I have a new piece up at Hudson New York.  It's called "The Ultimate Weapon."  For those interested, it's here.

FRIDAY,  OCTOBER 9,  2009

REDS DIDN'T GET THE MEMO - AT 9:24 P.M. ET:  Well, as Laurel & Hardy used to say, this is a fine mess.

No sooner than we stab our East European allies in the back by pulling missile defense, in order to appease the Russians, than the Russians show us their deep gratitude.  From AFP:

The new missile plan from US President Barack Obama's administration raises questions and Moscow is waiting for Washington to explain its intentions, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Friday.
"The statements that are constantly being voiced raise more questions than answers," Lavrov told reporters during a visit to the Moldovan capital for a summit of ex-Soviet countries.

"We would like to receive full clarification," Lavrov added, referring to the plan presented by the Obama administration last month to replace an older plan backed by George W. Bush that would have placed missile defence facilities in eastern Europe.

Moscow and Washington are now holding talks so Russia can "understand the configuration" of the new missile defence system, Lavrov said, but he added that reports of some US proposals were raising eyebrows in Moscow.

He said a recent US report that the United States might include Ukraine in its missile defence plans was "rather unexpected."

COMMENT:  Next time we make a concession to the Russians, maybe we'd better negotiate it, to be sure there's a concession in return.  Right now we're looking for something Moscow has given us for dropping missile defense in Poland the Czech Republic.  Maybe there's a rebate check in the mail, or a free printer, or something.

If you hear, let me know.

October 9, 2009   Permalink

THE RISKY SIDE OF THE NOBEL - AT 7:03 P.M. ET:  It seems to me that the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama carries with it a large risk for the American people.

The award will be given in Oslo on December 10th.  Between now and then the president has critical decisions to make regarding the national defense of the United States.  He is a man who 1) has never shown much interest in defense; 2) was brought up and has lived in a profoundly left-wing atmosphere; and 3) has a huge ego and is obsessive about his image.

Not a good brew.

We know that, when Obama recently presided over a session of the UN Security Council, he already knew that the Iranians had built a secret nuclear plant.  France had wanted Obama to announce the discovery at that meeting - a dramatic moment, with the heads of state of the world looking on.  But the French were stunned when the White House turned them down.  Obama didn't want a clash with Iran to spoil his moment, during which he gave a speech on nuclear proliferation that did not mention a single country.

The president has another moment on December 10th, in Oslo.  That moment, especially for an egotist, has got to be in his mind as he makes important decisions, between now and then. 

How can a Nobel Peace laureate send 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan?  Doesn't look good to the Norwegians.

How can a Nobel Peace laureate take on the Iranians when there's a speech, in a tuxedo, to be made before a bunch of pacifists and leftists in Oslo?  They're looking for Obama to reflect their style - appeasement, accommodation, and blaming America, Britain and Israel.

Given the president's record, I fear he'll be influenced, not by what is right for American and even global security, but by the style he'll be expected to show in Oslo.

Thus, a tragedy might have begun today.

October 9, 2009   Permalink

THE NOBEL EFFECT - AT 6:18 A.M. ET:  There is well-deserved hilarity over the president "winning" the Nobel Prize.  It reminds me of those "prizes" that kids get at summer camp.  You know, "best all-around sleeper" and "outstanding achievement in ice-cream eating." 

Now, every adult knows that those summer-camp ribbons are just promotions by the owners to get the kids to come back.  The owners generally meet with their staff at the end of the season and decide what ribbon goes to what camper.  Every camper gets at least one ribbon.  They all walk up to the rostrum to collect the prize, while parents beam:  "You see, Joey, it doesn't matter that you sank every time you jumped in the water, you're still an outstanding swimmer."

So now the camp counselors in Oslo have decided to give young Obama a ribbon.  "Outstanding peace advocate in his first months in office," or something like that.  He gets the pretty ribbon, and some money.  Under American law, he probably can't accept the money, but it's the ribbon that counts.

And, of course, he'll be back at camp during the 2012 campaign, as a "Nobel Peace Laureate."

That prize will mean as much as the prizes at summer camp, but Obama's supporters - including the people who'll make billions on "global warming" - will beam like parents.

We welcome you to Camp Obama, we're mighty glad you're here.

October 9,  2009   Permalink

MORE NOMINATIONS FOR OBAMA - AT 12:01 P.M. ET:  Reader Betsy Gorisch writes, recommending more awards for The One:

I think he should also have gotten the one for literature.  He's published--count them--two books.

And he should get the one for medicine.  He has plans for the health-care system, so there you are.  No contest.

And the one for chemistry.  I mean, all you have to do is watch him give a speech, and wow there's all that chemistry.  So.

Also the one for physics should go to him.  He's always talking about how he's going to bend the cost curve, and you have to be pretty good at physics to do all that curve-bending.

Plus economics.  People in Detroit are lining up to get Obama Money, from Obama's Stash.  So he's a great economist, right? Check.

What a guy.  Really.

COMMENT:  Betsy is right.  Next year they should give him all the Nobels.  He's so obviously earned them.  And it's the least we can do for a deity.  All praise.  Hallelujah!

October 9, 2009   Permalink  

PURE BIAS - AT 11:29 A.M. ET:  The following appeared in an AP story this morning on Obama's winning of the Nobel Peace Prize:

Bush was reviled by the world for his cowboy diplomacy, Iraq war and snubbing of European priorities like global warming.

COMMENT:  Reviled by the world?  The whole world?  Everyone?  I wonder how the reporter knows.  Must've been a really big polling sample.

Cowboy diplomacy? Precisely when and where?  In fact, our diplomacy was quite normal, resulted in a remarkable AIDS program in Africa, the dramatic enhancement of our relations with India, the world's largest democracy, and a superb relationship with Eastern Europe, now eroded by Obama.  Toward the close of Bush's second term, even Western Europe was moving in our direction.

But let's not let facts disturb us.

October 9, 2009   Permalink

IF WE CAN GET SERIOUS HERE - AT 9:55 A.M. ET:  I went to a Hudson New York briefing yesterday by the truly great John Bolton.  I wish we'd known about the Nobel Peace Prize before the briefing.  He would have had some choice remarks.

Bolton was, of course, appointed ambassador to the U.N. by President George W. Bush, but the Senate refused to confirm him.  Too tough on behalf of the United States, according to news stories at the time.  He did serve for a period, under prevailing law, without Senate confirmation, but had to step down by a given date.

Bolton was superb yesterday, and, as always, blunt.  His major points:

- Barack Obama isn't particularly interested in National security.

- Obama wants to eliminate the structures that made possible our victory in the Cold War.  He is naive and Wilsonian.

- Our Honduras policy is an embarrassment.  Hillary Clinton apparently told some meeting that the policy, which favors an ousted ally of Hugo Chavez, is actually designed to undercut Chavez.  No one understands that logic.

- Obama is the first post-American president.

- Obama sees the United States as just another country, with no special qualities.

- The president is projecting weakness on Afghanistan, which will have its impact down the line.

- Even if Obama sends the requested troops to Afghanistan, he has already undermined our policy there by his equivocal statements.

- People have underestimated the impact of French President Sarkozy's biting speech to the UN, in which he practically ridiculed Obama for Obama's simple-minded view of the world.

- Obama's policy in the Mideast favors a gradual American withdrawal and softness toward Iran.  The result will be that the Arab nations will cut independent deals with the Iranians.

- Obama's overall foreign policy means that there is no penalty for doing anything...except being an ally of the United States.

- Oh, and Ambassador Bolton said that he'd learned on the best authority that North Korean Dear Leader Kim Jong-il favors the public option.

A terrific speech.

October 9, 2009   Permalink

GROWN-UPS ARE STUNNED - AT 9:06 A.M. ET:  We are hoping that the reaction in Poland to this morning's Nobel news will sweep around the world.  There are indications from our check of the internet that it's already happening. Reader Joseph J. Gallick alerted us to this, from the Wall Street Journal:

Poland is stunned to see the Nobel Peace Prize given to U.S. President Barack Obama. You can always count on Poland’s outspoken ex-president and its best-known Nobel Prize laureate Lech Walesa to be undiplomatic:

“Who? What? So Fast?” a shocked Walesa said when reporters told him about the latest Obama win.

“Well, there’s hasn’t been any contribution to peace yet. He’s proposing things, he’s initiating things, but he is yet to deliver,” he said.

Walesa went on to say that we should see this as encouragement for Obama.

Others in Poland are also amazed, so much so that they began questioning the value of the prize.

“Nobel Shnobel,” said Bartosz Weglarczyk, commentator for daily Gazeta Wyborcza. “Obama has great potential, great possibilities, but the peace prize for plans to do something? Chinese dissidents lost as usual because they can no longer plan anything. It’s absurd.”

COMMENT:   Maybe, just maybe, this absurdity will be turned to something good, as people realize what Obamamania has done to the world.  We hope.

October 9, 2009   Permalink

AND NOW BACK TO THE ADULT WORLD - AT 8:53 A.M. ET:    Among the issues that Nobel peace laureate Barack Hussein Obama Jr. will have to deal with on his way to Oslo to pick up the award:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - A top official with Iran's most powerful military force—the Revolutionary Guard—says Tehran will "blow up the heart of Israel" if the Jewish state or the United States attacked Iran.
Cleric Mojtaba Zolnour, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's representative in the Guard, says that if a single U.S. or Israeli missile lands in Iran, Iranian missiles will hit Israel before the dust settles.

Zolnour's remarks were carried Friday by the state IRNA news agency.

Anti-Israeli stance is common for the hardline Guard, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has often called for Israel's destruction.

But Zolnour appears to be ratcheting up the rhetoric ahead of the next round of talks with the West this month over Iran's controversial uranium enrichment.

COMMENT:  But wait.  All Obama will have to do is wave that Nobel Peace Prize certificate in front of this guy, and peace will come to the region.

I can't wait to hear what songs are shoved down the throats of some American school children, now that The One has been made king of the world.

October 9, 2009   Permalink

GREAT QUOTE - AT 8:27 A.M. ET:  From Byron York, in the Washington Examiner:

In its announcement that President Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize this morning, the Nobel committee praised Obama for creating a "new climate" in the world in which "multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position" -- a clear reference to the Bush presidency. Then the committee praised Obama for a diplomacy "founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population" -- a clear reference to the committee's belief, or hope, that Obama does not believe in the strong assertion of specifically American values and attitudes.

COMMENT:  Good statement.  And, of course, we wonder how the Nobel committee assesses attitudes "that are shared by the majority of the world's population"?    How do you measure that, when much of the world is "served" by a controlled press?  What they really mean is the attitudes of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, which considers itself above the world.

October 9, 2009   Permalink

BULLETIN - AT 8:12 A.M. ET:  Reader Paul M. Postal alerts us to this late-breaking story:

NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN GETS NOBEL PEACE PRIZE FOR REACHING OUT TO NAZIS

Just thought you'd like to know.

October 9, 2009   Permalink

AN ABSOLUTE AND UTTER DISGRACE - AT 7:38 A.M. ET:  President Obama has been awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

On the basis of what?

The Nobel Peace Prize has always been a bit of a joke.  It has been given to a number of shady characters, like Yassir Arafat and Jimmah Carter. 

But this one, so to speak, takes the prize.  It will be waved in the face of Obama's opponents.  Here, see, America is back!  Back to appease.

The Nobel Peace Prize, is of course, not one of the "real" Nobel prizes.  It isn't given in Sweden.  It's given in Norway, and has often been influenced by the cynical, leftist politics of that country.  Ronald Reagan, who did more to advance peace than anyone else of our era, by bringing the Cold War to a peaceful and successful conclusion, never was awarded the prize.  It went to his counterpart, Mikhail Gorbachev, the Communist. 

In 2002, when the prize was given to Carter, a member of the selection committee openly said that it was a "kick in the shins" to George W. Bush.  That was a year after the 9-11 attacks, and Bush was trying to defend the United States against further outrages. 

This is another kick in the shins to Bush, but, more important, it is a kick in the shins to that part of America that still believes we have work to do in the war on terror, and believes that the first responsibility of the president is to protect the nation.

It is a dangerous move by the Nobel Peace Prize committee.  Obviously, it's intended to put pressure on Obama to be like Carter, which is his natural instinct anyway.

Question:  How can a man who's just won the Nobel Peace Prize send 40,000 troops to Afghanistan?  How does he send them before he goes to Oslo to pick up the certificate and make a "peace" speech?

It is a terrible day, in which the cynicism of European leftist politics embraces the most radical president we've ever had.  The world will not be better for this award, and Barack Obama, already a supreme egotist, will see himself more and more as above the office of president of the United States.

Let us hope Americans catch on, and realize the hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty of the moment.

Let us see it for the bad joke that it is.

October 9,  2009   Permalink

THURSDAY,  OCTOBER 8,  2009

WHO THE HELL DOES THIS GUY THINK HE IS? - AT 7:19 P.M. ET:  This is a classic example of what happens when a president comes off as weak:

Oct. 8 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. President Barack Obama faces “more than an embarrassment” should his nation fail to lead international negotiations to complete a new climate-protection treaty by December, a senior European climate negotiator said.

Obama’s scope is limited because the U.S. Congress may not approve a domestic law to control emissions before the December deadline for signing an international climate accord in Copenhagen, Karl Falkenberg, director-general for environment at the European Union’s executive body, said in an interview.

“Obama and his administration are very committed, and it will be more than an embarrassment for them if at Copenhagen they would have to admit they are not ready,” Falkenberg said late last night in Bangkok, where more than 180 nations are meeting for talks. “We can just help, but helping them also means directly telling them that the world has an expectation.”

COMMENT:  I don't think Americans should take kindly to threats.  This little enviro-jerk has to be put in his place.  The State Department should make clear that his finger-shaking is not welcome, and, as they say in diplomacy, is "not helpful." 

But there'll be no American reply.  Since Obama took office, we've become a willing punching bag.  We must "understand" how others feel.

Right.  And they should be made to understand how we feel.

Americans may soon start yearning for George W. Bush.

October 8, 2009   Permalink

SOME FAVORABLE POLITICAL NEWS - AT 7:02 P.M. ET:  Virginia elects a new governor next weeks, and the winds favor the Republican candidate.  The race may - and may is always the operative word - have significant political meaning, as the Washington Post points out:

The latest Washington Post poll of the Virginia gubernatorial race represents more than bad news for Democratic nominee R. Creigh Deeds. The findings paint a portrait of the electorate that, if replicated elsewhere, stands as a warning sign for President Obama and Democrats who will be running in next year's midterm elections.

Oh, make it true, make it true.

The new poll shows a lack of enthusiasm among many of the voters who propelled Obama and his party to victory last November, raising troubling questions for the Democrats: Were many of Obama's 2008 energetic supporters one-time participants in the political process who care little about other races? Is Obama's current agenda turning off some voters who backed him last year but now may be looking elsewhere?

And...

Four findings in the poll speak to potentially critical shifts among Obama's coalition jump out of the new poll.

First, just half of the people who say they voted for Obama last November in Virginia say they are certain to vote in the gubernatorial election. That compares with two-thirds of those who say they backed Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Second, there is a lack of energy in the African American community...

...Third is an even sharper falloff in interest among younger voters.

There is a traditional rule of thumb in electoral politics:  Never depend on young voters.  Screaming and yelling rarely translates into votes:

Fourth, the intensity gap between Democrats and Republicans has done a complete reversal.

Republicans are now more enthusiastic.  At least the voters are.  Sometimes we have to wake up the leaders.

...all Democrats have a stake in trying to show that the electorate that put Obama in the White House was more than a one-time phenomenon built around his personality. How much Obama can help to reenergize that electorate is a question that is likely to linger well past the results in Virginia next month.

COMMENT:  The start of the GOP comeback will likely be seen in "purple" states like Virginia, rather than the traditional "blue" states, the Dem states.  Republicans thought they had a shot at the governorship of New Jersey, but miserably unpopular incumbent, Democrat Jon Corzine, has surged recently, and may squeak by to reelection.  New Jersey is always one of those states that arouses GOP hopes, but almost inevitably stays with the Dems.

Remember, the 2010 midterms, the most critical midterms in recent political history, are only 13 months away.  Not too early to register and send checks.  Major combat coming up.

October 8, 2009   Permalink 

FOOLISH MOVE - AT 6:38 P.M. ET:  The Obama administration is taking on Fox News, which is really silly.  Aren't the Obamans satisfied with having the overwhelming majority of news outlets with them, with some acting practically as subdivisions?  Going after Fox looks small and silly.  The Politico reports:

Time White House correspondent Michael Scherer writes that in the face of criticism from the right, "the White House decided it would become a player, issuing biting attacks on those pundits, politicians and outlets that make what the White House believes to be misleading or simply false claims.”

White House Communications Director Anita Dunn has been leading the charge, Scherer notes, and while consuming conservative media, she's become a “fierce critic of Fox News.”

"It's opinion journalism masquerading as news," Dunn says. "They are boosting their audience. But that doesn't mean we are going to sit back." Fox News's head of news, Michael Clemente, counters that the White House criticism unfairly conflates the network's reporters and its pundits, like Glenn Beck, whom he likens to "the op-ed page of a newspaper."

COMMENT:  Fox is right.  I have no problem with the White House replying to things it believes are unfair.  But singling out Fox means singling out one of the most popular news outlets in the country.  Yes, Fox tilts somewhat to the right, especially in its punditry, but its news reports are fair, and within reasonable bounds.  It gives plenty of time for liberals to have their say.

Looks minor league. 

October 8, 2009   Permalink 

AFGHANISTAN "STRATEGY" SESSIONS - AT 9:19 A.M. ET:  General of the Army Douglas MacArthur's father, also a general, gave his son some wise advice:  "Councils of war breed defeatism." 

That's what I'm worried about as I read all these stories about endless discussions over Afghanistan, with more and more "analysis."  Discussion is fine, but when you start to over-intellectualize a problem, you start to magnify the obstacles and minimize your advantages.  In business schools they call it "paralysis by analysis." 

WASHINGTON -- Recognizing the U.S. can neither win in Afghanistan nor succeed more broadly against Al Qaeda without Pakistan's cooperation, President Barack Obama's war council is weighing a new role for Pakistan in the 8-year-old struggle in the region.

Obama's national security team marked the war's eighth anniversary on Wednesday with a three-hour session in a secure room in the White House basement. The focus on Pakistan, the suspected hiding place of Usama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda terrorists as well as Taliban leaders, could provide a hint into the president's leanings.

Members of the president's national security team argued that the Taliban in Afghanistan do not pose a direct threat to the U.S., officials told The New York Times. It was unclear if everyone in the war council accepted the premise.

COMMENT:  The part about the Taliban really disturbs me.  It isn't that the Taliban directly threaten the U.S.  It's that the Taliban, in the past, formed an alliance with Al Qaeda and gave it haven.  If the Taliban regains control, that could easily happen again, and we would have no stomach to try to stop it.

There's something else.  The Taliban were beastly, and their treatment of women unspeakable.  Are we going to abandon the people of Afghanistan to that fate again, after trying to protect them?  There is not only an issue of honor here.  There's an issue of our credibility. 

We abandoned the Vietnamese in 1975, to satisfy the gloating liberal wing of the Democratic Party and a media that had settled on a losing "narrative" that later turned out to be inaccurate.  Are we going to do that again?   Our retreat from Vietnam cost us dearly in credibility, with repair coming only with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980.  I don't see a Reagan on the horizon. 

October 8, 2009   Permalink

JOURNALISTIC SLANTS - AT 8:33 A.M. ET:  The New York Times gives a whitewashed report on the finding by the Congressional Budget Office that the health "reform" plan under consideration will actually save money:

WASHINGTON — The Senate Finance Committee legislation to revamp the health care system would provide coverage to 29 million uninsured Americans but would still pare future federal deficits by slowing the growth of spending on medical care, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

The much-anticipated cost analysis showed the bill meeting President Obama’s main requirements, including his demand that health legislation not add “one dime to the deficit.” Indeed, the budget office said, the bill would reduce deficits by a total of $81 billion in the decade starting next year.

Wow!  What a great bill!  I'm cured, I'm cured!

You have to dig deeper into the story, beyond the liberal Democratic advertisement in the first two paragraphs, to realize that this "analysis" is smoke and mirrors all the way.  A real analysis goes through the legislative language of a bill, the fine print, where the money really is spent.  But that language wasn't even presented to the CBO.

And coverage?  Don't make us laugh.  Dig way, way down in the story and learn that there are loopholes large enough to drive a politically correct hybrid vehicle through:

Republicans were not impressed by the new numbers. Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Finance Committee, said: “The bill spends nearly $1 trillion and still leaves 25 million people without health insurance. That’s not much bang for the buck.”

That's right.  Some 25 million still uninsured.

And hospitals are furious:

“They have not yet met the standard of our deal,” said Charles N. Kahn III, president of the Federation of American Hospitals, a trade group.

But the CBO "report" will provide cover for on-the-fence Democrats and maybe one or two Republicans, like Olympia Snowe of Maine. 

There's a battle ahead.  We need more town meetings and public gatherings to stop this train wreck.

October 8, 2009   Permalink

ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGEOUS - AT 8:13 A.M. ET:  From the Jerusalem Post:

The CIA was aware of Iran's 'secret' nuclear plant in Qom already in 2006, and European and Israeli intelligence agencies were involved in compiling a presentation on the facility to the UN's nuclear watchdog, the US intelligence agency's director, Leon Panetta, revealed in an interview with Time magazine published overnight Wednesday.

The Islamic republic recently revealed that it had been secretly constructing a new uranium enrichment plant inside a mountain just north of the holy city of Qom, and has agreed to discuss future international inspection of the facility.

"It was built into a mountain; obviously that raised question marks," Panetta reportedly said of the site, located some 100 kilometers south of Teheran. The CIA director revealed that he learned of the facility after he was confirmed as head of the agency in January, and said the US spent months on efforts to gather more intelligence on the facility, including "conducting covert operations into that area."

British, French and Israeli intelligence agencies were involved in compiling a presentation on the Qom site that was prepared "in the event that that information leaked out or that [the Obama Administration] wanted to present it to the International Atomic Energy Agency," Panetta added.

COMMENT:  But the American people were told in a National Intelligence Estimate published in 2007 that Iran had stopped working on a weapons program back in 2003.  That NIE took much of the wind out of the campaign to confront Iran.  And yet, we knew of the secret facility a year earlier.

That NIE should be the subject of a major congressional investigation.  We must determine whether a group of intelligence operatives, with political motives, slanted the report to advance its own policies.

There won't be an investigation.  The story apparently is that those who guided the NIE leaned left.  A Democratic congress will never investigate, which is part of a continuing tragedy.

We are talking about nuclear weapons, about survival.  We're so casual about it.

October 8, 2009    Permalink

GET READY, THEY'RE COMING - AT 7:44 A.M. ET:  Taxes, I mean.  The Wall Street Journal, one of the few news outlets that actually understands the economy, editorializes this morning on the new push for a Value Added Tax, to pay for the "programs" that we all asked for in the last election.  You remember asking for all these programs, don't you?

Candor about taxes is rare in Washington, so when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi admits that Democrats may have to impose a huge new tax on the middle class to fund their spending ambitions, believe her.

Speaking with PBS's Charlie Rose on Monday, Mrs. Pelosi mused publicly about the rising possibility of enacting a value-added tax, or VAT, as part of broader tax reform. "Somewhere along the way, a value-added tax plays into this," she said. "Of course, we want to take down the health-care cost, that's one part of it. But in the scheme of things, I think it's fair to look at a value-added tax as well."

I love it, I love it.  We want to "take down the health-care cost," at a time when the Medicare rolls will swell with baby boomers.  The only way they'll "take down" that cost is by cutting care, especially for those unattractive oldies who get more conservative as they age.  Who needs 'em?

The allure of a VAT for politicians is that it applies to every level of production or service, rakes in piles of money, and is largely hidden from those who ultimately pay it—namely, consumers. With a $9 trillion 10-year budget deficit, $4 trillion in spending in fiscal 2010 alone, and a $1 trillion (at a minimum) health-care entitlement in the wings, Mrs. Pelosi knows that not even the revenue from the expiration of the lower Bush tax rates in 2011 will cover the bills. Nearly every European country that has passed national health care has also eventually imposed a VAT, and it's foolish to think the U.S. will be different.

But, of course, we're not being told the truth by the president.  He knows the score, but will blame any economic crisis on BUSH (!!). 

The way this crowd will impose taxes is obvious.  First, they'll establish social programs, with no means to pay for them.  Then they'll declare that the government needs money for these "popular services."  Having made a chunk of the population dependent on the services, they have a built-in constituency to raise taxes to pay for them, especially if the taxes are hidden, or paid for by someone other than the person receiving the services. 

The bills for the Democratic spending blowout are coming due even sooner than advertised, and the middle class will pay, whatever Mr. Obama's campaign promises.

COMMENT:  And this will come as we're trying to rebuild the economy.  Tax a weak economy.  What a concept!

We're on our way to becoming Europe, which has always been the dream of the intellectual elites who control the Democratic Party.  They go to Europe, party with their friends, get briefed by socialist professors, and think they're seeing reality.

And please contemplate what all this will do to national defense.  Where do you think the first cuts will come from?  Get ready for all the talk about the "industrial-military" complex and BUSH'S (!!) wars. 

The only way this looming catastrophe can be avoided is for conservatives to badly dent the liberal forces in the 2010 elections.  Can it be done?  Yes, with enormous effort, solid candidates (not just the guy who's next in line) and a savvy communications strategy that will talk over the heads of the talking heads.

October 8, 2009   Permalink