Abu Wabu

Uh oh.

You may have read that there is strong evidence of voter fraud in Houston. Here’s what you may not have heard: the organization accused of shady behavior is linked to a former head of an Obama campaign office. She is a fan of Che Guevara. She is also the person who invited to a town hall meeting a woman who then posed as a doctor at that meeting during the health care debate.

Here are the details.

Read it all.

The only reason I bring this up is because I want to say I addressed it and am now done with it.

Courage, idiots:



I know.

American Thinker's J.R. Dunn seems to have a handle on the TEA Party's ineffable nature and enormous impact on the American political scene:

The organization of the Tea Parties, and the effects produced by that organization, are emergent properties, rising out of nowhere with no planning, forethought, or external input, coming into being solely as a result of the exploitation of the available technological substrate by individuals and small groups. And yet this movement has shaken American society and has gone a long way toward overthrowing the reigning political superstructure. This is an astonishing chain of events, one that deserves a lot more analysis than it has yet received.

Via Planet Gore

Leftist idiots complain all the time about evil, greedy rich business owners sending jobs overseas.

Since Democrats in Congress, responding to the envirobitch lobby, outlawed conventional bulbs and mandated the new, poison and short-life compact florescent bulbs, I wonder where the outrage was when GE announced it was closing its last remaining U.S. plant that manufactured conventional light bulbs, to move it to China?

Oh, that's right: shut up. Too close to the subject of the unintended (albeit fully anticipated by adults) consequences of idiotic legislation forced on unwilling consumers in the name of saving the Big Milf.

Like most idiotic legislation passed in the name of the environment, the switch to CFBs will do net damage to the environment, once again proving it's not about the environment -- it's about controlling the peasants.

Left wing skank (BIRM) reflects on her highschool days, realizes she is still hopelessly mired in the same old never ending cycle of shame and victimhood:

'We're the girl you'll take under the bleachers but you won't be seen with in the light of day,' the blogger, Susan Madrak of Crooks and Liars, pointedly told Axelrod on the call, which was organized for liberal bloggers and progressive media.

Sorry, sweetie, but that's reality: liberals have to lie to gain and keep power. They can't afford to be seen with their real constituency.

Did you dye your hair?

...

Instapundit on Jonathan Leibowitz' lament for president FAIL:

“I thought he’d do a better job.” You did, huh? Based on what, his extensive experience? Rube.

...

Peter Wehner writes at Commentary Magazine: A Possible Obama Primary Challenge

This is what happens to dogmatic people when their grand ideological ambitions fail. It cannot be because of any defects in their ideology; the problem must rest with weak-willed politicians who aren’t aggressive enough to fight on behalf of their ideology. They don’t have the courage of their convictions.

This critique is of course ludicrous. But for President Obama, it highlights a serious threat: in the aftermath of the forthcoming midterm elections, where Democrats are going to suffer enormous losses, liberals will grow more angry, more disillusioned, and more disgusted with Obama and the Democratic Party establishment. They will blame the election losses on them, not on liberalism; and quicker than you can imagine, the defections will begin. And if Obama doesn’t begin to turn things around in 2011 (and he won't ~ Ed.), he may well face a challenge from within his own party.

That might seem unthinkable now — but let’s see where things stand on November 3, when the recriminations get really ugly.

Can. Not. Wait.

Seriously? It ain't gonna happen: they'll hang their erstwhile Messiah out to twist in the wind in 2012 and Hope for Change from there.

Boy, that is one bleak tableau.

...

In the meantime, I look forward to more stories like this from Breitbart: Obama heckled on AIDS, gay rights at fundraiser.

Activists yelled slogans and held signs aloft reading "Obama broken promises KILL." Supporters of the president tried to drown them out with shouts of "O-bam-a! O-bam-a!"

The hecklers were so raucous Obama went off-script several times to address them, insisting he's increased AIDS funding and is working to overturn the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. He told them to go shout at Republicans, noting that a vote on repealing "don't ask, don't tell" failed this week in the Senate with Republicans united in opposition.

To say nothing, of course, of all the Democrats that were running for cover in a desperate bid to remain electable on November 2.

Here's the alarming part, at least for the Messiah: tickets for this fundraiser were originally 100 bucks. When ticket sales ground to a halt, a massive e-mail flood ensued, offering them at 50 dollars to (apparently former) supporters .

The result: Opey couldn't even fill a 650-seat house. That's the equivalent of a fucking high school gym almost anywhere in America. Only 450 people showed up, and they couldn't even give away the last 200 tickets.

Change you can dip your balls in.

...

First Christina Romer. Then Peter Orzag. Then Lawrence Summers. Now another another Big Rat is fleeing the Titanic.

This just gets better and better.

Unless you live in Chicago.

...

Will the real Malik Shabazz please stand up? At Big Government, Andrew Breitbart is on the trail.

In May 2009, the Obama/Holder Justice Department dropped charges in a voter intimidation case against Malik Shabazz, a leader of the New Black Panther Party, despite having already won a summary judgment against him, and his New Black Panther Party callegues King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson who were video-taped outside polling place in Philadelphia intimidating voters as they arrived on election day, 2008. In July 2009, when Congress began looking into the matter, someone named Malik Shabazz visited the private residence at the White House.

When news of the visit was released under the auspices of transparency, the White House denied that the Malik Shabazz on the visitor’s log was the same Malik Shabazz involved in the New Black Panther voter intimidation case. According to Norm Eisen, special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform, the records contained “a few “false positives” – names that make you think of a well-known person, but are actually someone else.” He specifically cited Malik Shabazz as an example of one of these “false positives”.

At the time, the media did not challenge the White House on the veracity of this claim. The White House’s position was, basically: “We’re being transparent, here are all the visitor logs, and this guy is not the guy you think he is, TRUST US.”

...

Daily Mail: Bono's ONE Foundation is apparently appropriately named:

Bono’s anti-poverty foundation ONE is under pressure to explain its lavish salaries after it was revealed that only a small percentage of money it raises reaches the needy.The non-profit organisation set up by the U2 frontman received almost £9.6m in donations in 2008 but handed out only £118,000 to good causes (1.2 per cent).

Another liberal vanity con game. When will idiots learn?

...

Dr. Gina Loudon smacks down a clumsy, desperate AOL propagandist:

If you can’t get the American population to get behind your socialist President, then just try to paint the conservative leaders as suspiciously similar to him.

Uh, not so much.

Bottom line:

While Republican candidates clamor for the Palin endorsement in primaries, it is difficult to find a Democrat who wants to even be seen campaigning with Obama.

It's gonna be a bright, sunshiney day.

Hot Air: Coates: Obama appointee told me to stop pursuing race-neutral enforcement of Voting Rights Act

Pajamas Media: Full Text of Christopher Coates’ Testimony to U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (PJM Exclusive). Excerpt:

Opposition within the Voting Section was widespread to taking actions under the VRA on behalf of white voters in Noxubee County, MS, the jurisdiction in which Ike Brown was and is the Chairman of the local Democratic Executive Committee. In 2003, white voters and candidates complained to the Voting Section that elections had been administered in a racially discriminatory manner and asked that federal observers be sent to the primary run-off elections. Career attorneys in the Voting Section recommended that we not even go to Noxubee County for the primary run-off to do election coverage, but that opposition to going to Noxubee was overridden by the Bush Administration’s CRD Front Office. I went on the coverage and while traveling to Mississippi, the Deputy Chief who was leading that election coverage asked me, “can you believe that we are going to Mississippi to protect white voters?” What I observed on that election coverage was some of the most outrageous and blatant racially discriminatory behavior at the polls committed by Ike Brown and his allies that I have seen or had reported to me in my thirty-three plus years as a voting rights litigator.

Also at PJM, this article by J. Christian Adams, the man who first blew this case open after resigning in protest from the DoJ: American Hero: Coates Negates a Year of Justice Department Spin on New Black Panther Case We no longer must consult history for a lawyer-hero willing to take personal risk for sacred principles such as the rule of law and racial equality. Our age can claim Christopher Coates.

It has been a very bad week for the dwindling number of people defending the dismissal of the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party by Eric Holder’s Justice Department. Today might have been the worst day of all. Former Voting Section Chief Christopher Coates testified to the United States Civil Rights Commission that Obama political appointees dismissed the case because they are opposed to enforcing civil rights laws in a racially neutral fashion.

And that was just the beginning.

In a dramatic hearing in Washington, D.C., Coates simply destroyed the year-long spin from the Justice Department regarding the dismissal. Coates is the former Voting Section chief, and served as lead attorney on the Black Panther case. He has practiced voting rights law longer than any other lawyer at the Justice Department. His testimony today was the worst possible nightmare for the Obama political officials responsible for the dismissal.

I testified before the Commission in July that Obama political appointee Julie Fernandes made it clear that the Voting Section at the Justice Department would not be bringing any more cases against traditional national racial minorities, like the members of the New Black Panthers. Under oath, Coates corroborated my testimony.

The public has been wondering for over a year why the case was dismissed. Coates testified why today:

[There is a] deep-seated opposition to the race-neutral enforcement of the Voting Rights Act against racial minorities and for the protection of whites who have been discriminated against.

Coates verified that the DOJ is infested with racially motivated hostility towards equal enforcement of the law. Like me, Coates testified about the history of open and pervasive hostility inside the Voting Section to protecting the rights of white voters. This hostility first emerged in the case against Ike Brown in Noxubee County, Mississippi, going back as far as 2004:

The opposition within the Voting Section to taking actions on behalf of white voters in Noxubee County, Mississippi, … was widespread.

Coates confirmed that senior managers didn’t even want to open the investigation into discrimination against white voters in Noxubee County:

The Deputy Chief who was leading that election coverage asked me: “can you believe that we are going to Mississippi to protect white voters?”

Coates described how his memoranda were doctored by former Voting Section Chief Joe Rich, confirming my testimony as well as an article that appeared here at PJM this week.

Coates also testified that he was reprimanded by Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King when he asked attorneys in job interviews if they could enforce the law equally. Coates asked them if they were willing to enforce the law in a racially neutral fashion, regardless of the race of the wrongdoer, even if the wrongdoer was black. Naturally, this inquiry into the applicant’s sense of fairness greatly offended the racially obsessed King. Her agenda was quite different than Coates’ agenda. Coates testified he was summoned to the senior political offices for a tongue-lashing by King, and the interview questions Coates was asking had to go:

King took offense that I was asking such a question of job applicants and directed me not to ask it again because she does not support equal enforcement of the provisions of the Voting Rights Act.

King wanted like-minded attorneys who were corruptly willing to turn a blind eye toward racial discrimination committed by national racial minorities. Soon thereafter, Coates was stripped of his power even to interview applicants. King wasn’t taking any chances that fair-minded, law-abiding attorneys might slip through — only the corrupt need apply.

Read it all at PJM.

Power Line: Christopher Coates takes the stand:

Coates's testimony is a bombshell. It exposes a couple of Obama administration scandals at once. One involves the Obama administration's attempt to cover up the rationale for burying the case against the NBPP. The other involves the Obama administration's support for the racially based administration of justice. Coates's testimony is suggestive of other scandals as well. You probably won't be hearing much about it on the broadcast news tonight or in the papers tomorrow, but we all should do everything we can to get the word out.

Top 10 Failures of Obamanomics

With unemployment at 9.6%, the American people are clamoring for candidates with a solutions-oriented agenda for job creation as an alternative to the job-killing policies of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid machine.

Intel CEO Paul Otellini described it this way: “I think this group does not understand what it takes to create jobs. And I think they’re flummoxed by their experiment in Keynesian economics not working.”

Simply put, candidates who propose job-creating policies and show how their opponent’s policies are killing jobs will win decisively in 2010.

Brent Bozell's Media Research Center attacks the LSM:

From The Telegraph:

Jacques Chirac, the former French president, will stand trial for embezzlement in a Paris court early next year, his lawyer said on Tuesday.

The 77-year-old, whose presidency of France ran from 1995 until 2007, could face a ten-year prison sentence and 150,000-euro (£130,000) fine if found guilty. He will be the first modern French leader to face a corruption trial.

"It's not us. It's you."

Via Ace:

DPW has received $70.65 million and created or retained 45.46 jobs, though they are expected to create 238 jobs overall (the fraction of a job created or retained correlates to the number of actual hours works). LADOT has been awarded $40.8 million and created or retained 9 jobs, though they are expected to create 26 jobs overall. Overall, the Departments have received $111 million in federal stimulus funds out of the $594 million the City has been awarded so far and created or retained 54.46 jobs.

“I’m disappointed that we’ve only created or retained 55 jobs after receiving $111 million in ARRA funds. With our local unemployment rate over 12% we need to do a better job cutting the red tape and putting Angelenos back to work,” said City Controller Greuel. “While it doesn’t appear that any of the ARRA funds were misspent, the City needs to do a better job expediting the process and creating jobs.

Don't worry. American voters will be along to fix that in just a few weeks.

Scott Rasmussen and Douglas Schoen at the Washington Examiner: The evolution of the Tea Party movement.

There were two mass gatherings of people in 2009. The first was expected and universally applauded; the second was unrecognized, misunderstood, and not even fully documented.

And that's when the trouble started.

This is the guy Christine O'Donnell can't beat in November?

Oh this is over.

Read Byron York, yo.

Jeeeezus.

Christine O'Donnell's victory in the Delaware Republican primary has served to crystallize the fault lines between the Republican establishment and the Tea Party conservative movement in ways I did not contemplate until now. I believe this will prove an historic moment.

I first noticed something different when the question of O'Donnell's "electability" moved to the front burner, having been placed there by Republicans opposing O'Donnell.

As Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint and Tea Partiers gravitated to supporting O'Donnell, organs such as NRO (Jim Geraghty) and the Weekly Standard strangely began personally attacking her while ignoring concerns their fellow conservatives have expressed about Mike Castle. Even Karl Rove launched what will go down in history as a grossly misguided attack on O'Donnell during an appearance on Hannity.

Rush, Hannity, Michelle Malkin and other bedrock conservatives defended O'Donnell to her critics, while the guys at Power Line expended some valuable credibility tangling with Mark Levin and Dan Riehl. Then Charles Krauthammer went overboard in attacking Palin's endorsement, drawing criticism from Rush et al... it was all quite without precedent.

And that's the key.

Because the lesson of the O'Donnell win is that the game has changed.

Now every time the voters go to the polls, the so-called conventional wisdom is overturned. With each subsequent outcome, even conservative media stalwarts like Krauthammer are showing that they do not comprehend what is coming, because as much as they follow the data and the polls, they have not yet fully connected with the source: the American people. So when the American people speak their present minds through the ballot box, it comes through to the Republican establishment and its RINOs as a strange, almost unintelligible message.

Whereas to committed conservatives, the message is clear: win the day. Take no prisoners, make no compromises. Accept no impositions by the old guard, define the parameters and declare for the Constitution and the Founding Principals.

For a very long time to come, for as long as it takes to purge the ruling class from government, nothing less will do.

Dinesh D'Souza 'splains it all at Forbes.com:

It may seem incredible to suggest that the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. is espoused by his son, the President of the United States. That is what I am saying. From a very young age and through his formative years, Obama learned to see America as a force for global domination and destruction. He came to view America's military as an instrument of neocolonial occupation. He adopted his father's position that capitalism and free markets are code words for economic plunder. Obama grew to perceive the rich as an oppressive class, a kind of neocolonial power within America. In his worldview, profits are a measure of how effectively you have ripped off the rest of society, and America's power in the world is a measure of how selfishly it consumes the globe's resources and how ruthlessly it bullies and dominates the rest of the planet.

For Obama, the solutions are simple. He must work to wring the neocolonialism out of America and the West. And here is where our anticolonial understanding of Obama really takes off, because it provides a vital key to explaining not only his major policy actions but also the little details that no other theory can adequately account for.

Why support oil drilling off the coast of Brazil but not in America? Obama believes that the West uses a disproportionate share of the world's energy resources, so he wants neocolonial America to have less and the former colonized countries to have more. More broadly, his proposal for carbon taxes has little to do with whether the planet is getting warmer or colder; it is simply a way to penalize, and therefore reduce, America's carbon consumption. Both as a U.S. Senator and in his speech, as President, to the United Nations, Obama has proposed that the West massively subsidize energy production in the developing world.

Rejecting the socialist formula, Obama has shown no intention to nationalize the investment banks or the health sector. Rather, he seeks to decolonize these institutions, and this means bringing them under the government's leash. That's why Obama retains the right to refuse bailout paybacks--so that he can maintain his control. For Obama, health insurance companies on their own are oppressive racketeers, but once they submitted to federal oversight he was happy to do business with them. He even promised them expanded business as a result of his law forcing every American to buy health insurance.

If Obama shares his father's anticolonial crusade, that would explain why he wants people who are already paying close to 50% of their income in overall taxes to pay even more. The anticolonialist believes that since the rich have prospered at the expense of others, their wealth doesn't really belong to them; therefore whatever can be extracted from them is automatically just. Recall what Obama Sr. said in his 1965 paper: There is no tax rate too high, and even a 100% rate is justified under certain circumstances.

Obama supports the Ground Zero mosque because to him 9/11 is the event that unleashed the American bogey and pushed us into Iraq and Afghanistan. He views some of the Muslims who are fighting against America abroad as resisters of U.S. imperialism. Certainly that is the way the Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi portrayed himself at his trial. Obama's perception of him as an anticolonial resister would explain why he gave tacit approval for this murderer of hundreds of Americans to be released from captivity.

Finally, NASA. No explanation other than anticolonialism makes sense of Obama's curious mandate to convert a space agency into a Muslim and international outreach. We can see how well our theory works by recalling the moon landing of Apollo 11 in 1969. "One small step for man," Neil Armstrong said. "One giant leap for mankind."

But that's not how the rest of the world saw it. I was 8 years old at the time and living in my native India. I remember my grandfather telling me about the great race between America and Russia to put a man on the moon. Clearly America had won, and this was one giant leap not for mankind but for the U.S. If Obama shares this view, it's no wonder he wants to blunt NASA's space program, to divert it from a symbol of American greatness into a more modest public relations program.

Clearly the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. goes a long way to explain the actions and policies of his son in the Oval Office. And we can be doubly sure about his father's influence because those who know Obama well testify to it. His "granny" Sarah Obama (not his real grandmother but one of his grandfather's other wives) told Newsweek, "I look at him and I see all the same things--he has taken everything from his father. The son is realizing everything the father wanted. The dreams of the father are still alive in the son."

Oh goody.

November 2, 2010

"Great harm has been done to us. We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment. Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom — the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time — now depends on us. Our nation — this generation — will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail."

~ President George W. Bush, September 20, 2001.



Andrew C. McCarthy has consistently sounded the alarm against the growing threat of Islam, and marks today with Imagining Islam:

If only the fantasy were true: If only there actually were a dominant, pro-American, echt moderate Islam, an ideology so dedicated to human rights, so sternly set against savagery, that acts of terrorism were, by definition, “un-Islamic activity.” Imagine an Islam that, far from a liability, proved an asset (indeed, an indispensable asset) in combating the threat against us. Imagine that we could accurately call the threat mere “extremism” — no “Islamic” (or even “Islamist”) modifier being necessary because the “extremists” truly were a tiny, aberrant band, fraudulently “hijacking” a great religion…

What excruciating truths have we yet failed to grasp on this ninth anniversary of 9/11? The first is that such an Islam does not exist. The second is that, despite this fact, American foreign and domestic policy continues to proceed as though it does exist — and as though it were the only real Islam. That is, nine years after Islamists made their commitment to our destruction as unmistakable as possible, nine years after the non-occurrence of all the wonderful things that would certainly have happened if the Islam of our dreams were the Islam of our reality, our national-security strategy is still steeped in fiction.

Another crucial reason for reason to prevail in November.

The view from above.

The Endless Summer



Available from Endless Bummer Tees at Cafe Press. You buy now!

From Big Government comes a typically thoughtful and informed essay by Hillsdale College History Professor Paul Rahe, who credits the relentless despotism of Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Emmanuel with having ignited and fed the growth of the Tea Party Movement.

The measures undertaken by the Obama administration and by its supporters in Congress that gave rise to and sustained the Tea-Party Movement all have this in common. They constitute an assault – evident to anyone who cares to look – on our inherited political order. They transgress on the two great principles constitutive of that order. They are inconsistent with federalism and the separation of powers, and nothing speaks to their character more eloquently than the fact that they were crafted in camera behind closed doors, that those who voted on them had not read them, and that they were of such a length as to be incomprehensible even to their putative authors.

Let me be a bit more precise. The two great measures passed since January, 2009 – the healthcare reform bill and the financial-regulation reform bill – presuppose that the federal government can do anything. Both run roughshod over the prerogatives of the states. Neither is consistent with federalism as a principle of governance.

The same can be said with regard to the separation of powers. Both bills presuppose a massive delegation of legislative power to executive agencies. Both presuppose that appointed officials can and should be empowered to issue regulations having the force of law. Both presuppose on the part of both houses of Congress an abdication of the legislative power. Both require a concentration of executive, legislative, and judicial power within a single agency that operations, in effective, behind closed doors. Both promise to give rise to a government that is invisible and unaccountable. The combination of these powers is, Montesquieu asserted, the very emblem of despotism.

What John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and their Republican colleagues must begin doing immediately, Rahe asserts, is educate American citizens to the furthest possible extent on the Democrats' ongoing attack on the Constitution, so as to facilitate a lasting return to first principals.

What those who joined the Tea-Party Movement sense must in the course of the midterm campaign be made manifest in all of its horror.

Read Restoring Constitutional Government.

More from Paul Rahe.

"It's called 'theft.'"

Under Ronaldus Maximus, the largest peacetime economic expansion in history; under Barack Hussein Obama, ongoing record unemployment with no relief in sight and no answer but more debt.

I Want Your Money catalogues Obama's "progressive" ideological attack on America's and Americans' fortunes and prosperity, and it will hit theaters just in time to affect the November elections.

Don't you just love the First Amendment?



Coming this fall to a theater near you.

62 days.

A Volokh commenter has caught the New Yorker's Jane Mayer channeling George Soros in her attack on the Koch brothers, about whom I knew literally nothing until I read about Frank Rich's critical NYT piece at Big Journalism. I Binged the matter and found reference to Mayer's dishonest hit piece, which was in turn beautifully dismantled by "Blue."

David Bernstein reaches the adult conclusion:

Blue is obviously correct. It’s at best wildly hypocritical for a journalist to criticize the Koch's for allegedly hiding their ideological activities behind “slippery organizations with generic-sounding names” while the journalist herself consistently relies in the very same story on left-wing political activists who themselves work for “slippery organizations with generic-sounding names”, while not even identifying the organizations in question as left-wing.

As for the Koch brothers, to leftist idiots their big crime is that they aren't pouring their money into the same causes as the despicable Soros. Too bad, leftist idiots.

More from American Spectator: Jane Mayer's Violent Assault on the Koch Brothers.

The only ones who look dirty in all of this are the leftist idiot character assassins.

There was so much not to like in it.

First, this idiocy that somehow only now that he's pulling troops out of Iraq, in accordance by the way with an agreement forged between the Iraqis and his predecessor George W. Bush, is there enough to go "on offense" against al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Second, he reveals his utter pettiness in what Jonah Goldberg refers to as his "lawyerly avoidance of reality":

This is what passes for bipartisan graciousness at the highest level of national security? Bush was a really swell guy who loved his country. Okay. What about the fact that he was right about the surge and our ability to leave Iraq (as much as we are) is attributable not to Obama’s fidelity to his campaign pledge, but to a decision made by Obama’s predecessor, a decision Obama opposed vociferously. I don’t expect an “I was wrong” from an Oval Office address (though it would be nice — as it would have been from Bush more than once, too). But Obama’s lawyerly avoidance of reality makes him seem petty and raises the suspicion that he can’t think straight about these issues. That is dangerous.

And third, he demands that Americans must now get behind the troops returning home and, um, do everything they can to implement Obama's destructive agenda.

And so at this moment, as we wind down the war in Iraq, we must tackle those challenges at home with as much energy, and grit, and sense of common purpose as our men and women in uniform who have served abroad. They have met every test that they faced. Now, it is our turn. Now, it is our responsibility to honor them by coming together, all of us, and working to secure the dream that so many generations have fought for –the dream that a better life awaits anyone who is willing to work for it and reach for it.

Our most urgent task is to restore our economy, and put the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs back to work. To strengthen our middle class, we must give all our children the education they deserve, and all our workers the skills that they need to compete in a global economy. We must jumpstart industries that create jobs, and end our dependence on foreign oil. We must unleash the innovation that allows new products to roll off our assembly lines, and nurture the ideas that spring from our entrepreneurs. This will be difficult. But in the days to come, it must be our central mission as a people, and my central responsibility as President.

Wow. Do we get uniforms, too?

Someone needs to remind President Bullshit that his central responsibility is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. And that Someone is the voters who will go to the polls in November to stop him in his tracks and reverse the damage. In other words, Repeal Obama.

So let's look ahead to November and see if Americans can come together to make Obama's dreams reality, albeit perhaps not as he intends.

And so at this moment, as we wind down the war in Iraq, we must tackle those challenges at home with as much energy, and grit, and sense of common purpose as our men and women in uniform who have served abroad. They have met every test that they faced.

Yes they have. And now they are returning home to record unemployment, trillions in debt, and no hope for economic recovery, all thanks to Obama. And that war on terror they've been fighting for the last nine years? Obama won't even call it by its name, that's how committed he is to whitewashing it. He was against the surge and voted to cut off funds to the military in Iraq. He refused to acknowledge its success even after it was obvious. He won't offer one thin slice of genuine praise, even on their behalf, to their real Commander-in-Chief, George W. Bush. And he is busy right now gutting the very military they have served with such honor and trying to cut the absentee military vote out of future elections.

And now -- what? He thinks they are going to vote Democrat in November?

Now, it is our responsibility to honor them by coming together, all of us, and working to secure the dream that so many generations have fought for –the dream that a better life awaits anyone who is willing to work for it and reach for it.

Actually, Sparky, Americans were already living that dream in large numbers until you and your "progressive" friends set an IED under the American and world economies with your monstrously destructive big-government Ponzi schemes.

But hey, come November, you will see with astounding clarity that Americans are willing to come together -- in a wholly organic, spontaneous and individual rights-driven grass roots movement that hews to the original American Revolution by waging war against tyrannical government-- to secure that dream again, the dream that a better life awaits anyone who is willing to work for it and reach for it.

And they will take back both houses of the Legislative Branch as the first step to achieving that very end.

Our most urgent task is to restore our economy, and put the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs back to work.

Too true. Keeping the Bush tax cuts and repealing Obamacare will certainly help. In fact, booting the Democrats, unleashing Congressional oversight and dismantling Obama's ruinous agenda will practically guarantee Americans reach every one of Obama's stated goals:

• Strengthen our middle class;
• Give all children the education they deserve and workers the skills they need;
• Jumpstart industries that create jobs;
• End dependence on foreign oil (Secretary of Energy Sarah Palin);
• Unleash innovation (entrepreneurs will take care of themselves - that's what makes them entrepreneurs);

President Obama is right: doing all this would be terribly difficult were he to retain all his ill-gotten power. It will be much less difficult once he is reined in. In the days to come, it will be We The People's "central mission" to do just that.

It took a while, as these things will from time to time until the old machine is finally put to rest, but Tea Party candidate and Sarah Palin endorsee Joe Miller has beaten incumbant Lisa Murkowski in the Alaska Republican primary.

And the Tea Party Express rolls on.

The Other McCain via American Spectator: It's Miller Time, America!

Miller’s victory was a vindication for a lot of people who have grown tired of seeing the GOP act as accomplices to the remorseless expansion of federal power. The campaign succeeded in large measure because the Tea Party movement has turned long-simmering conservative discontent with big-government Republicanism into an organized national force. Ever since the 2008 TARP bailout of Wall Street — for which Murkowski voted — more and more GOP voters have joined the insurgency that helped fuel the Miller campaign in accomplishing a rare thing: The defeat of an incumbent senator in a Republican primary. . . .

63 days.

Ace on President Obama's Iraq speech:

Is this dirtbag really using an opportunity to thank the troops as a campaign commercial for his failed economic policies? I think he is.