Image 01 Image 03



Should I go to the Occupy Ithaca protest tomorrow?  And tell them that they already occupy Ithaca so they can’t occupy themselves?

How are the Occupy protests any different than what we see every time there is a G20 meeting?

Not good when a candidate’s wife becomes an issue, and when the candidate then has to defend what the wife said.  Anita Perry was correct, but still not good.

So Obama knew about Fast and Furious before Holder?  Don’t think so.

$86 billion in supposed Obamacare savings just went out the door.  Who coulda predicted.

What else?


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


When is somebody Conservative show up with a “Liberate Cornell” program? Would you rather be known as an ‘Occupier’ or ‘Liberator’?

“they can’t occupy themselves”, that was funny.

The news about dropping free nursing home care is hopefully the last we hear of “Teddy, the Lion(ghost, really) of the Senate”, why not “The Teddy bear of the poor”?

I’m wondering about this Uganda stuff. How come nothing from the WH about Iran?

I just finished watching the HBO Documentary on George Harrison. I am so in love, all over again.

P.S. The obeservation by George of ‘Haight-Ashbury’ was priceless. It reminded me of those involved in #OWS and what a huge disappointment, that farce will turn out to be.

I disagree with you about Anita Perry. She makes the claim that that she and her husband

were being brutalized by our opponents, and our own party. So much of that is, I think they look at him, because of his faith.

Just which of his opponents attacked Perry based on his faith? Or does she mean that they attacked about other things, secretly motivated by their hatred of his faith? This accusation is ridiculous on its face. Even if she was making her claim about the MSM, I would be willing to hear her out, but I would still want to see some evidence. But, the idea that Romney, Bachman, Santorum, etc. are attacking him because they are motivated by hatred of his faith is laughable.

    I don’t know. We’ve seen commentators even here openly saying that Romney is the only acceptable candidate to independents because he won’t push his faith (intimating that other candidates, notably Perry would).

    Largely the RINOs in the media have disparaged Gov. Perry for his unabashedly Christian faith. They said that the Prayer Event that he held was a bad choice, alternatively suggesting that it was an unabashed acting con-job or an undignified showing of genuine faith that would insult other faith voters, depending on which day of the week it happens to be.

    Anita Perry has a point: there are subtle disparaging suggestions from some of the “non-religious” (meaning they keep their religion private)candidates campaigns trying to paint Gov. Perry as a religious nut. It’s not that they -hate- his faith, its that they (or their campaigns) push the meme that “he’s unelectable because he’s unabashedly Christian in his faith, and works hard at it.” It won’t work, just like it didn’t work against Gov. Huckabee last time, but it will be at least a minor distraction.

    Bill O’Reilly had a pretty decent wrap-up of the competing interests for view on this youtube clip Bill O’Reilly with Cathy Areu WaPo writer and Ralph Reed making the competing cases.

    Unfortunately with several different Christian subdivisions in the mix, there’s going to be some cross-denominational sniping. Of the major candidates, we have what mix? An Evangelical Lutheran (Bachmann), A Baptist (Cain), two Catholics (Gingrich & Santorum), two Mormons (Romney & Huntsman), A Protestant (Paul), and a Methodist (Perry).

    If you wanted to simplify it, you could lump Bachmann, Cain, Paul and Perry as evangelicals, but you’d still have 3 major faith groups which hold significant theological differences which will affect their views.

      Anon Y. Mous in reply to Chuck Skinner. | October 14, 2011 at 11:56 pm

      If Ms. Perry had made her complaint about commenters on this blog and media types, I would not have bothered to disagree with her. Because, after all, even if it’s true, so what? Blog commenters and media types dissect everyone. If you can’t handle that, the presidency will surely be too tough. But, she directed her accusation at her husband’s opponents and the GOP. It was a false accusation.

    spartan in reply to Anon Y. Mous. | October 15, 2011 at 7:53 am

    While you were watching the other candidates, perhaps you missed the proxies of certain candidates attacking Perry’s faith. Remind you, this was about nothing Perry said but what the preacher who had introduced Perry had said. It should be noted many of these same folks refused to play the ‘guilt by association’ game with one Jeremiah Wright in 2008. Perhaps, you need to rewatch what Chris Christie said in his remarks endorsing Romney. Perhaps, you need to re-read some of the criticism about Perry for remarks he never made.
    Personally, I think some of the criticism of Perry is borderline Palinesque. I am starting to warm up to him.

    What is funny is the media will not ask Herman Cain’s wife what she thinks about his candidacy. I have it on very good authority (a couple of people I have known for years and attend church with the Cains) that she is not on board with his presidential run and questions his sanity. She will not appear with him at any event.

    retire05 in reply to Anon Y. Mous. | October 15, 2011 at 10:52 am

    When Rick Pery first got in the race, the LSM made a big deal about his “evangelism.” Now, I am personally familiar with the Methodist church he attends in Austin, and I would say it is pretty main-stream protestant, so the “evangelism” label was meant to imply Perry is some kind of Elmer Gantry type radical, in the LSM’s mind.

    Also, Anita Perry doesn’t do cammpaigns. She had an ever so slight presence in her husband’s Texas campaigns as she is just not a political person, even less so than was Laura Bush. But this week, Bill O’Reilly, and Fox, decided to latch on to what Anita Perry said in the Carolinas, and mock her for it. Anita Perry was simply trying to defend her husband, something Laura Bush did occassionally.

    Perhaps it is because there are a couple of [self-proclaimed] conservative websites that are demanding Perry distance himself from Rev. Jeffress who made a comment about Mormanism to a reporter at the Value voter’s Summit. Perry has already said, repeatedly, that he doesn’t agree with Jeffress, Jeffress has given interviews saying he had never discussed Mormanism with Perry, Perry has never sat in his church, had Jeffress marry him and Anita, baptise their children, or write a book giving it a title from one of Jeffress’ sermons. Yet, people like Kathryn Jean Lopez are trying to make this Perry’s Jerimiah Wright, Jr. moment. One conservative blogger (who is in the tank for Cain) said that Anita Perry reminded him of the Tammy Fae of Texas.

    To hear Bill O’Reilly, you would have thought that Anita Perry said that she was proud of her nation for the first time in her adult life.

    Yet, Ann Romney recently said that it would be stupid [of you] not to vote for Mitt. Dead silence from the establishment GOP on that.

    Now, if anyone thinks that the estabishment GOP types are not going after Perry, they must be smoking crack. I have heard, on Fox, Republicans lob vague slams against Perry only to say “Well, in full disclosure, I have to say that I am a Mitt Romney supporter.” Charles Krauthammer, who I have lost all respect for, had done everything but call Perry a mentally deficient hillbilly even before Perry got in the race. Gary Johnson was on the Bret Brair show last night, and Krauthammer’s dislike of Johnson was palatable. Krauthammer didn’t even try to hide it. Ann Coulter said on Hannity last night that she is now in the Romney/Cain camp. Color me not surprised.

    Why did the media, especially Fox, feel the need to drag Anita Perry into the mix, when they have not given one minute to Ann Romney? Both Thursday and Friday, O’Reilly was harping on Anita Perry, even going so far as to have Mike Huckabee on to disagree with Anita Perry’s comments. And what I found hypocritical on Huckabee’s part was that he said it was Perry’s “immigration” position that harmed Perry. Not once did Huckabee mention that Romney literally did a video ad slamming Huckabee for Arkansas having in-state tuition in 2008, doing the same to him that Romney is doing to Perry. O’Reilly seems really p.o.ed that Perry has not come on his show yet, telling people that HIS show is the best evah! and that he just doesn’t understand why Perry is “avoiding” him (O’Reilly). O’Reilly’s arrogance turned me off a long time ago.

    Spartan is correct in his opinion. Perry is being Palinized by all sides. When the WaPo and the NYSlimes are digging around for rocks, ignoring what Romney has said and done, that’s no different than going to Wasilla trying to find any speck of dirt to smear a candidate with. The establishment GOP did not defend Sarah Palin as the media tried to destroy her, and they are not going to defend Perry as the media tries to do the same to him.

    What most people don’t realize is that Rick Perry is NOT an establishment GOPer. He doesn’t play by their rules, hence the fued between him and Karl Rove, who now claims credit for Perry becoming a Republican. Nothing is farther from the truth, Perry became a Republican due to his friendship with Phil Grahamm. Rove was just trying to ride the wave. It was after Rove’s departure from the White House that Perry and G.W. Bush strengthened their friendship between two governors of Texas.

Well, according to Heisenberg uncertainty principle, there is some doubt that there are where they think they are, but I’m uncertain.

Rising Cain

There has been a huge surge in Cain support in the last 24 hours. In one of the videos below Stephen Moore, author and member of the editorial board of the WSJ mentions Cain campaign contributions have surged dramatically.

Cain’s 9-9-9 ideas apparently came from this book by Arthur B. Laffer and Stephen Moore:

“The (powerful) anti-tax Club for Growth is rising to Herman Cain’s defense amid growing scrutiny of – and questions about – his “9-9-9″ economic plan:

“Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan is both pro-growth and a good starting point on the way to a flat or fair tax,” said Club president Chris Chocola.”

“The Club is neutral in the campaign, but this is the first time that Chocola has shored up the flank of a candidate under fire.”

“Kevin Hassett, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, said the (Cain’s) plan would simplify the tax code and not sacrifice current tax revenue. “We’d have pretty high confidence that it could increase growth a lot,” he said.
“This is a far more sophisticated plan than one might have expected, given that he is not a person that has been inside politics his whole life,” Hassett said. “The Cain plan is really solid. The only criticism one could make is it’s too bold or something like that.”

    spartan in reply to Viator. | October 15, 2011 at 8:07 am

    In the CNN video, Moore said the 9-9-9 plan was not perfect but it was bold; with most of the problems resulting from the national sales tax. In a recent interview on FNC, Moore said he would love to get into the details of the 9-9-9 plan to see if it was viable. To date, Cain has not given any specifics about his plan. Without these specifics, I think there is nothing more than blind faith supporting this plan.

    retire05 in reply to Viator. | October 15, 2011 at 11:44 am

    Anyone who is honest about Cain’s 9-9-9 plan would admit that it is just a take off of the Fair Tax. That is the real foundation behind 9-9-9. But there are some major problems with it, one being that the whole current tax code would have to be abolished, and that would require Congressional action. I don’t think Cain could get Congress to abolish a progressive tax system that has been in place for almost 100 years.

    Also, there is no way that Cain, as President, could bind a future Congress to what this Congress passes. What Congress gives, Congress can take away. If a Democrat held Congress wanted to impose a 20-20-20 in the future with a Democrat president, they could do it.

    The biggest flaw is the sales tax aspect of it. Sales taxes are imposed by states, counties and localities. How is Cain going to convince those entities to give up the one secure source of revenue they have and turn it over to the federal goverment to be redistributed as Congress sees fit? Right now, those sales taxes remain in the states, being used to cover state expenditures. If that money was dumped into the federal coffers, it would be spread out, depending on which state the Congress felt deserved it.

    There are other problems with the last 9% of the Cain plan. In some states, sales tax is not charged on certain items like groceries and medications. Being that those two items are the biggest items in a low income/senior budget, it would reduce their buying power by 9%. There is some talk of a “prebate” given to those people, but then, isn’t that just another wealth redistribution plan. And wouldn’t it require people, who currently do not file income tax due to living off Social Security, to do so in order to get their sale tax back? Add one more layer of red tape at the IRS. The EITC was designed to do the same thing and has now become rife with fraud. Why do we give people more from the IRS than they paid in? That makes April 15th payday for them.

    So you can’t convince states to give up their sales tax, and now you wind up with a cumlative sales tax upwards of 20%. That will reduce consumption of goods and services, and with the reduction of demand, will reduce the need for jobs that create those products.

    Cain has also said that the 9% sales tax would only apply to “new” goods. That means a 9% sales tax on a new car, but not on a used car. That will have unintended consequences; first, new car sales will plummet and the cost of used cars, generally purchased by lower income families, will skyrocket due to demand and not having to pay the 9% sale tax. Would that sales tax also apply to housing? If you purchase new house, you pay 9% sales tax on it, but if you buy a existing home, you don’t? How is that going to affect new home construction?

    The 9% corporate tax is also problematic. Corporations pass the cost of taxes off to the consumer in the pricing of their product. Those taxes are listed in the “expenditures” column. Also Cain said that it would eliminated payroll taxes, currently called Social Security and Medicare taxes. It would then make SS/M/M nothing more that a total welfare program, with no revenue, and strictly covered by the general revenue coffers.

    I have read Dennis Prager’s Fair Tax book and it is just as convoluted as the system we have now. And that is where Cain is coming from.

      Hi Retire05,

      Read Neil Boortz’s FAIRTAX books. They deal with the issues that you present. One of these days I’ll get around to posting my white paper on the FAIRTAX on my blog as a permanent download feature, because it deals with most of the same issues you bring up talking about the 9-9-9 plan.

      – The prebate – (at least under the FAIRTAX) is designed to be paid to EVERY household regardless of income, to finance spending for new goods up to the poverty level as designated by HHS guidelines (X% of income on $11,400, I think) divided monthly. Thus, no one pays taxes at all on spending up to the poverty level (considered the minimum level necessary to take care of your family unit’s needs).

      – Imbedded taxes vs. explicit taxes – You have to put the embedded FAIRTAX on the same scale as ‘post total’ state sales taxes. Since the FAIRTAX is embedded, it’s actually treated as a smaller percentage than otherwise would appear of the total.

      – Taxes only on new goods – the concept here is that goods should only be taxed ONCE. Once the tax is paid, the good should be able to be transferred tax free between other interested parties. Does it change the current economics of purchasing decisions? YES. Is that consequence unintended? NO. It is entirely specifically thought out and intended, because items will retain their inherent value longer, rather than losing a piece of that inherent value to the tax code with every transfer. It promotes best economic use of material that currently exists.

      – Also, regarding taxing only new goods – if you get rid of the inherent tax burden (from imbedded income, corporate and other sales taxes currently imposed at EVERY transaction level) the actual sales tax is only 0.8% higher than the current total imbedded taxes, and is only collected ONCE at the first “end user” purchase. Yes, this applies to houses (they’re a good, like anything else). Apartment renters would pay the tax of the owner in terms of higher rents, but that occurs anyway now.

      – Re State taxes – Nothing in the FAIRTAX (or the 9-9-9 plan) that I’ve seen displaces state sales taxes. Those would still be added on to the total AFTER the Federal Sales Tax portion would be imposed (explicit vs. imbedded tax).

      The 9-9-9 plan is better than what we have now, but is still less elegant than the FAIRTAX proposal, because it can still be played with in terms of deductions, limitations and other accounting gimicks for dealing with “corporate” and “income” taxes. The FAIRTAX gets rid of all those games by only taxing “consumption,” which is what the income tax was supposed to be proxy-taxing when it was created in the first place.

In case anyone missed this; they are going to have a conference in Finland about creating a nuclear free zone in the Mideast.

Sounds like a good idea right? Maybe this’ll get Iran to drop their weapons program that they claim they don’t have and don’t want. Right?

Wrong. This is all about disarming Israel. I can guarantee that the first order of business will be requiring Israel to give up it’s nukes before anyone else does or before anyone else even promises to disarm. Maybe they’ll just start with demanding ‘inspections’. So they can count them I guess.

That’s what this ploy is all about. They have no power over Iran or the other countries pursuing nuclear weaponry. No sanctions have worked so far to deter their pursuit of nuclear weapons. They do think they can bully Israel and thus this conference.

Trouble is, Israel knows this and knows that one of the main reasons that Egypt, Syria, Turkey and maybe even a little bit Iran have only made noises about attacking Israel and have so far only used conventional, limited weaponry is that they surmise (correctly) that Israel would rather turn the ME into a solidified lake of radioactive glass than be exterminated.

Sort of a poor man’s MAD policy.

That doesn’t mean that the cheese eating surrender monkeys in Europe won’t give it a try.

    Never going to happen.

    The “Samson Option” is far too deeply ingrained into the defense subculture in Israel for them to ever agree to such a “nuclear free” region, and there’s no mechanism for imposing it upon Israel by any outside force without Israeli agreement.

    The UN can’t impose such a requirement: it would have to go through the Security Council, where a US veto would be sure to occur. Obama got burned badly by “Squatter Statehood,” he’s not going to touch a political issue that actually has the ability to destroy his presidential reelection chances like disarming Israel with Iran sitting just a few hundred miles away.

    Besides, the Likud party will NEVER stand for it to occur, and even should Labor or the Socialists come to power, Likud will still have enough horsepower to see that disarmament would never be implemented via it’s civil service individuals appointed to the defense industry.

    The cheese eating surrender monkeys, as you correctly refer to them, can hold conferences, talks and speeches all they want. They don’t have any real power over Israel, so there’s no stick, and no carrot is going to entice Israel to do something so foolish as to give up it’s strategic weapons advantage in the face of several dozen hostile countries within spitting distance of it’s borders.

I’m sick of the RINO establishment Republicans dissing everybody but Romney. SICK OF IT!

    The RINOs are going to try to spread the damage around as much as possible, but not to fatally wound any of the other candidates. The more candidates are around, the more likely that Romney becomes the nominee by default, and the lower percentage Romney has to gain. If a couple of candidates drop out (which is likely to happen between now and the second or third primary states), The other candidates become stronger in terms of their support.

    My guess is that Huntsman, Santorum and Gingrich are likely to drop out before “Super Tuesday” in March, probably because they will run out of money. I think they’re still in it just to get matching funds to cover debt, and then they’ll drop.

    Bachmann, I think, will stay in at least past Super Tuesday, because I think she wants to be the next Speaker of the House, and making a good Presidential showing, and then electing another 30 or 40 TEA Partiers to the House will make that happen. But I would be surprised if she stays in past Super Tuesday if she doesn’t do well on that day.

    Paul will stay in it simply because he’s just too dang stubborn to quit, regardless of his standings. He’s used to running a campaign on a shoe-string and a piece of chewing gum.

    Romney, Perry, and now Cain I think are in it for the long haul, unless something drastic changes or one of them horribly bombs on Super Tuesday. That’s going to be the date that separates the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

      Anon Y. Mous in reply to Chuck Skinner. | October 15, 2011 at 12:00 am

      Gingrich is up to 3rd in some polls. Unless that trend reverses, I expect him to hang on until Super Tuesday.

        From the numbers I’ve been seeing, I think that might just be a bad sample or a slightly differently sliced group of the electorate. I’d need to look deeper than I have at the underlying structure and random selection of the poll to be sure, but my guess is that it’s unintentionally North-East heavy.

        It’s entirely possible that I’m wrong, but that just seems to be the way that polls with Gingrich advancing are reading.

        Sometimes even when not by design, you get a slightly skewed sample, and when you’re likely only asking 1000-1100 people at a shot, a small unintended skewing can make a huge difference. I like Gingrich (a Gingrich-Huckabee ticket was my first choice), but from what I’ve seen he’s not doing particularly well.

        My guess is that when he comes in 3rd, or maybe even 4th, in South Carolina after placing 5th or 6th in Iowa he’ll call it quits. The poor showing in Iowa will be campaign strategy, but a poor showing in South Carolina (where he’s making his big push as I understand it) will be fatal to Gingrich’s campaign. Unless he’s developed huge momentum by the time Florida holds it’s primary, I think that he’ll be toast.

        On the other side of the poll reporting, with Herman Cain’s recent meteoric rise, the media HAS to make one of the other ‘low level’ candidates look like he or she is gaining in order to say “well, the race is turning over, the presumed front-runners have lost their footing and once written off candidates are now in the lead” instead of having to report that “Cain’s streamlined message is resonating with the Republican base” and that he’s eating everybody else’s lunch.

          Good analysis, but it is noteworthy that Rasmussen’s latest poll has Gingrich at 10 percent. I think Rasmussen is far better than the others. He takes larger samples and includes only likely voters. I have heard experts say that the other aspects of his polls are also superior.

          I like Cain a lot, but I’m not crazy about the sales tax part of his 9-9-9 plan; it would also be easy for the Democrats to demagogue. As a person and as a campaigner, however, he would be a tough competitor to Obama.

          Despite lots of misgivings about Romney, I’ll vote for him if he’s the only candidate that will beat Obama. I’ll vote for any Republican against Obama.

When did Eric Holder first know about Fast & Furious, aka Gunrunner? You decide after reading Holder’s April 2, 2009 remarks at a conference in Mexico, which was also attended by Janet Napolitano.

“Last week, our administration launched a major new effort to break the backs of the cartels. My department is committing 100 new ATF personnel to the Southwest border in the next 100 days to supplement our ongoing Project Gunrunner, DEA is adding 16 new positions on the border, as well as mobile enforcement teams, and the FBI is creating a new intelligence group focusing on kidnapping and extortion. DHS is making similar commitments, as Secretary Napolitano will detail.

But as today’s conference has emphasized, the problem of arms trafficking will not be stopped at the border alone. Rather, as our experts emphasized, this is a problem that must be met as part of a comprehensive attack against the cartels – an attack in depth, on both sides of the border, that focuses on the leadership and assets of the cartel. “

If the military starts tweeting with hashtags such as #OccupyIraq, #OccupyAfghanistan, #OccupySouthKorea, #OccupyKosovo, etc., will liberals like them more?

Isn’t the Widener story just getting more and more pathetic?

    William A. Jacobson in reply to flop. | October 14, 2011 at 11:35 pm

    I assume you’re referring to this,

      bob aka either orr in reply to William A. Jacobson. | October 15, 2011 at 1:35 am

      Professor, I found it viciously ironic that the attorney representing the “damaged” students is named Gouge. Appropriate.
      Best to you in the new year.

      Quote from the story:

      “The university has both an implicit legal and moral obligation to investigate such charges and defend and indemnify students who bring these types of charges in good faith,” said Widener spokesman Dan Hanson in an interview.

      Doesn’t the exoneration of Prof. Connell in the 52 page “decision” suggest that, at least, the Racial Harassment charges were NOT brought in good faith?

      Either way, it looks like Prof. Connell is now going to get THREE bites at the Widner apple instead of just the one. I wonder if he can bankrupt the school by himself via the lawsuit.

1)Don’t go…if you are a college football fan you will probably enjoy the game more. If not a fan, flip a coin.

2)There isn’t a difference, see #1.

3)Mrs. Perry is another example why spouses should be seen and not heard on the campaign trail.

4)See you in court Eric.

5)A fifth grader with an IQ of 75.

Drum roll……


I like the methodical approach of Liberty . . . here is a second set of answers to all the questions you asked, but with some different views:

1) If I were you, I’d have gone to the #OccupyCornell event, not so much to point out that the eponymous phrase is really little more than a “repetitious redundancy”, but because you will inevitably collect a few great photos of a few of the “anti-objectivist” participants, along with some of their amusing signs, and bumper stickers for your growing collection.

2) I tend to agree with Liberty on this one. There is little difference, though many of these privileged protesters are new recruits.

As Lennox might say today:

. . . I have a file
Of all the gentry: there is Siward’s son,
And many unrough youths that even now
Protest their first of manhood.

3) The attempt to “humanize” Perry by fronting his wife to go out and publicly whine on his behalf was a serious error. If his campaign operatives honestly believe that whining about how unfairly he is being treated is an effective campaign strategy, they should have selected someone who was a little less personally connected to him to undertake that role.

4) The Community Organizer in Chief will be his own undoing. He insisted on keeping the Blackberry, and he has proved all along to be the Great Divider. His first campaign simply never ended, and his attempt to identify with the “occupiers” is a pretty transparent effort to avoid criticism for his administration’s economic failure.

And, with “fast and furious” it is clear that even the obviously very high risk of lost lives simply did not matter to him in undertaking a ham-handed attempt to demonize Americans who take their Second amendment rights seriously.

No AG would ever okay such an operation without a sign-off and some measure of secret ongoing coordination at the highest levels — most likely through the Chief of Staff. This is Obama’s Watergate.

5) He always disliked CLASS, but he needed Ted Kennedy’s support. Kennedy died. The Obama political operatives have concluded that a sufficient period of time has passed, so that it is not seen as dishonoring the memory of the late Senator.

And, therefore, Obama has unilaterally concluded that the law is not the law after all!

Who is surprised by any of this?

Consider this: Not just one (Gov. Purdue) but two (Cong. Jackson) prominent Democrats have now suggested the desirability of the suspension of our constitutional political process — elections — as a way to solve our problems!

Wake up folks! This guy Obama and his rabid band of extra-constitutional followers occupiers really do intend to fundamentally transform the United States of America and to do so — now that the Presidency of Barack Obama has demonstrably failed — by any necessary means!

He is bringing the war home!

    Liberty in reply to Trochilus. | October 15, 2011 at 6:06 pm

    Thanks for the compliments Trochilus. Since my comments were my last sentient thoughts of a long day, I wasn’t as thoughful as you and I, too, liked what you said. Also, I really liked your last point, something that I really haven’t given a lot of thought to and have to agree with in totality. And, not only do you have discerning taste complimenting me ;), but I see you are also a VDH fan too.

    Yours in the Bond,

Last spring, Victor David Hanson rather neatly summarized the completion of the Obama “transformation” of our foreign policy, one which Senator Obama had fought against and opposed on principal at every single turn . . . by “changing” it into what might best be compared to a software upgrade!

“In sum, Senator Obama opposed tribunals, renditions, Guantanamo, preventive detention, Predator-drone attacks, the Iraq War, wiretaps, and intercepts — before President Obama either continued or expanded nearly all of them, in addition to embracing targeted assassinations, new body scanning and patdowns at airports, and a third preemptive war against an oil-exporting Arab Muslim nation — this one including NATO efforts to kill the Qaddafi family. The only thing more surreal than Barack Obama’s radical transformation is the sudden approval of it by the once hysterical Left. In Animal Farm and 1984 fashion, the world we knew in 2006 has simply been airbrushed away.”

As audacious as that was, who can honestly deny that Obama is now trying to get away with bringing war home to the streets of our country by “signing on” with the occupiers?