Uh, yeah. That sounds about right.

Here’s something I don’t get. President Obama is trying to paint the Republicans as the ones who are trying to kick the can down the road. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t they just come to power THIS YEAR? Wasn’t it under Nancy Pelosi’s rule that they decided to not even make a budget because of the soaring debt?? Wasn’t it the Democrats solely in power for a while there, and over the entire Congress even before Obama’s ascension? So, how is this all the Republicans’ fault? That doesn’t make sense to me.

As reported in the Washington Post (and mentioned here), First Lady Betty Ford lamented the days gone by when Republicans and Democrats were friends, when, even if they didn’t see eye to eye, they were able to look past those differences.

Just this morning, I saw Governor John Kasich of Ohio, and he said much the same thing. He served in the U.S. House of Representatives back in the ’90′s. Gov. Kasich offered some advice to his former colleagues about how to deal with this whole budget/debt issue, and had something to say about civility near the end:

I think that sums it up nicely, on both fronts.

What I don’t get is, when did this polarization happen? WHY did it happen? How can we change it back to a more civil discourse, not just in Congress, but among us all? Is it just a lack of impulse control? Sense of entitlement that we can say or do whatever the hell we please? I just don’t get how our discourse has so deteriorated. Something’s gotta give. Maybe a national Miss Manners class is in order…

There’s something else I don’t get about how we treat one another. How is it, in the 21st century, we still have 2 million women battered by their partners each year, and 10 million children at risk because of domestic violence? How is it that we have not dealt with this issue, worked to change attitudes about women to the extent that their partner would never even DREAM of hitting them (or psychologically abuse them)? Or that, at least, these numbers would be greatly decreased?

I raise this because Dr. Phil, at the invitation of Senator Patrick Leahy, will be testifying on Capitol Hill today to request that an Act passed in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act, providing funds for prosecution, requiring restitution, and other issues, be re-authorized (which it was in 2000). Isn’t it sad that in this day and age, the following holds true:

[snip] # According to the U.S. Surgeon General, domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women in the United States.
# The American Medical Association estimates that their male partners assault 2 million American women each year.
# The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that 95% of the victims of domestic violence are women.
# A woman is beaten every 15 seconds in the United States. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, Report to the nation on Crime and Justice. The Data. Washington DC Office of Justice Program, US Dept. of Justice. Oct 1983)
# 35% of all emergency room calls are a result of domestic violence.
# Of those who abuse their partner, well over 65% also physically and/or sexually abuse the children.
# Each day …..4 women die as a result of abuse.
# Each day …..3 children die as a result of abuse.
# The Federal Bureau of Investigation reports that 32% of female homicide victims are killed by their intimate partners. (Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States 1999.2000)
# Anywhere from 1-3 million women are battered each year by their intimate partner. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, Intimate Partner Violence. Washington DC, 2000.)
# In the United States, a woman is more likely to be assaulted, raped, or killed by an intimate partner than by any other type of assailant. (ibid.) [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Here’s the truly tragic aspect of the list above – that is less than a THIRD of all of the issues of violence facing women in this country. Holy shit.

And one more thing I don’t get. How is it that Quinnipiac Poll finds that Obama still holds 50% over Republican challengers? How can that possibly be? After the Stimulus that wasn’t anywhere close to one, the Obamacare Debacle that will cost us big time, Unemployment going up, housing values going down while foreclosures are going up, the number of golf trips of Obamas going up, along with the number of Executive Orders to circumvent that pesky Congress(about which we screamed bloody murder when Bush did it), and the number of lies he tells daily, including about his own mother’s insurance coverage while he was campaigning in 2008 (that one was a DOOZY – using his dying mother for political gain, and lying about it – wow, that speaks VOLUMES about the kind of person he is), and I could go on, and on, and on.

I just don’t get it. Do you?

But you know Nancy Pelosi did not go quietly into that good night, oh, no. She could not just leave the stage gracefully. Rather, she unloaded this piece of fabrication about the work of the House under her leadership before she left:

Say what? We have gone over the $14 TRILLION dollar mark under the complete and total leadership of the Democratic Party, and she is claiming that “Pay as you go” was their mantra? Maybe “Pay as yourselves and your cronies as you go out the door,” but as this Fox News article highlights, she is full of hooey:

[snip] When the Pelosi Democrats took control of Congress on January 4, 2007, the national debt stood at $8,670,596,242,973.04. The last day of the 111th Congress and Pelosi’s Speakership on December 22, 2010 the national debt was $13,858,529,371,601.09 – a roughly $5.2 trillion increase in just four years. Furthermore, the year over year federal deficit has roughly quadrupled during Pelosi’s four years as speaker, from $342 billion in fiscal year 2007 to an estimated $1.6 trillion at the end of fiscal year 2010.

Uh, yeah. Nice attempt at revisionist history there, Nancy, already trying to blame the Republicans for what you and your party did all by their own selves (as we say down South).

But wait, there’s more revisionist history for you ahead. You know how All Of Obama’s Men are talking about the necessity of raising the debt ceiling, to not do so, in Austan Goolsbee’s words would be “insanity” and “catastrophic”?? See for yourself here:

Yes, it would be “catastrophic,” sheer “insanity,” complete folly!!!

Want to guess who was agin’ raising the debt ceiling before he was for it? One guess and you got it – yes, Senator Barack Obama:

[snip]“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”ii [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

I couldn’t agree more with then-Senator Barack Obama – America DOES deserve better.

Yes, it’s a big day as power shifts back to a two-party system, without Speaker Pelosi at the helm. Feel free to discuss your observations on this shift, what you hope to see accomplished with the 112th Congress, or anything else that’s on your mind today.

Home foreclosures are skyrocketing. People are struggling, they are suffering, they continue to lose their homes, and their jobs. The Gulf area has been particularly hard hit, as one can imagine, for an area that depends on fishing and tourism.

Which makes this piece of information all the more maddening.

As you most likely know, the Obamas have been on vacation this weekend. No, no, not to the Gulf Coast, despite both Obamas suggesting regular Americans should go there. No, they went to Maine. But they were not the only ones who went to Maine. Their dog, Bo, also went to Maine. On his own plane. I kid you not (H/t to my friend, Nunly, for providing this link).

Oh, how I wish I was making this up, but it was reported in the local paper there:

Arriving in a small jet before the Obamas was the first dog, Bo, a Portuguese water dog given as a present by the late U.S. Sen Ted Kennedy, D-Mass. and the president’s personal aide Reggie Love, who chatted with Baldacci.[snip] (Baldacci is the governor of Maine.)

Wait – are we being punked? Does Ashton Kutcher own this newspaper or something? How else to explain flying a dog on his OWN jet with a few staffers, including Obama’s personal aide, Reggie Love? Why were they not both with the Obamas?? That just doesn’t make any sense to me. As an animal lover, if I am taking my animals somewhere with me, then they are WITH me. I know these jets had to be smaller than AF 1, but for heavens sake, it isn’t like Bo is some Bull Mastiff or something. Sheesh.

And that makes the following product all the more timely. This video has been cropping up all over the internet this weekend, and for good reason. I consider this a PSA, though the disclaimer is I/we do not endorse or promote any sales of this item. This is purely for entertainment value. And entertaining it is:

I love that it will also remove Obama Bumper Stickers from a Prius. Too funny. And I have to say, I have noticed a lot fewer Obama stickers over the past few months, so clearly there is a market (again, not promoting the product or sales thereof).

After this most recent display of the complete and utter out of touch mentality of the Obamas – both of them – I am guessing I will see fewer Bumper Stickers still. At least, I hope I will. Just another indicator that people are finally coming to their senses in this country, and not a minute too late.

Come on, November…

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bashed White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs Tuesday night, even as the president’s top spokesman continued to backpedal from his assertion that Democrats could lose control of the House in the November election.

“How could [Gibbs] know what is going on in our districts?” Pelosi told her members in the caucus meeting in the basement of the Capitol Tuesday night. “Some may weigh his words more than others. We have made our disagreement known to the White House.”

The hostility escalated when Democratic lawmakers accused the White House of losing the messaging wars. Are some Dem lawmakers implying that if President Obama, Gibbs et al had done a better job of “selling” their non-working policies to the American people, House Dems wouldn’t be facing the prospect of such huge losses in November?

This is a wake up call to Ms. Pelosi and those who stand in lock step with her – If you have a good product – it sells itself.

I think we would prefer better crafted legislation to a better sales pitch. Putting the check mark next to the “DONE” box just to parade around with a giant gavel and goofy smile pasted on your face does not substitute for putting Americans back to work, passing health care legislation that won’t bankrupt the country or passing a stimulus bill that actually stimulates something beyond pet pork projects.

Even Arianna Huffington, a big Obama ally, has complained bitterly that the Wall St. reform package doesn’t go far enough or protect us from “too big to fail.” Then again, she is another political opportunist who has lately taken to agreeing with Tea Party protests and even Sarah Palin. She must be seeing the writing on the wall, too.

It is appalling that Congress does not intend to pass a budget this year — something else they wish to sweep under the rug so as not to damage themselves further in advance of the midterm elections, perhaps. Outrageous spending and a lack of responsiveness to constituents’ concerns is a far more reasonable explanation for the poor prospects of Democrats this fall than President Obama losing the “message wars.” How about winning the competence war and going on a few less vacations?

On Meet the Press on Sunday, here is what Press Secretary Gibbs had to say:

“I think there’s no doubt there are enough seats in play that could cause Republicans to gain control. There’s no doubt about that. This will depend on strong campaigns by Democrats,” Gibbs said on Sunday.

By the next morning, Democratic strategists were fuming privately that he had handed Republicans a great fundraising and voter-motivation tool.

Gibbs and other White House officials have been backpedaling, in carefully measured steps, ever since.

Speaker Pelosi also complained that Obama favors the Senate and helps them in their fundraising efforts far more than he helps the House, which has shown great loyalty to him.

The Senate love fest may be coming to an end as well. Embattled Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid went on the record saying that President Obama is not “firm” or “foreceful enough” with his Republican opposition. This prompted the bellicose Ed Schultz of MSNBC to complain Reid just called the President a “wimp.” The “timing is horrible” says Shultz. No kidding:

Looks like Harry doesn’t feel the wind at his back, given that Sharron Angle is besting him in the polls in Nevada at the moment. Other historically “safe” Senate seats are in trouble as well. Fiorina is polling ahead of Boxer in CA for the first time. Even Russ Feingold’s seat is not quite safe.

Apparently, Ms. Pelosi and her cronies missed the memo on how this politics stuff works.

The President is going to do everything he can to save himself. If that means throwing Congress under the bus so he can have a Republican foil to do battle against, making more of his straw man arguments, then he will. If that helps in his re-election bid, that is Job One.

Did Nancy and Harry think when they threw Hillary under the bus, they were going to be rewarded for it?

These two are not the only Presidents-by-Proxy to find out they are dispensable.

Uh, um, hell yes, there was a big problem with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Rep. Waters.

But wait, there’s more. Here is Rep. Waters revealing her true position on the government’s role in terms of Big Oil:

Okay, okay – I couldn’t resist that version. Too funny. Here is the real version:

Yes, all of that stuttering trying to cover up what she had just said is real. Yowzer.

Now, personally, I think Rep. Waters has demonstrated a complete and utter lack of integrity when it comes to financial issues, judging by her comments on Fannie and Freddie. So have Dodd and Frank, for that matter. That the latter two are the authors of a financial regulatory bill should give great pause to everyone.

So, it really should come as no surprise that now she wants to legislate quotas into the new Dood-Frank Financial Regulatory bill. Oh, how I wish I was kidding. According to this Daily Caller piece, that is exactly what Rep. Waters has done,
Racial Quotas in Dodd-Frank Financial Regulatory Bill:

The Dodd-Frank financial regulatory bill, ostensibly aimed at reforming Wall Street and preventing a future financial crisis, will impose racial and gender quotas on financial institutions if passed, according to economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth.

Section 342 of the bill will establish Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion in at least 20 federal financial services agencies. These offices will be tasked with implementing “standards and procedures to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the fair inclusion and utilization of minorities, women, and minority-owned and women-owned businesses in all business and activities of the agency at all levels, including in procurement, insurance, and all types of contracts.”

So called “fair inclusion” will apply to “financial institutions, investment banking firms, mortgage banking firms, asset management firms, brokers, dealers, financial services entities, underwriters, accountants, investment consultants and providers of legal services.”

The provision goes on to assert that the government will terminate contracts with institutions they deem have “failed to make a good faith effort to include minorities and women in their workforce.” [snip]

Good grief. Quotas? Where does that leave “anti-discrimination” regulations, then? That question is answered here:

The provision goes on to assert that the government will terminate contracts with institutions they deem have “failed to make a good faith effort to include minorities and women in their workforce.”

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, spotlighted the controversial section in an article at Real Clear Markets on June 8th. She told The Daily Caller that the law amounts to a quota system.

“This is a radical shift in employment legislation,” she said. “The law effectively changes the standard by which institutions are evaluated from anti-discrimination regulations to quotas. In order to be in compliance with the law these businesses will have to show that they have a certain percentage of women and a certain percentage of minorities.”

Furchtgott-Roth worries that this might be a harbinger of things to come.

“So what does this mean? Are we going to get rid of anti-discrimination laws all together and just put in quotas? Could this be what’s to come in other sectors?” she questioned. [snip]

Click HERE to read the rest.

Yes, I would say this is a huge departure from anti-discrimination regulations. That a quota system is being buried in this financial regulation shouldn’t really come as a surprise, I guess. But still, it does.

Wow. Has it really been less than two years since the Democrats controlled all three houses? Sure seems longer, especially considering all they have shoved down our throats. Er, I mean, “accomplished.”

And I guess if Rep. Waters gets her way, we’ll have another one shoved down our throats. Yep, pretty soon, quotas for everyone, coming to a business near you soon!! Good grief…

Oh, yeah – Freddie Mac is asking for TEN Billion Dollars. I reckon they just want to add it to their tab:

ABC News’ Matthew Jaffe reports:

Government-backed mortgage giant Freddie Mac today asked for $10.6 billion in additional federal aid after reporting a loss of $8 billion in the first three months of this year.

To date Freddie Mac has been provided with around $51 billion in government funds. The new aid would bring the total assistance to the lender to over $61 billion.

Late last year the Treasury Department essentially agreed to provide a blank check to Freddie Mac and fellow government-backed lender Fannie Mae when the agency controversially removed the cap on federal support for the lenders.

A “blank check”? That is what Geithner wants to give Freddie and Fannie? I reckon that’s what happens when you have someone in charge who can’t even fill out his own tax forms properly (or, as I like to say, a Tax cheat). Some folks aren’t happy about it, though:

Republicans have blasted the administration for that move, as well as for not putting forth a plan to overhaul the government-sponsored enterprises. Thus far the administration’s only action has been the April 14 release of a series of questions for public comment on what to do with the mortgage giants.

In addition, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has acknowledged that the government expects to suffer “very substantial losses” on its investments in the lenders, with recent estimates ranging around a minimum of $85 billion.

Well, that’s just jake – “a minimum of $85 billion.” That’s our money, folks.

And let’s not leave Fannie Mae out of this mix. Oh, no – now Fannie is asking for some more cash, too, a cool for $8.4 Billion more?:

Fannie Mae requested another $8.4 billion from the federal government on Monday, saying that it expects its deficits to continue due to trends in the housing and financial markets.

The government-controlled mortgage giant said it lost $13.1 billion applicable to common shareholders in the first quarter of 2010. In the year-earlier quarter, Fannie suffered a $23.2 billion loss, but an accounting change makes comparing the year-over-year losses difficult.

Fannie’s request for more federal funds comes just four days after Fannie’s twin Freddie Mac also asked for a handout – to the tune of $10.6 billion – after posting an $8 billion quarterly loss.

In using Fannie (FNM, Fortune 500) and Freddie (FRE, Fortune 500) to prop up the mortgage market, the government in December lifted a $200 billion limit on their bailouts, essentially giving the twin housing lenders a blank check. Fannie Mae has already received $76.2 billion from the federal government and Freddie has gotten $50.7 billion.

“In the first quarter, we continued to serve as a leading source of liquidity to the mortgage market, and we made solid progress in our ongoing efforts to keep people in their homes,” Fannie Mae President and CEO Mike Williams, said in a press release.

Just to recap, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were largely responsible for bringing down the housing market (click HERE to read the rest of the article).

Yes, indeedy, so no doubt the new Finance Reform Bill begins with Fannie and Freddie, right? Oh, so wrong. Chris Dodd, who benefited mightily from Fannie Mae and Countrywide says, “Nooooooooo.” Dodd thinks it should wait:

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) said Friday that legislation to address troubled mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will have to come after the current financial-reform effort.

Fannie and Freddie, which are known as “government-sponsored enterprises” (GSEs), have been a lightning rod for criticism of Democrats during the financial reform debate.

Dodd, who is chairman of the Banking Committee and has led the effort to craft a financial regulatory reform bill, said that there was not enough room in the legislation for rules covering Fannie and Freddie.

“Fannie and Freddie and the whole GSE system and it’s a great question and a legitimate one in desperate need of reform,” he said on CNBC. “But candidly there’s only so much I could only take on with this bill, and so that comes up. But not in this round. It’s in the next wave here we have to deal with GSEs.”

Well, sure, that makes sense, right? If you live in Upside-Down World, anyway (click HERE to read the rest). What a glaring, blatant, prop-up for those two entities that have done SO much to destroy the housing market. Unbelievable.

Frankly, I think this is a dereliction of duty on behalf of our Congress people. They refuse to hold accountable the very companies who wreaked havoc with our economy. They are in collusion with them. Even worse, they continue to throw money down the money hole.

I have used this video before, but it seems mighty timely given the requests of Fannie and Freddie (Onion video alert):

In The Know: Should The Government Stop Dumping Money Into A Giant Hole?

If only this were a joke…

“We’re going to have to make some tough choices” about the deficit and national debt, President Obama said to a crowded gymnasium full of supporters at Indian Hills Community College, after a lengthy riff on how the unsustainable debt would need to be tackled.

This, unlike most of what the president said during the town hall meeting, was met with silence.

“I noticed I didn’t get a lot of clapping about the whole ‘We’re gonna have the hard choices’ thing,” the president ribbed the crowd.

The President is ribbing the crowd? Now that’s what I call “The Audacity of Hope.” Half million dollar pizza parties. The most expensive inauguration in history. After this gentleman spent all of last year more than tripling spending (yes, I know, I know, it was all Bush’s fault) now he wants to tell the American people it is time to make some hard choices?

More frustrating than the endless campaigning and political posturing is the notion that the American people are so bloody stupid, they will not leap to the same conclusions I just did. Further, he tells us this stuff as if he just thought of it. Haven’t the tea partiers, for one, been screaming about these very problems for over a year?

Could it be President Obama is not aware why his audience sat on their hands for his remark about “hard choices?” I cannot prove that the people of Ottumwa, Iowa agree with my assessment but perhaps this might be a reason why he did not receive the adulation he is used to and so craves:

It is offensive to be lectured to about fiscal restraint by a man who has been spending taxpayer money like a drunken sailor for the better part of a year and a half, bailing out and covering for reckless companies with reckless management styles that continue to scam the American people, hiding the true cost of the legislation his Congress has been ramming down our throats and promising transparency while delivering the opposite.

The people of Iowa, and the rest of American for that matter, have been practicing plenty of fiscal retraint as they deal with high unemployment, watching their savings dwindle to dangerously low levels amidst an uncertain future with an administration that appears tone deaf as to their problems.

Any President that keeps trying to sell the bill of goods that cap and trade is going to help solve our economic problems instead of finally planting his feet behind the desk to figure out how to put more people back ot work in this country really needs to talk less to the American people – and listen more.

“This will bear on how we think about our federal budget in the future,” [Obama] said. “Everybody dislikes Washington right now, and everybody wants to lower their taxes. Everybody hates waste in government. But at the same time, you know, government does some important things like helping to make sure you’ve got clean drinking water and that your roads aren’t full of potholes.”

Please Mr. President, stop telling me what I hate. I don’t hate taxes. I am more than happy to pay my fair share and do so regularly. I hate when my taxpayerdollars go to bailout out the actions of corrupt actors who are not held to the same rules as I am. I do not hate government. I hate bloated government, local, state and federal, that enjoys no end of perks and bloated salaries and perks. I appreciate the good things that government does, which is why I pay taxes. What I don’t appreciate is the things my tax money is supposed to pay for – like education – gets “borrowed” away and never returned.

Clearly, the President has no idea what I hate which gives me a clear indication of why his policies have nothing to do with the urgent needs of the American people.
Close attention need by paid to the following:

…Earlier in the day, back in Washington, DC, he’d presided over the first meeting of his Debt Commission, which will issue recommendations after the November 2010 elections on ways to reduce the $12.8 trillion national debt.

“I’ve said that it’s important that we not restrict the review or the recommendations that this commission comes up with in any way,” the president said at the meeting. “Everything has to be on the table. …This means that all of you, our friends in the media, will ask me and others once a week or once a day about what we’re willing to rule out or rule in when it comes to the recommendations of the commission. That’s an old Washington game and it’s one that has made it all but impossible in the past for people to sit down and have an honest discussion about putting our country on a more secure fiscal footing. So I want to deliver this message today: We’re not playing that game. I’m not going to say what’s in. I’m not going to say what’s out. I want this commission to be free to do its work.”

Could it be he is not going to give you any details about what is “in it” until after the midterms because if he told you now, all his herd mentality Dems insistently following Pelosi and Reid off a cliff would be voted down this November? Is that why we are not getting a report from the Debt Commision until after that?

In Ottumwa, the president previewed for the crowd that whatever the commission comes up with, “we’re going to have a very tough debate about how to bring down our deficits.”

He continued, “as this debate unfolds, I just want everybody to pay attention to what folks are saying. A lot of times politicians will tell you, ‘I’m going to cut your taxes, I’m going to lower the deficit, I’m going to expand Medicare.’”

Don’t settle for that, the president told the crowd. “Ask every politician when they say they’re going to balance the budget and deal with the deficit: ‘What exactly are you going to cut? What spending are you willing to eliminate? Are you going to eliminate funding for sewers? Are you going to reduce the cost of Medicare? Because there’s no such thing as a free lunch.”

Who the hell out here has been getting a free lunch. The free lunch has gone to the folks at Goldman Sachs, Fannie and Freddie, and GM (who claim they paid back their bailouts — however they did it with other TARP money).

A free lunch? Why does President Obama insist upon being condescending? Beyond his pronouncements from on high about “bitter voters,” this reminds me of candidate Obama’s pronouncement about Democrats and abortion during the campaign. As reported by CBS News:

“The mistake pro-choice forces have sometimes made in the past, and this is a generalization . . . has been to not acknowledge the wrenching moral issues involved,” he said.

Really? Do we not? Telling us what we do and do not like or believe seems to be a pattern.

Reading the other fine print of his statement in Iowa, he wants us to ask other politicians what THEY are going to do – but we cannot ask the President what HE is going to do. “We’re not going to play that game?” All he is doing is playing games, while taxpayers can only look on in frustration and disbelief.

The president said “the way folks talk about it in Washington,” you might think the debt could be solved by reducing waste and abuse, eliminating foreign aid and earmarks. But those are relatively small parts of the budget, he said.

Which “folks” are these, exactly?

“We could eliminate all foreign aid and all earmarks and we’d still have a huge problem, because most of our budget goes to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and defense spending, about 70 percent of the budget. Everything else we do is only about 30 percent of the budget. So this is going to be a tough bunch of choices that we gotta make here.”

Okay – so here is the bitter pill to swallow – get ready folks. Here come the cuts! So that if you have been paying in to Medicare, as my mother has, for example, in her 50 years in the work force, you can expect less. Presidents like to point toward Social Security’s impending insolvency without mentioning part of the reason it is in trouble is because government keeps borrowing money from it that they do not put back.
Remember his economic advisor Austan Goosbee talked about privatizing Social Security? Do not be surprised if you hear rumbings next year, too – the same rumblings President Bush made several years ago. Now I ask you – would you want the private sector – otherwise known as Wall Street crooks – playing with your dough while you’re busy keeping the roof over your head and don’t have enough time to daily monitor their shenanigans?

“I just want everybody to be prepared” for this debate, which will take place over the next couple years. “Remember when I was running for office, I said I will not just tell you what you want to hear, I would tell you what you needed to hear. And you needed to hear that we’re going to have some hard choices about our deficit.”

Oh, that was my favorite comment of all. I have never heard a bigger pile of horse hooey! And that is saying something. He told everybody what they wanted to hear out on the campaign trail – unicorns and giant popsicles. But little else.

Is there anyone with the courage to stand up and insist that this President start telling the truth? The press has already proven themselves to be, almost uniformly, nothing more than notches on his bedpost, cowed from speaking up for fear of a lack of access, which would mean a loss of their $5 million dollar book deals.

Who is speaking for us?

Thank you. Rant over.

“We have repeatedly sought your departments’ cooperation,” they wrote. “Our efforts have been met with delay, the production of little that was not already public and shifting reasons for why the departments are withholding [information] that we have requested.”

Before he went on his terrorist rampage, Hasan was in regular e-mail contact with Anwar al-Awlaki, the US-born imam who ministered to at least three 9/11 hijackers as well as the would-be Christmas Day underwear bomber.

Indeed, FBI and Army investigators reportedly intercepted those e-mails, and also knew that he’d been heard making statements justifying suicide bombing.

“Given the warning signals about Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s extremist radicalism,” ask Lieberman and Collins, “why was he not stopped before he took 13 American lives?”

Why not, indeed?

That is the question – why WON’T Holder and Gates provide the information the Senate needs to fulfill its duty? I am sure this will be dragging out for a while.

Then I reported that Gov. Rendell claimed the Tea Party is not a legitimate movement, basically asserting that its “popularity” is simply the result of positive media coverage. After I picked my jaw up off the floor at such an incredibly ridiculous statement based on FACTS, I found numerous instances of the media covering the Tea Party, but it was far from positive.

I was not the only one to refute this ridiculous claim, though, A Tea Party member, who is also a DJ, had this to say about Gov. Rendell’s statement:

Uh, yeah. I might add, I was reminded by Karen For Hillary that Rendell had also tried to found an Anti-PUMA group during the election, one he termed, H.O.U.N.D. (thanks, Ani, for acronym). Get it? Ahem. Yeah, he needs some rehab from that Obama Kool Aide.

And while I am on the topic of the media, and the way it covers events, how about the coverage of the AZ protesters of the new Immigration law v. Tea Party coverage:

So Anti-Immigration protesters are heaving full water bottles at police officers, some are being arrested, and this is a PEACEFUL protest? Wow.

Finally, there is this call to violence by Slate’s David Plotz:

Plotz acknowledged that he was indeed calling for violence (isn’t that a crime? “Inciting a riot” is what it sounds like to me, though I’m no lawyer). Moreover, when asked if he wanted to burn people in effigy, he made it clear that “in effigy” was NOT his plan.

Can you imagine, can you JUST imagine, if ANYONE in the middle or the right issued such a call?? Ohmygosh, they would have the FBI at their door tout de suite.

I might add, Plotz is clearly uninformed – there IS a populist uprising in progress in this country right now. It’s the TEA PARTY. Whether you agree with it or not, that is exactly what it is – a populist uprising against wasteful spending, taxation, and government expansion. You’d think someone who was in the news business would be aware of that. Ahem.

Stay tuned – I am sure there will be more to add in the coming days!

According to CNN, when it comes to the passage of the new health care bill…

[Billy] Wharton, co-chair of the Socialist Party USA, sees no reason to celebrate. He’s seen people with bumper stickers and placards that call Obama a socialist, and he has a message for them: Obama isn’t a socialist. He’s not even a liberal.

“We didn’t see a great victory with the election of Barack Obama,” Wharton says, “and we certainly didn’t see our agenda move from the streets to the White House.”

Obama’s opponents have long described him as a socialist. But what do actual socialists think about Obama? Not much, says Wharton.

And here is where CNN shares a doozy and my second favorite line of the entire article. According to Mr. Wharton:

“He’s the president whose main goal is to protect the wealth of the richest 5 percent of Americans.”

Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding !!!! Bingo! You win the prize. Corporate bailouts. Crony capitalism. “Too big to fail policies” that encourage Wall Street thugs who have been reckless to continue said behavior knowing they will get bailed out when they fail again. A health insurance plan to benefit Big Insurance and Big Phrma, bailing out mis-managed car companies….

Mr. Obama is a corporatist.

One of his biggest economic advisors is Austan Goolsbee (um, the guy who wants to privatize Social Security). I said it when President Bush was trying to do the same thing – do you want some of these Wall Street ganeffs (crooks) managing your hard earned dough and playing Ponzi schemes with your retirement?

The following should be of interest:

[Wharton] and others say the assertion that Obama is a socialist is absurd.

“It makes no rational sense. It clearly means that people don’t understand what socialism is.”

Definitions of socialism vary, but most socialists believe workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own or control them.

Not all socialists, though, want to confiscate personal property. Democratic Socialists are more interested in protecting ordinary people from unregulated capitalism through regulation and progressive taxation.

Some of the socialist agenda is already part of American life, according to Wharton and others.

Social Security, Medicare, unemployment benefits — all reflect socialistic values, says Van Gosse, an associate professor of history at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, who has researched socialist movements in the United States and Latin America.

The widely accepted notions of public education and Pell Grants for college students are socialistic in origin, Gosse says. They fit well with the socialistic premise that government should provide basic security from the cradle to the grave to all of its citizens, he says.

“We assert that education should not be left up to the private market — where those who can pay, get it and those who can’t, don’t get it,” Gosse says. “It’s a common good and in that sense it is a socialistic institution even if the U.S. remains a capitalist nation.”

Socialists are not happy with the recent 2,700 page health insurance reform bill…

They don’t applaud the passage of the recent health care bill either. They wanted a national “single-payer” health insurance plan with a government option. The bill that Obama championed didn’t have any of those features.

Wharton said the new health care bill only strengthens private health insurance companies. They get 32 million new customers and no incentive to change — something a socialist wouldn’t accept.

“Most of it was authored by the health care industry,” Wharton says. “I call it the corporate restructuring of health care.”

BINGO!! And in regard to The Obama administrations actions re the banks, just like Bush before him:

Other critics point to Obama’s Wall Street bailout — which actually had its roots in the Bush administration. Critics say it’s socialistic for government to assume control of private industry.

Frank Llewellyn, national director of the Democratic Socialists of America, says the bailout had nothing to do with socialism.

Llewellyn says a socialist leader would have at least nationalized some of the troubled banks.

“He gave them [the banks] too much with no strings attached,” Llewellyn says. “Banks that were too big to fail are bigger, and they can still fail.”

How about Obama’s bailout of the Detroit auto industry? During the bailout, the federal government assumed partial ownership of General Motors.

“It’s not socialism,” Llewellyn says. “The mere fact that the government owns something or has a stake in it, doesn’t make it socialist. If that was true, you would say that we have a socialist army. The government owns the army.”

Here’s where it gets interesting:

Defining socialism is complex, Llewellyn says, but it starts with a simple goal: Socialists want to introduce democratic features into the economy to reduce inequality.

The economy has “to be run for the overall benefit of the entire population, not for the benefits of a very few people.”

By that measure, Obama’s economic policies are not socialist, he says.

Many here at NoQuarter have long maintained that Presidents Obama and Bush are mirror images of each other. Mr. Llewellyn’s comments go some distance in making that point.

A tea party member had this to say in response:

“The role of government is to provide a safe environment to conduct business, not to take from one and give to the other,” says Quagliaroli, a financial planner who lives in Woodstock, Georgia.

Quagliaroli was not persuaded by the arguments of other socialist leaders who reject the idea that Obama is a socialist.

“He’s just not socialist enough for them.”

Quagliaroli says he doesn’t like socialism because it breeds mediocrity and encourages people to “live on the dole.” Capitalism “breeds excellence” because it encourages initiative, he says.

I have likewise heard other heretofore compassionate people becoming judgmental over the lifestyles of others, particularly if they are reckless, since we are now going to have to subsidize them. If “spreading the wealth acround” means I have lived by the rules my whole life and now have to bail out those who haven’t — no, I don’t like that either.

And now we come to my favorite line in the entire article – this ought to have heads exploding all over the country:

The argument over Obama’s ideology may rage on, but at least one socialist says another prominent politician ought to be inserted into the debate.

Llewellyn, the national director of the Democratic Socialists of America, says he was struck by one player in the 2008 presidential elections who displayed more socialistic leanings than Obama.

This candidate raised taxes on the big oil companies, and sent the revenue to the people.

If you want to learn something about spreading the wealth, Llewellyn says, don’t look to Obama.

“To be honest, the most socialist candidate in the 2008 election was Sarah Palin.”

Hmmm. Well, at least that gives the lie to lefties claiming Sarah Palin is some sort of reactionary.

I think the reason so many keep calling President Obama a socialist is that they don’t know how to term his political philosophy. Perhaps because the only one he seems to have is the one that is going to get him re-elected – namely putting money in the pockets of the groups who have the most dough to spend on his campaign.

His supporters didn’t want to admit it, but he got more money from Wall Street than any other candidate. Fannie and Freddie, Unions, Big Insurance, Big Phrma likewise helped put him over the top – burying all comers in an avalanche of money. His policies most seem to benefit them. Not us. Even the rumblings we are hearing about proposed regulatory reform in the banking industry leave me doubtful anything will be imposed that has real teeth. This health care plan was more or less written by insurance companies for their own benefit. How can we believe anything else that comes out of this administration is going to be for the benefit of those on the street?

Frankly, I’m not sure what name to give what is coming out of this White House but it sure seems to continue the idea that an elite few create policies that most benefit themselves, and we are told to sit down, shut up and take what’s left over.

What would you call it?

Did you catch that? Our federal debt will exceed 100% of our GDP. Um, that’s a bit of a problem, folks. And ten years is not that far away, either.

Democratic officeholders should be afraid.

Republican officeholders, too.

For many a year now, officeholders of both major parties have worked hard to earn the distrust of ordinary Americans. It appears that they finally have succeeded.

If only ordinary Americans hadn’t been so inattentive. If only ordinary Americans hadn’t been so trusting. If only ordinary Americans hadn’t been so damnably nice, the country would be in a better position to manage its finances today. [snip]

Better late than never, a lot of ordinary Americans are waking up to the sobering reality that there really is no one they can trust. Not Democrats. Not Republicans. Not government. Not corporations. And certainly not corporations in league with government.

The people who are angry today are more in tune with this nation’s founders than ordinary Americans have been in decades.

While there are those who make fun of a few tea partiers dressing up in costumes reminiscent of our founding fathers, those costumes are designed to make a point:

The United States has an intricate system of checks and balances, and a government structure based on a separation of powers, and a Bill of Rights that safeguards the rights of states and the rights of the people precisely because the greatest collection of political talent and philosophical insight ever assembled on this continent — and maybe anywhere on this planet — looked at the concept of government and said, “We need to make a really small cage for this thing, then be careful not to overfeed it.”

We seem to have lost the care-and- feeding instructions about a century ago. We let government out of its little cage and it has been consuming everything it can lay its paws on ever since. In the last 45 years, it has been on a real binge, and in the last year and a half, it has taken bigger bites than a lot of people thought possible.

Ordinary Americans who care about freedom are finally getting a clue and — horrors! — they’re hollering at members of Congress. That’s right: Nice, trusting, formerly inattentive Americans are getting in the faces of the political class and calling them names.

…If members of the political class are too tender to endure a little well-earned rudeness from the people whose hard-earned money they like to “spread around,” then they ought to get out of politics. Maybe their successors will find the voice of the people less irritating.

While O’Brien is correct in stating that this righteous anger needs to be expressed without violence, he also states that this administration and our media as taking to shutting down criticism with tactics of demonization (just like the administration before it):

Don’t doubt for a second that the left is hoping desperately for someone to step all the way out of line. They thought they had their man — and early news reports said they did — when Joseph Stack crashed his Piper Dakota into an IRS building in Texas.
As it turned out, Stack proved to be a Marx-quoting lefty — the wrong flavor of nut.

So the left has to settle for a little name-calling of its own: “ignorant,” “racist,” “homophobes,” “hooligans,” “extremists.” The list, as you know, goes on and on.

It’s bunk, but it’s the script.

Tea Party folks are just patriots worried, with good reason, about the future of the country they love. They’re vocal and they’re inspiringly unaffiliated.

They scare the hell out of both political parties, because they’ve embraced distrust.

The Democrats fear them because they see through the left’s empty promise of utopia in exchange for freedom. The Republicans fear them because they’re pushy and because they’re loyal to their principles rather than to a party.

They make everyone uncomfortable. That’s healthy.

While I’ve never been to a tea party protest, I got good and angry when the bailouts started at the end of 2008 and the pork laden non useful Stimulus package passed in 2009 and the bailouts of car companies that couldn’t run themselves properly happened, too. The 2700 page health care monstrosity, whose ugly details are now just coming to light, was the last straw.

I was taught to play by the rules only to discover my taxpayer dollars were used to bail out those using our investments as a giant ponzi scheme. And too many politicans who exempt themselves from the rules and policies we are expected to follow take pork for their districts as an inducement to continue to sell taxpayers down the river.

So crooks and liars are rewarded for their folly while the rest of us are told to pay the bill – and keep playing by the rules. That is but one reason for the groundswell of anger sweeping the country.

What are yours?

The DOW continues to be on the rise, which is certainly some good news, particularly for investors. Unfortunately, that is not translating into new jobs. Quite the opposite, in fact. For the second week in a row, first time unemployment benefits have risen, this week close to half a million (484,000), a rise of 24,000.

But there is another new high, and this one is troubling indeed. Home foreclosures have had their biggest increase in five years:

A record number of U.S. homes were lost to foreclosure in the first three months of this year, a sign banks are starting to wade through the backlog of troubled home loans at a faster pace, according to a new report.

RealtyTrac Inc. said Thursday that the number of U.S. homes taken over by banks jumped 35 percent in the first quarter from a year ago. In addition, households facing foreclosure grew 16 percent in the same period and 7 percent from the last three months of 2009.

Holy smokes. Now is the time when Democrats will blame Bush and the Republicans, as if they have not been in power for over three years. Even more than that, though, is how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were run by Democrats. THAT is one of the single biggest issues that led to our current economic crisis, as I have noted before. Now there is this editorial weighing in on this, too, particularly in light of oversight: How Fannie and Freddie Foiled Regulators.

The headline sets the stage for how that was able to happen:

Mismanagement of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and obstruction of their regulators by Congress and successive presidential administrations played a pivotal role in creating and then bursting the housing bubble at the heart of the economic meltdown of 2008, according to testimony of officials before the congressionally chartered Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. Rather than offer a serious discussion of how to reform the two government-sanctioned enterprises (GSEs), however, President Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress are only offering legislation to punish bank CEOs and stiffen regulations for private sector banks.

In 2006, Dan Mudd, then Fannie Mae’s chief operating officer, wrote in an e-mail to Chief Executive Officer Franklin Raines that the GSE desperately needed reform because “the old political reality was that we always won, we took no prisoners … we used to… be able to write, or have written, rules that worked for us.” Mudd’s e-mail was cited in testimony last week before the FCIC by James B. Lockhart, who in 2006 was acting director of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), the GSE watchdog. Lockhart said OFHEO’s regulatory authority was inadequate because “[Fannie and Freddie] could borrow so cheaply and at unlimited amounts to fund their portfolios because their lenders and rating agencies applied no market discipline.”

Remember Franklin Raines? His name may be familiar to you not for his involvement with housing, but it sure should from his involvement with Barack Obama. Yep, Obama sought advice from Raines on housing while running his campaign. They are buddies.

Back to the editorial:

Lockhart told the FCIC that before the housing bubble burst, he recognized that the GSEs faced serious credit risks and recommended freezing Freddie’s portfolio. That recommendation ran into “quite intense” pushback, according to Lockhart. The neutered watchdog could barely enact any reform at all, he said: “OFHEO was regulating two of the largest and most systematically important U.S. financial institutions and yet its powers were much weaker than bank or even state insurance regulators … OFHEO did not have all the necessary powers to deal with these giant housing enterprises.”

Armando Falcon, Lockhart’s predecessor at OFHEO, told the FCIC that when the understaffed regulator needed additional resources to conduct a special examination of Fannie Mae’s accounting practices, “we encountered more difficulty and delay. Fannie’s lobbyists were on the Hill spreading misinformation about my motives and asserting that the special exam was unnecessary.” Whenever faced with a report with negative connotations about the companies, Fannie’s supporters would launch an assault on OFHEO — from a full investigation of the group to demanding Falcon’s resignation.

So now the question is whether the FCIC will name names in its forthcoming report of those in Congress and the executive branch who protected and advanced Fannie and Freddie, at grievous expense to American taxpayers.

No wonder our housing market is in such dire straits. No wonder our economy is in such dire straits. That companies of this magnitude can be SO mishandled, and receive so little oversight, is mind boggling. And now Obama is going to have the government, the same one that oversaw Fannie and Freddie, oversee our HEALTH CARE?

So, let’s recap: DOW up, yay! Unemployment up, BOO! Home Foreclosures up, BAD! And Debt spiraling out of control with Obama & Co. wanting to spend more and more and more, VERY BAD!!!!

I didn’t use to buy the whole “Tax and Spend Democrats” meme, but there is nothing like cold, hard reality to change a saying to a truism. Yep, we’re in for a world of hurt, alright, and the current Administration seems completely tone deaf to the grave issues facing our nation. Obama will continue hosting summits like this nuclear one that end up accomplishing essentially nothing, talking a lot, but saying nothing, and ignoring the glaring warning signs.

Hold onto your wallets, folks, it’s gonna be a bumpy ride…

UPDATE: Kenoshamarge provided the following video which clearly highlights the problems going on with Fannie and Freddie SIX YEARS ago. The Democrats stonewalled the regulators at every turn:

2004 – Dems Refuse to Reform Freddie & Fannie
Uploaded by Ibn-Khaldun.

Wow – and did you catch Maxine Waters defending “Frank” Raines? And how about Barney Frank denying there is anything wrong? Holy cow. This pretty much says it all. Fannie Mae didn’t follow the rules then, and we are paying for it now…

The Heat Is On. We May Get Burned. Political rage is a national problem, not a partisan one.

So where are we? In a dangerous place, actually.

Politics is a rough arena, and understandably so, for our politicians tell us more and more how to order our lives. Naturally there will be resistance, and strong opposition. We have a long history of hurly-burly debate, and we all know examples the past 200 years of terrible things said and done. Capitol tour guides enjoy showing the stain on the marble steps supposedly left by the blood of Sen. Charles Sumner, beaten half to death on the floor of the senate in 1856 by Rep. Preston Brooks, who wielded a thick gold-tipped cane. So we’ve had our moments.

But it’s a mistake not to see something new, something raw and bitter and dangerous, in the particular moment we’re in.

Steny Hoyer, the House majority leader, this week announced that 10 congressional Democrats have recently been menaced and threatened with violence, and that they found it necessary to meet with the FBI and Capitol Police. A congressman apparently said a casket had been left near his home; a congresswoman reportedly said she was worried for the safety of her children.

This is all completely believable.

Democratic officials are right to call attention to what they believe is a growing threat. It is a truly terrible thing. But it would be deeply unhelpful for the Democrats to use this story as a mere political opportunity, as a way to undermine opposition to ObamaCare by painting opponents as dangerous and unhinged. That would only inflame the country, and in any case is not true. The truth is this sickness works both ways.

Indeed. It is unacceptable that a member of Congress has to fear for the safety of her children. That just should not happen. But the casket was not left on the lawn of a Congressman:

The coffin, in fact, was used as a prop at a prayer vigil on Mar. 21 to symbolize the “loss of freedom and the loss of lives due to government medical rationing,” said the activists.

Back to Noonan:

There probably isn’t a Republican leader who has not the past few years been menaced, and in exactly the same ways as the Democrats. Thursday I asked a staffer for a congressman who is a significant and respected opponent of the health-care bill if he had ever been threatened. Yes indeed. “Over the years and as recently as yesterday,” both the congressman and his staff “have received countless threats—both threats of violence and of death. These come in the form of letters, faxes, emails, phone calls, and voice-mail messages. We’ve had the front window smashed in at one of our district offices. Rather than call TV crews or the Washington Post, we report threats to the proper authorities, and move on. We’d take issue with the recent narrative that conservatives are disproportionately hostile, prone to violence or whatever message the left is pushing these days. They have anecdotes, we have anecdotes.”

Even columnists and pundits have anecdotes. Just about everyone in public life on whatever level gets threats now.

Here’s the tenor and tone of the moment:

Under the news story on Mr. Hoyer’s statement on the Yahoo! news site on Thursday, there was a lengthy comment thread, with more than 800 people offering their thoughts. “An American Hitler might be in the making who would purge the leftists,” said one, who of course didn’t use his or her name. “Republicans are criminals and terrorists,” said another. “Republicans . . . are thugs, scoundrels and rascals.” And: “What did they expect when they . . . went against the American people and are FORCING this bill on us.” “It’s what happens before the revolution . . . people are frustrated over not being heard . . . let the battle begin.”

Here, edited for a family newspaper, are some of the recorded telephone messages left on the answering machine of Rep. Bart Stupak. These are messages left by individuals who appear to be pro-life activists—that is, people who have put themselves on the line to support generous and compassionate treatment of the unborn.

“I hope you bleed out your ___, get cancer and die.” “You will rue the day. . . . I hope you’re haunted the rest of your living day. . . . We think you’re a devil. . . . The country loathes you.” “You are one big piece of human ____. There are people across the country who wish you ill, and all of those thoughts projected on you will materialize into something that’s not very good for you. Go to hell, you piece of ____.”

These are people whose professed mission it is to save children. Whatever else these particular individuals are, they are people whose nerves have been rubbed raw.

There is no excuse for that kind of behavior, to be sure. It does not further dialogue, it does not engender good will, and it sure doesn’t help to prove one’s point. But Noonan is right – people’s nerves are frayed, and too close to the surface:

Responsible leaders on all levels of American life ought to stop, breathe in, and see the level of anger and agitation that’s rippling through the country. Both sides should try to cool it, or something bad is going to happen. In fact I am struck now by how, when I worry aloud about this and say to a conservative or a liberal, a Republican or a Democrat, that I fear something bad is going to happen, no one disagrees. No one says, “Don’t worry, it’s nothing.” They say—again, left, right and center: “I’m afraid of that too.”

What I keep thinking of is a beehive. A modern, high tech, highly politicized democracy is a busy beehive, and sometimes the bees are angry, and sometimes someone comes by and sticks a big sharp stick in the hive. The biggest thing Washington should do right now is stop it, stop poking the stick.

The beehive was already angry about a million things a year ago, and most of those things, obviously, were not the fault of the administration. People are angry at their economic vulnerability. They are angry at the deterioration of our culture, angry at our nation’s deteriorating position in the world, at our debts and deficits, our spending and taxing, our threatened security in a world of weapons of mass destruction. Their anger is stoked by cynical politicians and radio ranters and people who come home at night, have a few drinks, and spew out their rage on the comment thread. It’s a world full of people always cocking the gun and ready to say, if things turn bad, “But I didn’t tell anyone to shoot!”

And yes, this mood, this anger, has only been made worse by this yearlong, enervating, exhausting, enraging fight over health care. The administration is full of people who are so bright, and led by one who is very bright, and yet they have a signal failure: They do not know what time it is. They cannot see how high the temperature is. They cannot for the life of them understand that they raise it.

Okay, I could so say something right now about how BRIGHT Obama and his Administration people are alleged to be, but for this once, I’ll bite my tongue:

What we need now in our leaders is the knowledge that there is so much that is tearing us apart as a nation and that the great project now is to keep us together, to hold us together as much as possible, because future trends will be to come apart, and for many reasons. To come apart because we’re no longer held close and firmly by the old glue of appreciation for a common heritage, history and culture; to come apart because we’re a country that increasingly feels there are people in the cart and people pulling the cart, and the latter are increasingly overwhelmed and fearful; coming apart because we’re now in at least our second generation of young, lost, unguided children with no fully functioning parent in their lives, kids being raised by a microwave and a TV set. All of these things weigh and grate.

They are all, of course, too big and complicated to be adequately dealt with in a year or even a decade. But one immediate thing can be done right now, and that is: lower the temperature. Any way you can, and everybody. Just lower it.

I cannot disagree with Ms. Noonan. I, for one, would love to see some civility in political (and other) discourse, a cessation of demonizing the other side to make ourselves feel superior. Even worse, to taunt and belittle the other side, as we have seen so much of these past few years.

But articles like this one, “In The Faces Of Tea Party Shouters, Images of Hate And History,” by Colbert I. King. I won’t include it all here, but this should give you an idea:

The angry faces at Tea Party rallies are eerily familiar. They resemble faces of protesters lining the street at the University of Alabama in 1956 as Autherine Lucy, the school’s first black student, bravely tried to walk to class.

Those same jeering faces could be seen gathered around the Arkansas National Guard troopers who blocked nine black children from entering Little Rock’s Central High School in 1957.

“They moved closer and closer,” recalled Elizabeth Eckford, one of the Little Rock Nine. “Somebody started yelling, ‘Lynch her! Lynch her!’ I tried to see a friendly face somewhere in the crowd — someone who maybe could help. I looked into the face of an old woman and it seemed a kind face, but when I looked at her again, she spat on me.”

Those were the faces I saw at a David Duke rally in Metairie, La., in 1991: sullen with resentment, wallowing in victimhood, then exploding with yells of excitement as the ex-Klansman and Republican gubernatorial candidate spewed vitriolic white-power rhetoric.

People like that old woman in Little Rock, the Alabama mob that hounded Autherine Lucy, the embracers of Duke’s demagoguery in Louisiana, never go away.

It gets worse from there:

Hence, an explanation for the familiarity of faces: today’s Tea Party adherents are George Wallace legacies.

They, like Wallace’s followers, smolder with anger. They fear they are being driven from their rightful place in America.

Holy cow. Talk about stoking the fires of hatred and division. I do not consider myself a Tea Party member or anything, but I find this article to be exceedingly offensive. Never mind that the majority of Tea Party members are women, but to equate them with such a painful time in our history, without founding, is obscene. I don’t think Mr. King is going to be one of the ones turning down the heat, if this article is any indication.

Neither will this man. The problem with him, though, is he isn’t just a columnist for a newspaper. He’s the President of the United States:

Well, when you have that kind of rhetoric coming from Obama, it is hard to expect any of his followers to tone it down, either.

Of course I am not saying it is only those on the left who need to ratchet it back, but I do find it interesting that Tea Party members are depicted as racist, homophobic lunatics because they feel government has gotten too large (and it has under Obama, as well as spending way too much money on TARP, programs, and even the increase of federal employees making six-figure incomes during this economic downturn). They have good reasons for their discontent. Calling them names and depicting them as horrible people for their use of Constitutional rights is extremely harmful.

And while the Tea Party members are being belittled by the other side, people raging against the war, or marching for Gay Rights, or against the World Bank, etc., are depicted as perfectly sane, as Jonah Goldberg pointed out recently. I guess it’s all a matter of spin, and right now, the message being put out is that ANYONE who opposes Obama for any reason whatsoever is a racist, homophobic, nutjob. While that may entertain Obama’s followers, it demonizes half of the country, and does a grave disservice by attempting to silence their speech.

That, as Peggy Noonan pointed out, doesn’t help. It doesn’t foster understanding, respect for differing opinions, or civility in discourse or action, as the egging of a Tea Party bus this weekend exemplifies. It needs to stop. The media needs to stop depicting people who think differently from them as a bunch of hillbilly yahoos, and OBAMA needs to stop depicting people who don’t support his policies, be they Republicans, Independents, or true Democrats, in such an “Us v. THEM” way, fanning the flames of intolerance and division. I agree with Noonan – this needs to stop, and it needs to stop before the anger spills over in ways we don’t want to see, by both sides and the middle. And it can happen none too soon…

Lady de Rothschild has continued to stay in the political landscape, and has the following post in The Daily Beast. What a post it is:

Obama’s shortcomings were eminently foreseeable, says one of McCain’s most prominent Democratic backers. Lynn Forester de Rothschild on how the president’s fake bipartisanship could never hide his true leftist agenda.

The failures of the Obama presidency were clearly telegraphed by the Obama candidacy. I hate to say it, but I told you so.

Back in September 2008, as a lifelong Democratic Party loyalist and activist, I backed John McCain; I told The New York Times, “I love my country more than my party.” Supporting a Republican was the last thing I expected to be doing in the fall of 2008. But I knew it was my only choice, given the decision by the Democratic Party establishment to reject 18 million voters in favor of the inexperienced and ideological Barack Obama.

His cynical use of centrist language as a tool to get elected does not change the fact of his true objectives for America.

After watching President Obama in office for more than a year, it is clear to me that, during the campaign, we already knew what kind of president he would become.

Yes, most of us DID know what kind of president Obama would become, hence why so many of us supported Clinton:

The health-care summit vividly demonstrated Mr. Obama’s fake bipartisanship. When he was a candidate, we celebrated when he said, “We are not red or blue states. We are the United States of America.” But candidate Obama had no record of bipartisan behavior. Ironically, the one time that Obama entered into a bipartisan effort was with, of all people, John McCain. He reached across the aisle to draft ethics reform legislation with Senator McCain. But when Obama returned to the Democratic establishment with a bill that did not meet their favor, he backed away fast. It was candidate McCain who had worked productively and regularly with Democrats, like with Russ Feingold on campaign-finance reform and Ted Kennedy on immigration. The record told me more than the rhetoric about which candidate would honestly respect the other side and reach across the aisle to find the best solutions for America.

Perhaps the biggest fabrication of the Obama candidacy was his claim of being a centrist. Sure, he made promises during the campaign that pleased moderates. He promised “the elimination of capital gains taxes for small business,” a $3,000 refundable tax credit to existing businesses for every additional employee hired through 2010, removal of penalties for early withdrawal of 401(k) savings during the recession, and no administration jobs for lobbyists. Perhaps the best of all was the promise he made in the Mississippi presidential debate when he said, “We need earmark reform. And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.” They were specific, sensible promises—ones that enabled him to mislead the electorate about his real plans for America.

Oh, sure he would. Many of us knew Obama would give the same kind of attention to the issues that came before him as he did while an IL Senator (“Present!”) or as a US Senator (“I changed my mind!” like he apparently did in regard to a promise made to John McCain), and so many more (remember FISA, for instance?). Ahem. Some of us were paying attention, though:

Again, I chose to look beyond the rhetoric to the record. At the time, it was obvious that a candidate who won the primary because of the left would be beholden to the left, no matter what promises he made to get elected. It was also obvious to ask what kind of president would have voted “present” on 129 difficult votes while in the Illinois State Senate. He was always thinking about how to keep every constituency happy; how to maintain his viability for the White House. In The Audacity of Hope, he criticized Bill Clinton for giving too much respect to Ronald Reagan. He asked the Democratic Leadership Council, the centrist Democratic group, to remove his name from their lists.

So if he wasn’t going to be a centrist Democrat in the tradition of Bill Clinton, what did Barack Obama want from his presidency, should he be elected? He told us from the beginning. It was a stunning agenda, but it seemed innocuous, even inspiring, during the campaign. Standing on the steps of the old Illinois State Capitol, announcing his candidacy for president, Obama declared he was running “not just to hold an office, but to gather with you to transform a nation.” Suddenly now everyone is worried he is trying to transform America. He had said so all along. His is an effort to make a bigger, more intrusive and more costly government. His hope is, and has always been, to turn the country into a nation that looks more like a European social democracy. He ignores that the roots of our strength have always been small government and a dynamic private sector, fostered by both Democrats and Republicans. His cynical use of centrist language as a tool to get elected does not change the fact of his true objectives for America. It is telling that under Obama’s presidency, according to Sunday’s CNN Poll, 37 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of independents and 70 percent of Republicans see the federal government as a threat to the rights of Americans.

Holy crapoli. There are some pretty bad numbers, especially for the “Transformational King” that was supposed to be Obama, especially this soon. Again, “We Told You So:

Our central problem is that the combination of his grandiloquence and the September 2008 financial crisis led to his election. Now, the only way to stop him in the next three years is through voter pressure on Congress. One course is to follow Massachusetts and just elect any Republican. But both parties lack courageous leaders who will fight for the values and policies of the middle. We need a movement of the militant middle; millions of voters who support the sensible policies from both parties. This would give Democrats political cover to stand up to Obama, Pelosi, and Reid and Republicans the backbone to acknowledge that the country must progress in order to be strong. Most Americans see a false choice between a smaller government and a progressive country. We must have both. It is our only hope. (Lady de Rothschild is chief executive of E.L. Rothschild LLC, a private investment company. She is a director of the Estee Lauder Cos. and The Economist Newspaper Ltd.)

Interesting points by Lady de Rothschild, don’t you think? Here she is explaining why she said, “Told You So”:

I love this woman – an excellent role mode during Women’s History Month. I think she is fantastic – so eloquent, so knowledgeable, so diplomatic, so RIGHT, especially about Bill Clinton, and SO right about Barack Obama. Told you so…

“This isn’t how responsible families do their budgets. When times are tough, you tighten your belts,” Obama said, according to a White House transcript of his appearance Tuesday at a high school in North Nashua, N.H.

“You don’t go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage,” Obama said. “You don’t blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you’re trying to save for college. You prioritize. You make tough choices.”

The comments quickly sparked a flurry of reaction from federal, state and local lawmakers in the Silver State, which had an unemployment rate of 13 percent in December.

Tough choices? Like sticking a bunch of pork in the stimulus bill? Like bailing out Wall Street and saying the heck with Main Street. Like holding back stimulus dollars till an election year so he can boost the Democrats’ prospects in the midterms while people have been losing homes and jobs, suffering horribly all through 2009? Those tough choices?

His preaching on the subject comes as a shock indeed considering this President in his first year has spent more than all other Presidents combined. He hosts half million dollars pizza parties, averaging a party every three days. He had the most expensive inauguration ever, clocking in at about $170 million, spent $6 million on a faux Grecian temple at the Convention and spent three quarters of a billion dollars to get the Presidency in this “no lose year” for Democrats. Do as I say, not as I do.

Anyone will tell you, modeling good behavior works a lot better than preaching. Something Mr. Obama might want to make note of, considering he has a bad habit of living beyond his means. It takes nerve to ask others to sacrifice when he and the First Lady spare no expense for themselves on the taxpayers’ dime. Why should we be surprised at his spending the taxpayers’ money so recklessly when his own past indicates the same pattern.

He bought a house he couldn’t afford with the help of Tony Rezko, then under indictment. Obama later said, “it was boneheaded” yet he feels quite comfortable telling other Americans the proper way to “tighten their belts.” When credit card companies wanted to charge usury rates, Obama did nothing to oppose them.

The President and First Lady had an opportunity to lead by example in the sacrifice department. Unfortunately, they have repeatedly demonstrated they are far more concerned with enjoying the perks and toys of office than tightening their own belts as a way to both inspire the American people and to show that they “feel our pain.”

“I’ll do everything I can to give him the boot,” Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman said … adding that he was incensed when he heard about the comments and said he would no longer welcome the president here if he visits.

“This president is a real slow learner,” said Goodman, who is not affiliated with a political party.

Nevada’s economy has been hit hard with foreclosures, unemployment and bankruptcies during the past two years as consumers everywhere tighten leisure spending and companies spend less on meetings and conventions.

And when your own Senator Majority Leader, the much maligned Harry Reid – most likely the man who lit a fire under Obama to run in the first place – condemns your remarks, you know you’ve stuck your foot in it: Reid issued a statement:

“Reid to Obama: ‘Lay off Las Vegas’.

“The President needs to lay off Las Vegas and stop making it the poster child for where people shouldn’t be spending their money,” Reid said. “I would much rather tourists and business travelers spend their money in Las Vegas than spend it overseas.”

Obama’s reply was insipid at best:

“I was making the simple point that families use vacation dollars, not college tuition money, to have fun,” Obama said, according to the letter. “There is no place better to have fun than Vegas, one of our country’s great destinations.”

Sen. John Ensign, a Republican, complained that Obama “failed to grasp the weight that his words carry.”

Well, Ensign hits the nail on the head. How can this man be the POTUS and not understand that his every remark is tracked to within an inch of its life. If the President voices disapproval about a city – it’s revenues falter. How could he not know that?

Las Vegas’ Mayor Goodman concluded with this telling remark:

“Sometimes when he’s not using his monitors and reading what he says, he doesn’t think…”

The President doesn’t think? Is that the reason why Axelrod and Co. never want the president to go off script? Is Goodman implying that without his trusty TelePrompTer, POTUS’ handlers never know what is going to happen? Like Obama’s careless remark that “the Cambridge police acted stupidly” before he knew the facts of the case. That little nugget arguably went a long way toward costing the Democratic Party the MA Senate seat.

Goodman also said Obama has a “psychological hang-up” about Las Vegas. So I offer one of two theories about his remarks:

1. Perhaps his sensitive nature is still holding a grudge against Las Vegas because Hillary won the Nevada primary – forcing Obama to have to fight on for the nomination.

2. The “my uncle liberated Auschwitz” syndrome – he is just looking for the nearest convenient sound bite, accurate or not.

He figures no one is going to challenge him on the accuracy of his remarks or take him to task for them. Why wouldn’t he believe this? The media hasn’t bothered to do their jobs so far. It never occurs to him that his careless words – pulling the nearest example out of his, er, hat that he can find, can have serious repercussions to others – being that he is the President of the United States.

As Hillary Clinton once said, “you don’t need a President who looks down at you.”

Millions of Americans are hurting. They watched a man win a historic election, promising change only to see politics as usual and worse, a White House that is deaf, dumb and blind to their concerns. A spendthrift who tells everyone else how to sacrifice is as elitist as he is out of touch.

Someone needs to remind the President that when he mouths off, he is not an adjunct lecturer getting cute at a cocktail party, spouting some witty bon mot for the entertainment of his hangers on.

Words are not just words anymore. The President is being held accountable for them — if not by the media, then by the voters. It would be helpful if he held himself accountable as well.