POLLIWOG (Tadpole): the early stage of an animal that will eventually become a frog, hoping to be kissed by a princess, turning into a prince! POLIBLOG (Political Blog): the early stage of a center-right political blog that may eventually become a full blown blog of the center-right. Join in if you find any merit in the comments. If you are on the left and disagree, feel free to straighten me out! Who knows, with effort from all of us this blog may turn into a prince!

Location: San Diego, California, United States

Monday, March 30, 2009

How BHO and friends gain the respect W never could!

An editorial in Canada's National Post comments on Janet Napolitano's comments demanding "parity" between the treatment of Canada and Mexico. Politial Correctness run amok! And BHO is going to make the world love us?

Read the brief editorial in its entirety to get a feel for our neighbors thoughts.



Wednesday, March 18, 2009

AIG - a couple of columns that are important to understanding the problem

"The AIG Outrage" column by Larry Kudlow today explains clearly the culpability of the BHO administration, regardless of their feigned outrage. the important point:

  • "And as for the $165 million or so in AIG bonus payments, the Obama administration -- including the president, Treasury man Tim Geithner, and economic adviser Larry Summers -- knew all about them many months ago. They were undoubtedly informed of this during the White House transition.

  • So there's no big surprise. Nobody should be shocked. But President Obama is doing his best play-acting ever. He knows full well that the nationwide outcry against federal bailouts and takeovers is only going to get worse on his watch. His poll numbers are already falling, and this AIG episode is going to pull them down more.

  • Incidentally, has anybody asked Team Obama why it is more than willing to break mortgage contracts with a bankruptcy-judge cram-down, but won't cram-down compensation agreements for AIG, despite the fact that the U.S. government owns the company? Kind of odd, don't you think?"

And one of their own, Maureen Dowd, in "No Boiled Carrots" seems to be seeing through the fiasco:

  • "Geithner, who comes from the cozy Wall Street club, and Liddy believe it’s best to stabilize the company and keep on board the same people who invented the risky financial tactics so they can unwind their own rotten spool.

  • Isn’t that like giving bonuses to the arsonists who started a fire because they alone know what kind of accelerants they used to start it?"

Who knows where it will end! But it is not good for BHO or the country! WHERE'S THE CHANGE?


Tuesday, March 17, 2009

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE Read and Analyze Shelby Steele

"Why the GOP Can't Win With Minorities" by Shelby Steele is the finest analysis of our racial situation that I have ever read. Everyone should read his ideas and give them serious thought. I wish all minorities could read and absorb the insight in his column.

The key paragraph says conservatism will not win over minorities until the following is corrected:

  • "And here is conservatism's great problem with minorities. In an era when even failed [liberal]moral activism is redemptive -- and thus a source of moral authority and power -- conservatism stands flat-footed with only discipline to offer. It has only an invisible hand to compete with the activism of the left. So conservatism has no way to show itself redeemed of America's bigoted past, no way like the Great Society to engineer a grand display of its innocence, and no way to show deference to minorities for the oppression they endured. Thus it seems to be in league with that oppression."

It is important you read, analyze and, if you feel like it, comment on his ideas.


Monday, March 16, 2009

Two Important Analyses of BHO's Stem Cell Action

Charles Krauthammer in Fridays WaPo points out the problem with BHO's action. His final paragraph summarizes his view:

"Dr. James Thomson, the discoverer of embryonic stem cells, said "if human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough." Obama clearly has not."

Very important to read the whole column here. And remember Mr. Krauthammer is a quadraplegic and was not supportive of W's actions either.

Steve Chapman in his Chicago Tribune column Thursday points out the potentially dire inconsistencies in BHO's logic. He closes with these three paragraphs:

"What this mandate means is simple: It may be permissible for scientists to create cloned embryos and kill them. It's not permissible to create cloned embryos and let them live. Their cells may be used for our benefit, but not for their own.

There lies the reality of embryonic stem cell research: It turns incipient human beings into commodities to be exploited for the sake of people who are safely past that defenseless stage of their lives.

It's a change that poses risks not just to days-old human embryos. The rest of us may one day reap important medical benefits from this research. But we may lose something even more vital."

Very important to read the entire column here.



but does anyone really believe that the AIG management was dumb enough to give out all these big bonuses with the mood of the country. Either they are VERY dumb or they were committed to payments that were approved for a reason.

"POLITICO Breaking News:

President Obama says he will “pursue every legal avenue to block these [AIG] bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole.”"

Could it be the administration let it happen to allow a little more grandstanding for the base?

H/T: Politico.com, 3/16/09.


Tuesday, March 10, 2009

The BHO Administration Exposed

Jonah Goldberg exposes the fear-mongering of the BHO administration in his LATimes column today:

"Imagine a child falls down a well. Now imagine I offer to lend the parents
my ladder to save her, but only if they promise to paint my house. Would you
applaud me for not letting a crisis go to waste? Or would you think I'm a

I ask because I'm trying to come to terms with Rule No. 1 of the
Obama administration.

"Rule 1: Never allow a crisis to go to waste," White House Chief of
Staff Rahm Emanuel told the New York Times right after the election. "They are
opportunities to do big things." Over the weekend, Secretary of State Hillary
Rodham Clinton told members of the European Parliament, "Never waste a good
crisis." Then President Obama explained in his Saturday radio and Internet
address that there is "great opportunity in the midst of" the "great crisis"
befalling America."

He goes on to point out how hypocritical and disgusting their tactics are:

"But the White House tactic isn't funny at all. It's scary. Its amorality
is outweighed only by the grotesque and astoundingly naked cynicism of it

Recall that not long ago, the first item on the bill of indictment against
the Bush administration was that it was "exploiting" 9/11 to enact its agenda.
Al Gore shrieked that President Bush "played on our fears" to get his way. In
response to nearly every Bush policy proposal, from the Patriot Act to the
toppling of Saddam Hussein, critics would caterwaul that Bush was taking
advantage of the country's fear of terrorism."

My lefty friends, please comment defending BHO's hypocrisy and amoral administration.

You can read the whole column here.


Monday, March 09, 2009

Why the NYT should be ashamed - and definitely not the U.S. newspaper of record!

The WSJ Best of the Web Today (3/9/09) points out the obvious intellectual dishonesty of our "newspaper of record". Difficult to understand why anyone would read it!

"Four years ago, when Republicans had a majority in the Senate and Democrats were using filibusters to block votes on President Bush's judicial nominees, the editorialists at the New York Times were aghast at the threat to "a time-honored Senate procedure that prevents a bare majority of senators from running roughshod." They also faulted the GOP for hypocrisy, since during the Clinton administration Republican senators had filibustered some presidential nominees (though not for the bench).

Now the Democrats are in the same position as the Republicans then: They hold the White House and a Senate majority shy of 60 votes. Predictably enough, the New York Times is now aghast that the Republicans may use a time-honored Senate procedure that prevents a bare majority of senators from running roughshod:

  • Republican senators have fired off an intemperate letter threatening--you got it--filibusters if Mr. Obama's nominees are not to their liking. Mr. Obama should not let the Republicans' saber-rattling interfere with how he chooses judges.

Arguments about procedure are often made cynically, and there are times when that is appropriate: The job of a lawyer in court, for instance, is to further the interests of his client; it is up to the judge to safeguard the integrity of the court's procedures. One could argue that the Times, as an advocate for liberal ideology, is not obliged to be overly concerned with procedure.

But imagine if a lawyer asked a judge to show favoritism toward his client in procedural rulings "because, your honor, my client is just right." Any competent judge would laugh at such a silly argument. Yet that is exactly the approach the Times takes here:

  • A filibuster can be an appropriate response when it is clear that a particular nominee would be a dangerous addition to the bench.

So a filibuster is fine to block a judge the Times doesn't like, but outrageous to block one it does like. There is nothing more to this argument than that the ends justify the means--in which case why bother making an obviously phony argument about the means?"

Or could it be the left is too intellectually dishonest to call them on it!


Monday, March 02, 2009


From todays NYT:

"WASHINGTON — White House officials said Sunday that President Obama would sign a $410 billion spending bill that includes thousands of pet projects, known as earmarks, despite campaign promises to put an end to the practice."

Will any lefties question this? I doubt it!



Kimberley Strassel gives us Cliff Notes for BHO in todays WSJ - an attempt to help us understand his rhetoric.

The use of the word INVESTMENT for SPENDING is one of her translations.

"Washington, D.C.'s return on investment for investing $14.000 a year per student is a 40% high-school dropout rate."

Could someone explain why we should be enthusiastic about the stimulus $'s for education?

Read the whole column here.


Where is the Outrage from my Lefty friends!

Steve Chapman is on a roll! Perhaps it is because he's a Chicago Tribune columnist and understands BHO's techniques. Any comments?

"Obama Retreats on Iraq Withdrawal

By Steve Chapman

A sound, if cynical, policy for elections is to never vote for a candidate whose policies match your own. Since politicians often renege on their promises, you are better off voting for a candidate who says he'll do the opposite of what you want -- and trusting that he's a liar.

George H.W. Bush, after all, gave an emphatic promise not to raise taxes and then raised taxes. Bill Clinton vowed to crack down on China's human rights abuses and didn't. George W. Bush championed a humble foreign policy.

Barack Obama opposed the war in Iraq from the outset, promised to bring our troops home in short order and criticized John McCain for his "stubborn refusal to end this misguided war." Without his stance against the war, he would not have won the Democratic nomination and he would not have won the election. But the meaning of his speech Friday at Camp Lejeune is that we shouldn't have believed him.

During the campaign, Obama pushed a plan to withdraw one or two combat brigades per month until they were all out. Only two things have changed in Obama's 16-month departure plan: It will take longer than 16 months, and we won't depart.

Instead of May 2010, the target date has been pushed back to August of that year. Nor will he bring back one or two combat brigades each month. Instead, The New York Times reports, Obama plans to withdraw only two between now and December, or one combat brigade every five months.

The administration claims it will speed up the pace of withdrawal next year. But if someone says he's going to sober up tomorrow, it doesn't mean he will definitely do it tomorrow. It just means he definitely won't do it today.

What we can deduce from the new timetable is that for now, we are staying put. As for what happens next year -- well, why cross that bridge before we come to it?

Assuming the president adheres to this backloaded schedule, a large U.S. force will remain for some time. After August 2010, the administration plans to keep as many as 50,000 troops in Iraq. That's 16,000 more than we currently have to fight the war in Afghanistan. We'll also be spending $50 billion on the effort in 2011.

Oh, and remember that promise to remove all the combat brigades? Here's the trick to it: leaving some of them there but under a different designation. They would be referred to as "Advisory Training Brigades" or "Advisory Assistance Brigades," says The New York Times.

When administrations begin indulging in the generous use of bland euphemisms, we know what it means: They are not willing to do what the public wants and they are not willing to let the public know it. This "transition force" looks like a way of avoiding a transition, not making one.

The president says we will be entirely out by 2012, as required in our status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government. Maybe so, but given how much Obama has yielded on his original plan, it's chancy to assume he'll stick to this one.

Though the American people voted for a different policy, the president is reluctant to take the risk of something unpleasant happening if we actually leave Iraq. That inclination, says Massachusetts Institute of Technology defense scholar Barry Posen, raises a question: "What's the difference between him and Bush on this?"

Bush, you may recall, promised that the surge he began in 2007 would "hasten the day our troops begin coming home." Yet we somehow have more troops in Iraq today than we had then.
Obama could conclude that since there is a high risk of failure even if we leave later, we might as well leave earlier -- which essentially was his campaign position. But he has moved a long way toward Bush's view that we cannot leave until some sort of victory or success has been achieved.

What he doesn't tell us is what he will do if that day fails to come, or if things get or worse. But we can figure it out.

In Thomas Ricks' new book, "The Gamble: General David Petraeus and the American Military Adventure in Iraq, 2006-2008," the author asks an officer who advised Petraeus on the surge how our military involvement in Iraq will finally end. His answer: "I don't think it does end."" (my emphasis)

Democrat politicians have the luxury of being able to lie to their base, get elected, and face no negative feedback. I guess this is because the base is so happy to be in power - or they just don't care!

John McCain, sharing the truth with the American people - that we may be in Iraq until 2100 - was soundly defeated largely because he stated this. What does this teach our country?