Tax Hikes and the 2011 Economic Collapse

Arthur Laffer's column in the Wall Street Journal today explains his theory that economic activity has been pulled into 2010 from 2011 to avoid the tax hikes set to occur 1/1/2011. As a result, economic activity will decrease next year, leading to a double dip recession. The stock market's recent correction may be discounting this double dip.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704113504575264513748386610.html

Ignoring the Fax

Until the Obama Occupation of the White House just over a year ago, the idea of faxing or emailing Rep. Baron Hill (left), a U.S. Congressman in Indiana's 9th District, had close to zero chance of turning up on my to-do list.

But, until the Obama Occupation, how many among us who lived outside of Massachusetts would have been so keenly aware of an emerging politician named Scott Brown? Or the number of pro-life Democrats in the House? Or the definition of Senate "reconciliation"?

With our Democracy on the brink, I've joined countless thousands of fellow Americans in an outreach targeting members of Congress, urging staunch rejection of Obamacare, demanding that these elected officials heed the will of a majority of Americans. (The newest Gallup poll finds 48% would advise their Congressmen to vote against the monstrosity, even as it approaches ramming speed).

People who are paying attention recognized long ago that the sweeping legislation sought by Obama, Pelosi and Reid is not health insurance reform but a Socialist takeover of the U.S. economy that fundamentally changes the relationship of citizens to the federal government, does nothing to rein in the high costs of insurance premiums, medical procedures or prescription drugs, and ignores the dire need to end frivolous lawsuits that spawn defensive medicine.

So the choice is clear: Do nothing and assume that the America we've always cherished will weather the Obama Occupation, or rise up and do whatever it takes to stop this, including faxes sent to Democrats like Baron Hill of Indiana.

Even this simple exercise reveals what we are up against. Just because members of Congress have fax numbers (easily located on web sites or in various directories), repeated attempts to fax them can be futile of late. No fewer than a dozen out of 30 key House Democrat Obamacare voters could not be reached this past week by fax, based on my experiences. They've gone into hiding. I suspect they've conveniently instructed Washington staffers to stop adding paper. The obvious alternative is email, but many of these same "public servants" have rigged their web sites to restrict electronic communications to residents of their districts.

At a time when every member of Congress needs to be aware of broad public sentiment against nationalized health insurance legislation, the elected lawmakers listed here are cowering in the shadows: Jerry McNerney (CA-11); Jim Himes (CT-4); Bill Foster (IL-14); Baron Hill (IN-9); Carol Shea-Porter (NH-1); Tim Bishop (NY-1); Mike Arcuri (NY-24); Mary Jo Kilroy (OH-15); Paul Kanjorski (PA-11); John Spratt (SC-5); Alan Mollohan (WV-1); and Nick Rahall (WV-3). Kilroy's web site, however, does not restrict emailing from within her district.

As for the others, we must not be deterred. We must find alternate fax and phone numbers (in district offices, for example). We must track these people down and get in their faces, and let them see the glint of Patriotic determination in our eyes. We must keep the pressure on until the bitter end. And it will be bitter. Why must we soldier on? Why is it up to me and you to do the work of the Washington political elite? TheNational Review's Richard Lowry said it quite well in a recent essay entitled, "Defend Her".

"...It is blindness to ignore that American exceptionalism has homegrown enemies -- people who misunderstand the sources of American greatness or think them outdated. If they succeed, we will be less free, less innovative, less rich, less self-governing, and less secure.

"We will be less."

A Patriot's Dilemma

Jonathan Quick has come to a patriotic crossroads. He is a National Hockey League goalkeeper and a member of the 2010 U.S. Olympic men's ice hockey team. He loves America and the people who defend her.

The International Olympic Committee will contend that the American Eagle decal bearing the phrase, "Support Our Troops", on Quick's helmet violates an Olympic Games ban on political propaganda and "advertising".

VANCOUVER (Reuters) - U.S. netminder Jonathan Quick will be ordered to remove the slogan 'Support Our Troops' from his helmet for contravening Olympic rules on political propaganda, the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) said on Monday.

Quick needs to make a decision. Quickly. Defy the IOC and his sport's international federation and sit out the Games in Vancouver in defense of his support for American troops (certainly a courageous option). Or, remove the handsome decal, which certainly does not come even close to being "propaganda" or "advertising".

Conversely, Olympic athletes are permitted to adorn uniforms and headgear with their nation's flags -- flags that are, in some cases, specifically designed to promote religious and political ideals.

The design at the center of Iran's flag is symbolic of the phrase, "There is no god but Allah." (Four Iranian athletes are competing in Vancouver).

The Scandinavian cross that dominates Norway's flag represents Christianity.

These are but two examples. If it is acceptable to "advertise" two divergent religious viewpoints by wearing a flag logo on a uniform, or raising a flag above an Olympic Village, why is it unacceptable to support a military dedicated to advancing and preserving democracy, and saving innocent lives, around the world?

Either decision by Quick will be understandable. He would honor American troops by leaving the Games. He also honors his country by representing the USA as an Olympian.

But only one decision will elevate Quick to American hero. I'm certain no one need advise him which decision that is.

Notes on Metaphors

If I was Rep. Chris Van Hollen, and I was commenting on Coakley's loss, I'd have chosen a slightly different metaphor when blasting the prior Administration, given who's Senate seat was just replaced.

President George W. Bush and House Republicans drove our economy into a ditch and tried to run away from the accident. President Obama and congressional Democrats have been focused repairing the damage to our economy.

Also, props to Rep. Barney Frank who's right about last night's vote. If more of Congress acted like grown-ups and didn't seek advantage at every turn (and yes, I'm talking to Republicans too) maybe. . . oh who the hell am I kidding.

Scott Brown for US Senate

The Daily Pander and I are thinking about having a party tomorrow night in order to celebrate Scott Brown's big victory in the Massachusetts Senate Race. Reports are that, internally, the White House is expecting a Brown victory. The polls and future's markets all point to a Brown victory. It will be a particularly sweet victory given the monkey business with regard as to how that seat was filled after it became vacant. Oh well, I guess this will end America's experiment with European style social democracy!

A New Year's Gift to Al-Qaeda

The Obama Administration has given Al-Qaeda two New Year’s presents. First, in the wake of the Christmas Day terror attack against Northwest Airlines 253, the Transportation Security Administration imposes new security procedures that are so ridiculous that they have to be repealed two days later.

Not allowing passengers out of their seats for the hour preceding landing just begs the questions – why wouldn’t terrorists just leave their seats before the last hour of the flight to do their damage? Not allowing anything in the laps of passenger during the same last hour is also ridiculous. What would happen during final approach into Dulles International when a devout Muslim was reading his Koran? Isn’t that ripe for some litigious Imam to file suit against the airline that attempts to enforce this silly rule?

The imposition of security measures that have no positive impact on security, but rather just inconvenience passengers, makes the United States government look impotent. We would all be better off, safer and less hassled at the airport if the intelligence apparatus worked properly. Once Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab became known to the CIA, thanks to his father, and the United Kingdom revoked his visa, our intelligence community should have connected the dots and revoked his visa to enter the United States.

Just as I said back in 2004, the reorganization of our intelligence community under the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 would result in nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs. Apparently, I was right. If the point of that act was to connect the dots, it does not seem to have worked. Unfortunately for President Obama, even he must now admit that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was not just an isolated extremist. Instead, he is a soldier in Al-Qaeda’s terror war against the West in general and the United States in particular. Until the President understands that Islamists have declared war on us, he will not put us in a position to win.

The second gift that the Administration has given Al-Qaeda is the closing of our embassy in Yemen. While no one wants to endanger our diplomats posted overseas, the closure of our embassy means that we are unable to protect it and those who work there. It is a sad state of affairs that the world’s only superpower is apparently unable, or unwilling, to take the steps that are necessary to ensure the safety of those posted to its embassy in Sana’a. This is despite the fact that we have special operations forces working in Yemen. I wonder if the men and women of the US Marine Corp and the Diplomatic Security Service agree with this assessment. Another victory in the War on Terror for the enemy.

2010 is not off to a good start for us in the War on Terror. The New Year’s gifts that the President Obama has given to Al-Qaeda will only serve to embolden them. Let’s just hope that the Administration gets better at connecting the dots.

Christmas Day Weakness

Once again President Obama has project weakness to our enemies in the aftermath of the terrorist attack against Northwest Flight 253. First, on national television, his hapless Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, claimed that the airline security system / anti-terror program worked. This was clearly false on its face. If not for a failure in the system of catastrophic proportion, how else could an Islamist like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who was known to US Intelligence because his own father ratted him out, be allowed to board a flight to the United States with a valid US visa. Napolitano is the same genius who coined the phrase “man made disasters” and expected us to use that in lieu of “terrorist attack” (to me, a man made disaster is something like the bridge collapse in Minnesota several years ago). She was also the one who illuminated us as to the dangers of US soldiers returning from war, they might become right wing militia members. Does this woman install confidence in anyone? If so, I haven't met him. The President should immediately fire Secretary Napolitano for incompetence.

Next, and not surprisingly, Mr. Abdulmutallab was arrested by the FBI and read his Miranda warnings. The Obama Administration has decided to treat this unlawful enemy combatant as a common criminal. He now has all of the same rights that Martha Stewart had upon her arrest. Evidently, those in change of our national security believe that the perpetrator of his incident has no valuable intelligence which could help prevent future attacks. For if they did, he would be remanded to the custody of the US Military or the CIA for interrogation. He would not be given the opportunity to lawyer up like an insider trader. Remember, it was a law enforcement approach to terrorism that allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen.

Then, in the President’s first public remarks on the attack, he referred to Mr. Abdulmutallab as an “isolated extremist”. The facts belie this. Two former Guantanamo Bay detainees were involved in the Christmas Day plot. Also, ABC News has reported that Mr. Abdulmutallab spent months in Yemen receiving explosive and terrorist training with other members of al-Qaida in Arabia. He was also in contact with Anwar al-Awlaki, the same al-Qaida leader who was in contact with Maj. Nidal Hasan. And, al-Qaida itself has issued numerous statements since Christmas Day that more attacks are forthcoming. How is it possible that the Commander-in-Chief believes that al-Qaida is made up of just a few “isolated extremist”? Logic and common sense tell us otherwise. Those on the left often tell us that there are just too many terrorists to kill and that we have to win their hearts and minds. If there were just a few isolated extremists, why couldn't we just kill or arrest them all? Why worry about winning the hearts and minds of just those few?

In addition, the President never once mentioned the fact that Abdulmutallab is a radical Muslim. In fact, Mr. Obama only mentioned Islam once during his speech and that was when he referred to Iran by its full name, “The Islamic Republic of Iran”. For some reason, President Obama wants us all to believe that Islam plays no part in the actions of those who perpetrate terrorist attacks in the name of Allah. He does not understand the nature of the threat that these people pose to Western Civilization and, as such, he is unprepared to protect the American people from them.

Based upon the actions (or inactions) of the President of the United States, our enemies now perceive America as weak. This emboldens them and terrorist acts will become more frequent and more deadly. Had the President responded boldly to this attack, he could have shown the Islamist that he means business. Instead, we are told not to use blankets or go to the bathroom during the last hour of an international flight. (Why can’t a terrorist blow up the plane with two hours left in the flight?)

When President Obama declared that there is no War on Terror, the Islamic extremists who wish to kill Americans and Jews failed to receive the memo. They continue to do everything they can to perpetrate as many attacks as possible in an effort to achieve their objectives – restoration of the caliphate and death to the infidels. And, while they are doing that, we have a President who refuses to take the enemy at their word. Unfortunately, next time, the results could be far worse than third degree burns on the genitals of an Islamist extremist.

A Short Defense of Napolitano

After the near bombing over Detroit, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano claimed the anti-terror system is working, then reworked her statement to mean the system to alert other airports and airlines worked, not the part that keeps known bad guys with explosives off planes in the first place.

Her first statement was slightly off-the-cuff, a mistake any of us in a high pressure position are prone to make. No harm, no foul. For those of us who criticize the Obama Administration for being relentlessly programmed, let's not hyperventilate when it's not so programmed.

Let's also acknowledge that a system that lets through one or two bad guys every once in a great while is inevitable. A few tuna are going to escape the tuna net. Likewise, a few dolphins are going to get caught in the tuna net. Which means the next time a very innocent person who looks like, is named like, or has a background like someone who shouldn't be on a plane isn't let on a plane, let's extend the same deference to those officials overseeing that process.

Now, for my Democratic friends reading this, nodding their heads and saying "That Daily Pander is such a reasonable guy" I ask: Are you willing to commit yourself here and now to this same view when the exact same thing happens under a Republican watch?

"Have You No Shame?" Actually, no, I don't.

Congrats to the these attorneys general for taking their constitutional roles seriously. Of course they are politically motivated, but an order of magnitude less than the Dems who are bribing their way to passing a health care bill that doubles down on everything wrong with health insurance and, with straight faces, congratulate themselves in the process.

And of course, check out the quote towards the end of the story from Rep. Clyburn who thinks the problem with political bribes isn't that they're too big, but that they're too small.

Tax That Man Behind The Tree

Any chance this is going to blow up in Obama's face?

Two Random, Unrelated Thoughts

1.
The headline, "CBO: Health bill would reduce premiums on average" for the following AP story should really read:

CBO: Premiums on average in health bill will be paid for by someone else.

Subsidies don't lower costs, they shift who pays them.

2.
Thomas Friedman wrote this in an opinion piece today (emphasis mine):

Have no doubt: we punched a fist into the Arab/Muslim world after 9/11, partly to send a message of deterrence, but primarily to destroy two tyrannical regimes — the Taliban and the Baathists — and to work with Afghans and Iraqis to build a different kind of politics. In the process, we did some stupid and bad things. But for every Abu Ghraib, our soldiers and diplomats perpetrated a million acts of kindness aimed at giving Arabs and Muslims a better chance to succeed with modernity and to elect their own leaders.

Wouldn't it have been enormously helpful if editorialists had included that nuanced caveat while relentlessly repeating the Abu Ghraib/torture narrative?

An Actual Inconvenient Truth

Scientific progress depends upon accurate, complete and reliable data. Unfortunately, none of this seems to be the case when it relates to “climate change”, formerly know as “global warming”. In emails that were uncovered from the Climate Research Unit (the “CRU”, which should not be confused with the fictional “CTU” of 24 fame – except as we here at RSP have long thought, both are really engaged in fiction.) at the University of East Anglia in England, some of the world’s so-called leading experts on climate change (I say “so-called” because how can you be an expert in something that doesn’t exist) are, and have been, engaged in a conspiracy to destroy and hide data that did not support their global warming claims.

Professor Phil Jones, the head of CRU, and professor Michael E. Mann of Pennsylvania State University, another so-called expert on global warming, were caught in an email exchange wanting to engage in the “trick of adding in real temps to each series to hide the decline in temperature.” There is no explanation that can justify this exchange. These so-called scientists are engaged in efforts by to falsify data. No reasonable person should believe any explanations provided by these two, considering their fraudulent research.

It is also comical that the New York Times, while reporting on this incident, has refused to re-publish the emails by claiming that they were not meant for public consumption. I wonder if the Gray Lady will take the same position the next time someone presents it with classified CIA documents. I’d guess not.

Unfortunately for Professors Jones and Mann, this is not their only act of malfeasance. In another email exchange, Prof. Jones to Prof. Mann, “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send it to anyone.” He goes on to say, “We have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.” Prof. Jones then urged Prof. Mann to join him in deleting email exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s controversial assessment report.

In other emails, Prof. Jones complains that he has been told by a UK government official that due to the Freedom of Information Act, he should not be deleting emails. Mr. Jones concocts a rationalization for his continued actions of deleting data and emails unfavorable to his position on climate change and his repeated failure to comply with lawful requests by saying that since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an international organization, it is above any national Freedom of Information Act. So much for Her Majesty’s sovereign government. I wonder if the Crown Prosecutors, even under this sympathetic Labour government, would buy that argument.

Throughout the emails, proponents of global warming refer to data that has been hidden or destroyed. Unfortunately, only the emails from Prof. Jones’ university have been made public. And, of course, we only know part of the picture since the good professor has deleted data and emails that did not support his position of global warming. As Donald Rumsfeld might say, apparently, we may never know what we don’t know.

It is time that the other institutions involved in this controversy release data and emails that are relevant to the situation. Penn State University must immediately conduct an investigation to determine the extent of its faculty’s involvement in this cover-up.

In light of the fact that global warming has to a large extent been debunked by this conspiracy, it is unfortunately that President Obama has decided to go to Copenhagen for the United Nation’s next conference on this topic. Instead, the President should call for an investigation of all of the data regarding global warming. In the end, such action may save the economies of the free world.

Happy Thanksgiving

Thursday I go into the belly of the beast: Thanksgiving dinner with my flaming lefty family. I do not intend to bring up ObamaCare or Obama generally but, if challenged, here are my responses:

• BHO is neither a socialist or the devil incarnate. He is, however, a standard issue left wing partisan ideologue with a gift for convincing a tiny but sufficient slice of the electorate that he's not.
• ObamaCare will subsidize the illusion that health insurance (vs. health care) is cheaper for a few politically important constituencies. Those of us in the real world know subsidies don't change actual cost, they just change who pays. Accordingly, Washington's love affair with something-for-nothingism ensures that the underlying cost drivers remain unaddressed, now and forever. If it's true that Republicans are determined to stop anything called HCR, then it's also true that Democrats are determined to pass anything they can remotely call HCR. Neither party has any interest in actually stopping the distortions caused by our employer based model, which is the source of the rescission problem and the pre-existing condition problem. Dems. are too indebted to Big Labor to tackle it and Reps. know they'll be scorched if they do (not that they otherwise have a coherent policy approach). Obama scorched McCain for it during the election and he'll do it again if necessary. Our current system deploys price rationing, the system Obalosi envisions uses political rationing. The former can be fixed, the latter only gets worse over time.

Have a great Thanksgiving. If you eat too much, Thursday or any other day, you're raising my health insurance premiums.

Can't Wait For This Answer

How will Khalid "Shake Shake Shake" Mohammed answer this question, put to all criminal defendants who enjoy the presumption of innocence and the freedom from self-incrimination:

"Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?"

The Post-Freedom Presidency

As I transported my daughter aboard a gas guzzling sedan to middle school Wednesday morning, even one the of the local FM rock stations was getting in on the Veterans’ Day spirit. We sang along to the Lee Greenwood classic, “Proud to be an American”.

The central lyric is so familiar it just rolls off the tongue: “And I’m proud to be an American where at least I know I’m free.”

As we coasted through suburbia on a sun-washed autumn morning that line hit me like a brick wall. At least I know I’m free? Do I? Am I?

In the age of Obama, we were promised the post-racial Presidency. Looks like we were handed the post-Constitutional, post-Declaration of Independence Presidency. For now, we’re still essentially “free” but the scope of that freedom no longer feels like it has infinite boundaries.

It begins with speech. With words. With meaning. And with manipulation of meaning in the name of political correctness and the crushing Socialist agenda sweeping across Washington, D.C.

Consider the following list I drew up in just a matter of minutes. It could be much lengthier for sure, but I fear it demonstrates where we are in the post-Lee Greenwood era.

Not Islamic radicalism … religious diversity.

Not terrorism … alleged shooting incident (Ft. Hood).

Not free-market capitalism … unregulated wealth building.

Not death counseling … an affordable health care option.

Not politically correct … tolerant and fair-minded.

Not Socialist … transformational.

Not a War on Terror … routine law enforcement.

Not freedom of speech … hate-crime speech.

Not productivity … greed.

Not Communism … redistributive justice.

Not Tea Party patriotism … angry white people.

Not Commander in Chief … Campaigner in Chief Barack Hussein Obama.

As Veterans’ Day 2009 slips into history, I am proud to be an American because our brave men and women who wear the uniform make me proud. And because civilians who rise up in the face of violent Jihadist insanity make me proud. I’m thinking about the NYFD and NYPD on 9/11, and about the brave Ft. Hood police officer, Kim Munley, who last week gunned down the terrorist Nidal Hasan.

I’m proud, but I no longer know I’m free. In 2009, my fellow Americans and I are left to pray that we are.

Political Correctness and the Military

We now know that political correctness has killed Americans. The 13 deaths at Ft. Hood last week were a result of political correctness in the United States military turning a blind eye to Islamist extremism. As ABC New has reported, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was in contact with Al-Queda members in Yemen and that this was known to US Intelligence. US Intelligence then notified Army counter-intelligence, who, apparently, decided to do nothing with the information. Also, Maj. Hasan's superiors at Walter Reed Army Hospital knew that Hasan was engaging in anti-American propaganda with his patients (the worst kind of malpractice that a psychiatrist can commit). Political correctness on the part of the Army was as much to blame for the 13 deaths as underlying Islamist behavior itself.

While most rational people knew that Maj. Hasan’s actions were a terrorist attack, the President and his chain of command were apparently in denial about the motives for the attack. Despite Maj. Hasan’s calls of “Allahu akbar!”, the American people were being told by President Obama not to jump to conclusions. The elite media in this country was saying that just because Maj. Hasan has a Muslim name, the “right wing” was going to get all riled up (see the comments of Newsweek editor Evan Thomas).

Not only did the Army allow the Major’s terrorist connections and anti-American postings on Islamic websites to go unchallenged, we have the political leadership and the news media continuing to engage in the same political correctness that led to the massacre in the first place. Someone should remind President Obama of the old saying, “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.” The only problem is that lives are at stake so we cannot afford to be fooled again. The military in this country does not abide by the same stand of free speech that governs the rest of our society. Therefore, at the first instance of Islamic radical behavior, the military must take action to ensure that any such serviceman is removed from the military. Lives depend upon this.

Last Thursday’s actions were the worst act of Islamist terror on US soil since the attacks of 9/11. When an extremist plans and executes a plot to kill our soldiers to protest our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is an act of terror, regardless of whether the perpetrator acted alone. But, has the President or his military commanders called Maj. Hasan’s actions that? Not as of this posting, almost 5 days after the incident.

A strange juxtaposition occurred within hours of Maj. Hasan’s rampage. On one hand, there is the President of the United States in the Rose Garden telling the American people not to jump to conclusions. On the other hand, you have the FBI Director, Robert Muller, telling the American people that this was not a terrorist plot. Considering the timing of Mr. Muller’s statement and that an investigation had just begun, wasn’t he jumping to a conclusion in direct contradiction to the President’s statements? It seems so to me. The consequence of the nations top investigator jumping to a conclusion without investigation should be his immediate dismissal. Unfortunately, however, Director Muller will keep his just because he was just toeing the party line - more political correctness.

If President Obama is really as smart as his supporters claimed during the campaign, he should be able to learn from his mistakes. Being the Commander-in-Chief of a military that is beholden to political correctness resulted in the deaths of 13 American soldiers in their home base. Political correctness, therefore, is a mistake in the American military. The President should immediately put a stop to it and make sure that this type of thing never happens again. If the doesn’t the next terrorists attack against our soldiers could be even worse.

It's Time to Decide

Following an interview British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, last week, the New York Times, of all papers, displayed a headline reading “Britain Resolves, US Wavers”. For Americans to look to a European country for determination, then things in Washington must becoming unhinged.

Earlier this summer, President Obama called Afghanistan a war of necessity. Since then, the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal (the general personally selected by the President to take charge of this war), has requested at least 40,000 additional troops was needed for a surge in order for the NATO mission in that country to succeed. Of course, as the commander-in-chief, Mr. Obama is not bound by the recommendations of his generals. However, he is duty bound to make a decision.

When Gen. McChrystal made the recommendation two months ago, he stated that the United States on had about twelve months to stabilize the situation in country and then win the war. Two of those twelve short months have now passed and the President of the United States has yet to make a decision. While President Obama has said to our soldiers, “I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm’s way”, there is a difference between deliberation and, as Vice President Cheney has said, dithering.

The President’s indecision is another sign of his weakness. All the while we are waiting for a decision, the Taliban continues to terrorize Afghanistan and its people. On Wednesday, for example, a Taliban cell breached the United Nations compound in Kabul, while dressed as Afghan police officers, and killed six of the UN staff. The Taliban, like Al-Qaeda, don’t carry out attacks at random. They pick their targets with the intent of controlling events.

As Senator John McCain has said, “The President of the United States needs to make this decision and soon. Our allies are nervous and our military leadership is becoming frustrated.” And, as Her Majesty’s Foreign Secretary has indicated, our closest ally, the United Kingdom, is ready to take action and participate in a surge. I’m sure that our English friends just don’t want to be hung out to dry by the inaction of the Obama Administration.

Also, the morale of our soldiers and Marines is always an important factor in any military campaign. Indecision from the top does not help morale. The troops need to know that they have the support of the commander-in-chief. The lack of a defined military strategy from the White House doesn’t shout out support for our men and women in uniform.

A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll showed that 63% of American voters do not believe that Mr. Obama has a clear plan for Afghanistan. The President’s continued indecision does nothing to dissuade this notion. This is very unfortunate because, as I said previously, President Obama, at least at one point, believed that this was a war of necessity.

As the surge in Iraq has shown, decisive action can make a substantial positive difference. This is in spite of the violence this week, which is still relatively rare when compared to pre-surge levels. Just like what is currently happening in Afghanistan, the dithering prior to the surge shows what can happen without decisive action.

For the sake of success in a war of necessity, the President should follow the recommendation of his hand picked commander. Gen. McChrystal - supported by the hero of the Iraq war, General David Petraeus – knows the prescription for victory in Afghanistan. It’s now up to Mr. Obama to let them win it.

What We All Want to Say

Read this letter from Gov. Schwarzenegger to the California Assembly. Then look at the first letter of each line in the second and third paragraphs.

Could that be the Gov's real message?

GoodFellas Motors

There's a great scene in GoodFellas when a bar owner asks local mob boss Paulie Cicero to be his partner, if only to protect the bar from Paulie's goons. Paulie claims to know nothing about the bar business, but what the hell, it might be fun. So, Paulie takes a piece of the bar and, um, we know what happens next.

Paulie's crew guts it from the inside.

They steal inventory, they use the place as a front, they force the original owner to borrow money against the bar, which they also steal. And when there's no money or product left to steal, Paulie's boys torch the place to collect the insurance. And no one can stop them because they're the mob and they make the rules.

Courtesy of the WSJ's intrepid reporters, what RSP and many others predicted has now been documented. Congress is feasting on GM because it can. Welcome to the new GM, better known as GoodFellas Motors.

Before Anonymous has a hissy fit, I know the analogy isn't perfect. Congress isn't doing anything illegal, there are no threats of violence, they're not literally going to burn GM down for the insurance, but the theory is similar enough. Congress makes the rules, Congress put up the money, so individual members demand GM serve the needs of their individual constituents. GM is now merely a conduit, through which public money flows to this or that politically powerful stakeholder. Of course, the MoC will pretend there was no undue pressure, that the sought after outcome was only the result of "a constructive dialogue" with the company. Just like the mob, you don't have "a constructive dialogue" with a Senator. You do what you're "asked" to do or the next call is from the IRS, or oversight committee counsel or the Paymaster Czar's office.

Normally businesses only succeed when they serve customers. Those days are long gone at GoodFellas Motors.

The Dim Reaper

Liberal Florida Congressman Alan Grayson is an ideological terrorist. He is now using the deceased as pawns in his quest to impose government monopolized health care reform on our citizens.

His pathetic web initiative, Names of the Dead, exploits people who have died. He claims they are deceased because we -- the collective "we" -- did not pay for their health care. What a load of unsubstantiated crap. Where were the family members of these people? Friends? Fellow churchgoers? Did we all let them down? Or were they neglected by their own? Grayson's site can not back up its claims. It is a joke.

Acclaimed columnist and blogger Michelle Malkin agrees. She writes that Names of the Dead is based on a flawed, out of date study by single payer health care advocates that concludes around 44,000 people die every year solely due to lack of access to care.

"(The study) attributed deaths to lack of health insurance for all the participants who initially self-reported that they had no insurance and then died for any reason over the 12-year tracking period," Malkin writes. "At no time did the original researchers or the single-payer activists who piggy-backed off their data ever verify whether the supposed casualties of America's callous health care system had insurance or not."

I pledge to launch a new site in 2010, Names of the Politically Brain Dead. Grayson will be its poster boy. But he will be among a sea of discredited names.

This disgusting excuse for a public servant needs to be returned to the rock from under which he crawled, and the people who voted for him should be institutionalized. That would be true health care "reform". Put the mentally deranged away for good. Start with Pelosi, Reid and "Swamp Thing" (Grayson). And their supporters.