Peggy Noonan: "Look at the Time"; WSJ Editorial: A Warning to the President"

Two columns in the WSJ this morning would be very helpful to BHO and the Dems if they took them to heart. They are point on in my opinion. Comments?

Peggy Noonan:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123326587231330357.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

WSJ Editorial:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123327812504331563.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

Bipartisanship is not having tea with your opponents. It is being intellectually honest with yourself and honestly trying to forge a coalition with the loyal opposition. BHO must learn this or he will be a failure!

Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter, whatever you think of her or her writing, presents her arguments well - if a little fiery - in making the case of the harm the left is doing to our society.

Read this column and tell me where she is wrong. No inuendo, please, just counter her statements with facts that prove her a right wing nut, which is what the left often says of her.

Take on the challenge!

Submission in the Netherlands

Would be interested in any comments on the following article explaining the growth of Islam in the Netherlands.

The last sentence summarizes this writers belief:

"By doing so [the Amsterdam Appeals Court decision], it proves exactly what Wilders has argued all along: that fear and "sensitivity" to a religion of submission are destroying Dutch freedom."

http://www.city-journal.org/2009/eon0122bb.html

John Stossel questions "liberals" (Democrats) philosopy

Liberals like to tout their love of "choice". Stossel's third paragraph summarizes the point of this column:

"Choice is good. As a libertarian, I'm all over choice. But strangely, today, liberals are mostly about what Americans should not be allowed to choose."

Read it here.

A challenge to my liberal friends: justify any of the points Stossel criticizes. If you can't, how can you continue to vote Democrat?

I'm with Stossel: let's take back the word "liberal".

George Will comments on the Bush Presidency

Will's comments also summarize his view of the cost to the Republican Party of the Bush Presidency. A very good summary paragraph of things that leave problems:

• By grafting a prescription-drug entitlement on to Medicare, just as the demographic deluge of the baby boomers' retirements was beginning, the president expanded the welfare state more than any president since Lyndon Johnson created Medicare in 1965. By signing every grotesque spending measure that arrived on his desk with the support of a majority of congressional Republicans—e.g., the 2002 farm bill that increased corporate welfare for agriculture at a time of record farm profits —the president committed his party to a situational ethic of governance that amounts to no ethic at all. By signing the McCain-Feingold speech-rationing (a.k.a. "campaign reform") legislation, the president violated his oath to defend the Constitution. By federalizing the family tragedy of Terri Schiavo, the president and some congressional allies made risible their stock of rhetoric in praise of limited government. By enacting the No Child Left Behind law, which is the thin end of a potentially enormous wedge, the administration licensed potentially unlimited federal supervision of the quintessentially local responsibility of education in grades K through 12, thereby further weakening federalism. And by presiding, in its last four months, over more and more flamboyant government intervention in the economy than at any time in 75 years, the administration completed the GOP's intellectual disarmament.

Read the column here:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/180032

Ann Coulter on BHO and the MSM (NBC in particular!)

A memorable column on the MSM and the Presidential Election that we went through over the last two years. A small sample:


"But the media were giddy over their latest crush. Even when Obama broke a pledge and rejected public financing for his campaign -- an issue more dear to The New York Times than even gay marriage -- the Times led the article on Obama's broken pledge with his excuse. "Citing the specter of attacks from independent groups on the right," the Times article began, "Sen. Barack Obama announced Thursday that he would opt out of the public financing system for the general election."

So he had to break his pledge because he was a victim of the Republican Attack Machine."

This is all beginning to sound like CLINTON II, isn't it?

An important read that I think you will enjoy here.

Our Wise Founders!

"I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."


--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Cooper, 29 November 1802

H/T: Patriot Post Founders Quote Daily, 12/7/09

George Will comments on the "Law of Unintended Consequences"

An analysis of the Supreme Courts decision in Griggs v Duke Power regarding supposed discrimination against blacks and the fundamental changes - mostly negative for the blacks it was supposed to help - that it caused show how unintended consequences are indeed a problem.

He closes with the following two paragraphs:

"Griggs and its consequences are timely reminders of the Law of Unintended Consequences, which is increasingly pertinent as America's regulatory state becomes increasingly determined to fine-tune our complex society. That law holds that the consequences of government actions often are different than, and even contrary to, the intended consequences.

Soon the Obama administration will arrive, bristling like a very progressive porcupine with sharp plans -- plans for restoring economic health by "demand management," for altering the distribution of income by using tax changes and supporting more muscular labor unions, for cooling the planet by such measures as burning more food as fuel, and for many additional improvements. At least, those will be the administration's intended consequences. "

An important read when heading into an administration that promises lots of comparable action over the next four years. The column is here.