces relied on intercepted communications. I wonder if any of them included contacts between suspected terrorists abroad and persons in the United States.

This was the "domestic wiretapping" revealed to great acclaim by the New York Times and presented as an intolerable infringement of civil liberties. Given what we know now, it's a good thing our folks were tuning in.

Obama deserves credit also for employing the Navy SEALs who are part of the Joint Special Operations Command. It was fashionable a few years ago to call the JSOC Cheney's death squad and Cheney's assassination team.

The assumption behind such criticism was that Bush administration officials were using what they termed the war against terrorism as a smokescreen for persecuting domestic dissidents. But there is not a scrap of evidence that either the Bush administration or the Obama administration were doing anything of the kind. They were too busy trying to protect us.

There was criticism as well of the idea of targeting particular individuals for assassination. But in ordering the raid on bin Laden's compound Obama authorized the killing of bin Laden. And no Miranda warnings first.

Bin Laden's death removes the possibility of any debate about where he would be confined or tried. On this Obama has already been forced to keep the Guantanamo detention center open and Holder has had to concede that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will not be tried in a civilian court in Manhattan.

Finally, let us note that this was a unilateral operation. Obama didn't go to the United Nations Security Council. He didn't, so far as we know, consult NATO allies. He took care not to inform the government of Pakistan, some elements of which obviously knew that bin Laden was ensconced in a house 800 meters away from Pakistan's military academy.

For years we heard supposedly enlightened people excoriate our leaders for torture, lawlessness, unilateralism -- the list goes on and on. Now the president they have wanted has used the tactics and methods they excoriated to get bin Laden. Good for him.

Yes, good for him. Now, how about we stop listening to these 'supposedly enlightened' liberal dolts the next time they side with our enemies, hm? In fact, let's go one step further and remind them of these facts, and hopefully shame them into silence? Yeah, that sounds good to me.

How To Build A Better Password

As technology becomes more and more ubiquitous, so do the problems inherent with reliance on that technology.  Identity theft is on the rise, and most of us have probably had some experience with e-mails getting hacked (or know someone else who has).  One of my accounts got hit a few weeks ago, in fact.  I had been thinking for quite some time that I hadn't changed the password on that account for several years and that it was time to do so...but since that account was one I didn't use much, I hadn't gotten around to it.  Oops.  Fortunately, since it was an account I didn't use much, there was really no damage done.  I changed the password and then, just for good measure, I backed that account out of every website I could think of, and pretty much shut it down.  I also took the opportunity to update many of my other passwords, too.

For non-geeks, all this password protection and hacking and other techno-babble can get really intimidating.  You may be wondering how you can protect yourself without having a computer science degree under your belt.  Well, have no fear!  Here's a great article on how you can create an iron-clad password without too much mental effort:

Your e-mail password is your last line of defense when it comes to online privacy and security; if a hacker cracks that, they could potentially reset the passwords of and gain access to your social networks, your bank account and even your identity by taking advantage of the ubiquitous "I Forgot My Password" button.

It's tempting to use the same password for all of your online accounts, but doing so renders every account vulnerable if any one of them gets hacked. But given some recent massive security breaches, now's a good time to update your passwords and make sure each is unique.

There are a few great password management programs like KeePass that will store all of your passwords in one encrypted database and allow you to access them with one master password, allowing you to carry every password you'll ever need on a single thumb drive. A multi-platform password manager with browser support like LastPass is even easier to use because it will automatically sync between different computers and browsers, letting you access your encrypted database from any device, though you sacrifice the security of keeping your password list confined to a single hard drive.

Using a password manager is a great way to improve your personal security online, but it's not perfect; the perfect password is the one you never write down, a unique string of letters, numbers and symbols that not even you know until the moment you enter it. That may be beyond our grasp, but you can get awful close by using a few simple mnemonic tricks.

One Password To Rule Them All

It's actually fairly easy to create strong, unique passwords by following a few simple rules. First, we need a password "base" with a mix of upper and lower case letters, numbers and even a symbol or two to spice things up. Pick a phrase that will be easy to remember, and feel free to be as creative as you like. For simplicity's sake I'm going to use one of my favorite dishes, chicken adobo, as our example.

Make sure your passphrase is at least eight characters and avoid obviously memorable topics like proper names, birthdays and hometowns. You should also avoid picking a single word and changing some of its characters to symbols--hacker tools are sophisticated enough to foil that trick. Go for a passphrase--multiple words strung together--rather than a password; this makes it harder for hackers working to crack your password by trying every word in the dictionary.

Now that we've picked a passphrase, we need to mash that phrase into a single string (chickenadobo), then sprinkle in a few capital letters that are simple to remember (ChickenAdobo). Next, let's pepper our password base with a few random characters to keep things interesting (Ch!cken@dob0).

Now that we have our base password, we're going to memorize and use it as a skeleton key that will unlock our account on any Website as long as we hold fast to a few simple rules. To create the strongest password possible, we're going to invent a simple naming pattern as a mnemonic device that will help us generate a unique password for every Website we visit.

For example, let's say I decided to always use the first and fourth letter of a Website's domain name in the middle of my passphrase, capitalizing the former while leaving the latter lower-case. That means my Facebook.com account would have the unique password Ch!ckenFe@dob0, while my about.me account would require the password Ch!ckenAu@dob0.

See the pattern? Make up a something similar and you'll have a unique alphanumeric password for every website you visit, one that's easy to remember but nearly impossible for hackers to figure out. No password is perfect, but knowing your own unique passphrase and a few mnemonic tricks will go a long way towards keeping your online privacy intact.

The Internet has become so login-heavy that I've followed the practice of using a password file for years.  There's no possible way I'll remember all the logins and passwords I've got for all the websites/tools/memberships I've got, but remembering only a single master password -- even a long, nasty, unbreakable one -- is no problem.  Personally, I like having a local copy of my password information, so I like KeePass and use it for both my home stuff and my work stuff.  I also don't want to rely on having Internet access to be able to access my password information.  Time Warner Cable has created that foible for me.  Anyway, I also like KeePass's export feature that lets you dump all the information in your database to an Excel file for backup purposes (but be careful with that, since the exported file will NOT be password-protected!).  Best of all, there's a version of KeePass that can run off of a USB flash drive, so I can take all of my passwords with me wherever I go, and access them on any computer.

The point of all this security is, of course, protecting your data and yourself.  To do that, you just need to take a little bit of time and effort to create a single master password, and the method above is a great way to do that without much fuss.  Once that's done, you can keep track of all your other stuff with minimal hassle and maximum security.

Just make sure you don't write your master password down on a Post-It note stuck to your monitor...

On Green Energy...

Gotcha!

It took a while, but finally...

Osama bin Laden, hunted as the mastermind behind the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil, has been killed, President Obama announced tonight.

The president called the killing of bin Laden the "most significant achievement to date" in the effort to defeat al Qaeda.

"Justice has been done," Obama said.

The details:

Long believed to be hiding in caves, bin Laden was tracked down in a costly, custom-built hideout not far from a Pakistani military academy. The stunning news of his death prompted relief and euphoria outside the White House and around the globe, yet also fears of terrorist reprisals against the United States and its allies.

"Justice has been done," President Barack Obama said in a dramatic announcement at the White House.

The military operation took mere minutes, and there were no U.S. casualties.

U.S. helicopters ferried troops from Navy SEAL Team Six, a top military counter-terrorism unit, into the compound identified by the CIA as bin Laden's hideout — and back out again in less than 40 minutes. Bin Laden was shot in the head, officials said, after he and his bodyguards resisted the assault.

Three adult males were also killed in the raid, including one of bin Laden's sons, whom officials did not name. One of bin Laden's sons, Hamza, is a senior member of al-Qaida. U.S. officials also said one woman was killed when she was used as a shield by a male combatant, and two other women were injured.

The U.S. official who disclosed the burial at sea said it would have been difficult to find a country willing to accept the remains. Obama said the remains had been handled in accordance with Islamic custom, which requires speedy burial.

Cue the happy throngs of rejoicing!

The man who staked much of his Presidency on battling bin Laden, George W. Bush, has finally seen resolution:

Former President George W. Bush, whose entire presidency was defined by the September 11th attacks, said in a statement tonight that President Obama called him to inform him of the news of bin Laden’s death.

Bush called the operation a “momentous achievement” that “marks a victory for America, for people who seek peace around the world, and for all those who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001.”

“I congratulated him and the men and women of our military and intelligence communities who devoted their lives to this mission. They have our everlasting gratitude,” the former president said in a statement. “The fight against terror goes on, but tonight America has sent an unmistakable message: No matter how long it takes, justice will be done.”

I'll have more analysis on this as more details come out, but at the moment, I think it's safe to say that this is a HUGE development in the war on terror. Not only is it chopping the head off of our enemy, but it's a gigantic blow to their morale, as well. The fact that bin Laden was able to hide and avoid American and international forces was a source of hope and inspiration for jihadists everywhere; now that hope has been destroyed. It is also a major signal that America still has the guts to fight through to victory on a long-term objective, something that bin Laden himself questioned on more than one occasion.

I don't think most wars end with the enemy's leadership being captured or killed, but the fact that that has happened just adds even more significance to these events.

While it disgusts me to see President Obama try to take credit for this success -- despite him and all the other Democrats' constant badgering, heckling, and insulting George W. Bush about it over the years -- we must give credit where credit is due and remember that he did continue the military operations that George W. Bush started and fought so hard for. So, kudos to you, Mr. President.

I just find it intellectually dishonest how he is constantly whining about how he 'inherited' a bad economy, but wants to be the sole champion of this huge success.

Oh well, don't trifle a liberal with facts.

The bottom line is that Osama bin Laden is gone, and we got him. It wouldn't have happened at all without the thousands of dedicated, hard-working, brave, and heroic men and women in the U.S. (and international) military and intelligence services. To them, my hat is off, my gratitude is profound, and in them my pride is unlimited.

More to come as details and analysis unfold.