The Lie Heard 'round the World

It's the lawyer's joke: How can you tell when Nancy Pelosi is lying? Her lips are moving. She is now on the television lying to Americans about the Democrat's Health Insurance destruction bill. Her minion Steny Hoyer is now lying about how open the process has been - when not a single Republican was allowed into the committee hearings to give input and nothing has shown up on the web. So, the next time that Pelosi accuses the CIA of lying, she needs to take a look at the transcripts of today's lie-a-thon and count the number of lies she and Steny have told America. I have put my wading boots on because the flow of crap from the crap-holes is even now oozing out of the television.

For the Obama and Civil Rights - Global Warming Comes First

Bret Stephens: Does Obama Believe in Human Rights?

In Massachusetts not long ago, I found myself driving behind a car with "Free Tibet," "Save Darfur," and "Obama 08" bumper stickers. I wonder if it will ever dawn on the owner of that car that at least one of those stickers doesn't belong.

the Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize for being seen to be Good

In light of the following column by Bret Stephens over at WSJ: A Perfect Nobel Pick I may have to rethink my position on the Obama's Nobel Peace Prize. Basically, he notes that the Obama joins a crowd of relatively obscure recipients whose only qualification is that they talk a lot about peace but actually don't do much about it. He terms them the Goodists.

Who are the Goodists? They are the people who believe all conflict stems from avoidable misunderstanding. Who think that the world's evils spring from technologies, systems, complexes (as in "military-industrial") and everything else except from the hearts of men, where love abides. Who mistake wishes for possibilities. Who put a higher premium on their own moral intentions than on the efficacy of their actions. Who champion education as the solution, whatever the problem. Above all, the Goodists are the people who like to be seen to be good.

These people don't actually do anything that leads to peace - that role belongs to the leaders - Churchill, FDR, Patton, MacArthur, Reagan, etc - no these are the guys and girls who were getting their asses kicked in high school while trying to talk some bully out of kicking their butts. That's the Obama, so he fits right in. There are of course a few exceptions - there was Teddy Roosevelt - certainly not a shrinking violet. There were a lot of kooks, Gore, Carter, Rigoberta Menchú, and some downright evil people Yasser Arafat, but in general the prize has gone to the talkers over the doers. So, the most extraordinary thing about the Peace Prize is how un-extraordinary it is. Had anyone of the liberals that were running against the Obama won the White House and spewed the drivel he has they too would have won the award. The award is not about America and our values but all about the Obama - and lets be clear not the person but his words - he's considered to be good.

Health Care Destruction

First of all I need to reiterate that they - the liberals (and everyone else) need to stop calling it Health Care Reform. There is nothing reformative about any of the bills that are being bantered about by the libs. A better word would be "destructive," because in the end that is what their effect will be - to destroy health care as we know it. So far, the Baucus bill and others are nothing but a mishmash of Congressese jammed together and called Health Care Reform. The CBO magically came up with a scoring, of conceptual language no less, that just perfectly matched the Obamacrat's estimate ~$900 Billion over ten years. To their everlasting dismay PriceWaterhouseCoopers in a report on the impact of Health Care Destruction, estimated that on the low side it will cause the price of premiums for a family plan will rise $4000 over that 10 years. (see) Part of the reason for the rise in premiums is the requirement that all comers be covered - so the premiums for those with pre-existing conditions will be very expensive and because the Senate bill has such a weak mandate that young and health uninsured be covered there will be gaps in the funding for the sick that will have to be made up by raising the rates on everyone else. Remember that the Senate bill is really a ponzi scheme - very much like Social Security - that requires millions of currently uninsured healthy people - people who are at low risk if using their insurance - pay into the scheme to cover those that will put huge drains on the scheme. All this to cover 15-20 million people (no illegal aliens need apply) who don't have insurance because they are poor or have pre-existing conditions - raising the covered from 83% to 95% they say, yet after 10 years there will still be 25 million uninsured - hmmmmm! I can't figure out if the 5% that won't be covered are the illegal aliens or the fact that nothing is perfect (an understatement). Is the 25 million not covered after 10 years include illegal aliens or is that the number of people the government system can't reach because of whatever - are they an excuse to further raise the rates and taxes on the rest of us to pick up the slack? So if 15-20 millions costs $1 Trillion - the floor, not the ceiling, how much will an additional 25 million cost us - $3 Trillion?

The Nobel Fake Award

Jeeze, Peggy Noonan too! A Wicked and Ignorant Award:

The members of the committee have also put the young American president in a terrible place. They make it look like all the talk of "The One," the heartthrob of the European elite, the darling of the international left, is true. They make him look prefabricated and inauthentic, an empty structure held up by essentially silly people. Which puts him at a disadvantage in his own country, because Americans don't really like it when flaky European politicians tell them how they ought to see him or the world. (Emphasis mine)

Unfortunately, Ms. Noonan, the Nobel committee has just affirmed what most of us already think about the Obama - a fake.

Being Great means being Loved by Norway

The problem I have with columns like this one from Michael Hirsh, Thanks for Not Being Bush, is that they start from the incorrect premise that somehow America was better before Bush - and not Reagan better but Bill Clinton better. The Hirsh's of the world forget that under Clinton the Telecom industries and the dotcom industries were regulated into the ground; that Fannie and Freddie were given free reign to lend to the unqualified - thus the housing collapse at the end of Bush's term. There was nothing great about the Clinton term in office - unless you consider being loved by everyone in the world - except the terrorists, which he ignored, which led to 9/11 - as being great. You see, those that are following the Obama around like a bunch of puppies believe that America is great only if the government is dictating every second of our lives and only if the rest of the world loves us. For them a great America is not about projecting strength and high moral values around the world - as Reagan and Bush did - no, it is about going with the world flow, socialism and sloppyism. I don't give a rat's ass if France or England or Norway for that matter likes the US and if the Obama and his band of merry incompetents would get out of the way and stop trying to micromanage everything the economy will take care of itself. If being great means being like the rest of the world then screw that.

Update: I was thinking further about what the Obama-bel Peas Prize means, not only is it a swipe at George Bush and Ronald Reagan, but it is a full open-handed smack of America. The Norwegians were not recognizing Obama's New American world leadership but Obama's New American followership. They are not acknowledging our willingness to lead but our willingness to follow the rest of the world. Obama is not a leader and his version of America is not as leading but following.

the Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize for Wishful Thinking

From a front page article at the WSJ (Obama Awarded Peace Prize) we learn the real reason he was given the award:

Agot Valle, a Norwegian politician and member of the committee, said in a phone interview that the choice of Mr. Obama was primarily related to his stance on nuclear disarmament. Ms. Valle said the committee last met on Oct. 5, and that the decision to choose him was unanimous. She said his recent work at the United Nations in late September to pass a resolution calling for a strengthened Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty helped his candidacy.

Translate: Obama was awarded the peace prize for a bit of puffery that he slathered on the Security Council about striving for a Nuclear Weapons free world - the same bit of puffery that got him "bitch" slapped by French President Sarkozy (remember this?). So, it turns out that the awarding wasn't really about anything of substance but about more of the same liberal blather heard since the days of Carter the Withered. World peas, blah, blah, blah! One has to wonder why Reagan and Bush weren't awarded the prize - both actually accomplished reductions in Nuclear Weapons and addressed head on the issue of proliferation. We know that Clinton's policies allowed North Korea to get the weapon - and India and Pakistan and we also know that the Obama's current policy will ensure that soon Iran has a weapon and NK will possibly use theirs on SK. The reality is, the award was given for not for action but for blathering.

I also think that the Obama should get the Field's Award - the Nobel for Mathematics - for the invention of new math that explains why a $10 Trillion health care bill won't cost us a penny.