Some Good Monday Links

Here are three articles worth reading:

1. This National Review article by Charles Krauthammer warns conservatives that they "underestimate Obama at their peril." Krauthammer notes that in only 18 short months Obama has succeeded in making drastic changes to our country's health care system, financial system, and energy system, while his stimulus spending and changes to the budget structure have put our country on the path to bankruptcy. None of these "accomplishments" will be easily reversed, if at all. But a second term, when Obama would no longer be accountable to voters for future reelection, would be far, far worse. Conservatives should not write his obituary prematurely, and regardless of the outcome of the 2010 elections MUST not rest until he is voted out of office in 2012.

2. Want to know what the most under-represented group is on top-tier U.S. private college & university campuses? Hint: it's not a racial minority group. Find out more in this fascinating op-ed piece in The New York Times.

3. Probably the single left-wing claim that makes me most angry is the oft-repeated slander that the Tea Party movement is racist. This blatantly false claim not only slanders a lot of good, hard-working Americans who love their country, but also drives a racial wedge into the heart of our society and minimizes real racism. I have written extensively on this topic in a previous post, but I wanted to include another great article on this topic from National Review, written by Deroy Murdock in response to the NAACP's condemnation of the Tea Party movement. I think it's important for conservatives to know the facts about the Tea Party movement so we can defend ourselves against this kind of ignorant propaganda.

Karl Rove's Biggest Mistake While in the White House

Want to find out what Karl Rove considers to be his biggest mistake while working in the White House? Find out here.

Arguing With Idiots (Is Not a Good Idea)

Glenn Beck recently wrote a NY Times bestseller called Arguing With Idiots. I'm sure the book is great, but I don't like the title. I much prefer the title of Ann Coulter's recent book How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must). Arguing with idiots is not only incredibly frustrating, but also generally pointless. As Coulter puts it, "If you can somehow force a liberal into a point-counterpoint argument, his retorts will bear no relation to what you said—unless you were, in fact, talking about your looks, your age, your weight, your personal obsessions, or whether you are a fascist." (Clarification: I do not believe that all liberals are idiots. However, I do believe that many idiots are liberals.)

Mark Joseph has a great opinion piece on the Fox News website about the Arizona immigration law controversy. He writes, "Watching events play out in and around the state of Arizona in the wake of the state's recent immigration law makes me more and more wary of blind allegiance to ideology and wary, too, of the emergence of a whole class of people who strike me as being immune to logic, reason, analogy and thoughtful debate, trapped in a Never Never Land in which conclusions are reached and then held on to, just because. I see this in our attorney general and our head of Homeland Security, both whom, to their credit, have admitted that though they are dead set against the Arizona law, they haven’t actually read it. I see it too, in an e-mail I received recently from a promoter who tells me my artist’s scheduled date on a major music tour in Phoenix has been cancelled because of the law. When I remind him that 17 other states are poised to pass similar laws he writes back “unbelievable.” When I remind him that it’s actually a restatement of federal law and wonder aloud if he’ll be extending the boycott to the rest of the 49 states in the union -- to be consistent -- he falls silent."

I am willing to debate with someone who wants to defend Obama and his policies using substantive evidence such as facts and logic. I believe that I am honest when I say that I am willing to at least consider their point of view. There have been liberal friends who have commented on this blog and have sought to argue honestly using facts, and I respect that and give their arguments the respect they deserve. Unfortunately, I have also had some very disappointing experiences in arguing with liberals. To have a productive debate with someone, both parties have to be willing to listen to the other side's arguments, consider them thoughtfully, and respond to them factually, point by point. You cannot debate with someone who refuses to consider and respond to your points, or who parrots the same talking points without providing any supporting evidence, or who plays the race card in answer to almost every question, or who answers your questions by completely changing the subject.

My conclusion: It is a straight waste of your time and energy to argue with some people. (The Bible calls it "casting your pearls before swine.") There was a time when I thought that most people could be persuaded or at least enlightened by a good enough argument. I have come to realize that many people come into discussions with their minds so tightly closed to an opposing point of view that they will not even listen to and think about what you have to say, much less be open to persuasion. They are willfully and willingly ignorant. You may not know who those people are at first, but a few conversations will tell you all you need to know. They may be (and often are) kind and friendly people. They may be your friends or family members. But you should never start a serious conversation with them about politics. Arguing with idiots is not a good idea.

Socialist Watch

Here is a summary of some of the recent mischief that Obama and his administration have been up to:

1. Suing Arizona. The Department of Justice claims that Arizona's new illegal immigration law "preempts" the federal government's enforcement of immigration laws. Hmmm. That argument might be a bit more compelling if the federal government actually WERE enforcing immigration laws. As a matter of fact, interior federal enforcement of immigration laws is down 75% since 2008. It's also a fact that the Arizona law was carefully written to be consistent with federal immigration law. States assist the federal government all the time in enforcing federal laws; this is nothing unusual and certainly nothing unconstitutional. I note that Obama made a big deal about how the AZ law amounted to racial profiling, yet there is nothing in the lawsuit about that. He knows that false claim would not stand up in court. This lawsuit is all about playing racial politics to get his base fired up in an election year. If he cared about the immigration problem, he would fulfill his constitutional obligation to secure the border and enforce existing immigration law, as well as working with Congress to come up with an acceptable bi-partisan immigration reform law.

2. Appointing Donald Berwick to Head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. It is disgraceful that Berwick was snuck in under the public's radar through a recess appointment, which enabled him to avoid being confirmed by the Senate. Of course, previous presidents have used recess appointments too, including Bush, but this is the first time that a top Cabinet-level official has been confirmed without even a hearing! No hearings had even been scheduled in the Senate, and 11 weeks after his nomination his Senate paperwork still had not been completed. In other words, he has had no public vetting whatsoever, yet he is going to have power over a portion of the government that is 4% of GDP (and has a bigger budget than the Dept. of Defense)! Obama would make a great third world dictator.

Of course there's a reason why Obama didn't want this guy to face confirmation hearings, even in a very Obama-friendly Senate. Berwick's views would not be very well received by the public. Here are some very revealing quotes about his views:

"[I am] romantic about the National Health Service" [the government agency
that controls the government-run health care system in Britain]. It is
a "seductress" and a "global treasure."

"The decision is not whether or not we will ration care—the decision is whether
we will ration with our eyes open."

One of the "primary functions" of government health care laws is "to
constrain decentralized, individual decision making" and "to weigh public
welfare against the choices of private consumers."

"Any healthcare funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane
must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and
the less fortunate. Excellent healthcare is by definition redistributional."

“As many as 80% of hysterectomies are scientifically unnecessary, so are more
than a quarter of the drugs used for ear infections, most of the ultrasounds
done in normal pregnancies, and half of cesarean sections in the United States.
Isn’t this, with all due respect, some form of assault and battery, however
unintended?”

“Don't trust market forces." Trust "leaders with plans."

“One over-demanding service [to be cut] is prevention; annual physicals,
screening tests, and other measures that supposedly help catch disease
early.

“Only a minority of patients, families, and clinicians support prolonged use
of life-sustaining procedures and dramatic interventions in the terminal states
of illness, yet substantial use of these procedures continue.”

This all sounds great -- if you want unelected bureaucrats making your health care decisions for you.

3. Politicizing NASA. NASA Administrator Charles Bolden gave an interview with Al-Jazeera. In this interview, Bolden said that Obama himself had instructed Bolden that his "perhaps foremost" requirement was “to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science . . . and math and engineering.” (!) Wow. And all this time I thought NASA was about space exploration. Is there anything that this president touches that he doesn't turn into a vehicle for his radical ideology?

4. Politicizing the Justice Department. Christian Adams, a voting-rights lawyer who recently resigned from the Justice Department, recently testified before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission about the New Black Panther voter intimidation case in Philadelphia on Election Day 2008. That case, which was filed by the Justice Department in January 2009, said that two members of the New Black Panther party stood in front of a polling station, wearing military garb and brandishing a nightstick. The two men hurled "racial threats and racial insults at both black and white individuals" and "made menacing and intimidating gestures, statements, and movements directed at individuals who were present to aid voters." No defense was offered by the two individuals or by the New Black Panther party, which means that the case was a guaranteed win for the Justice Department. Yet, the Obama Administration suddenly dropped the case in May 2009, claiming insufficient evidence.

Adams stated in a Washington Times article that "if the actions in Philadelphia do not constitute voter intimidation, it is hard to imagine what would, short of an actual outbreak of violence at the polls." He went on to say that the case was dropped because there is an "open and pervasive hostility within the Justice Department to bringing civil rights cases against nonwhite defendants on behalf of white victims. Equal enforcement of justice is not a priority of this administration. Open contempt is voiced for these types of cases.... Some of my coworkers argued that the law should not be used against black wrongdoers because of the long history of slavery and segregation.... Incredibly, after the case was dismissed, instructions were given that no more cases against racial minorities like the Black Panther case would be brought by the [Justice Department's] Voting Section." Not surprisingly, the Justice Department is stonewalling and has refused to allow attorneys involved in the case to respond even to subpoenas.

When Obama's done with our country, there won't be much left.

This Is What You Get When You Elect Somebody Who Never Even Ran a Lemonade Stand

“By reaching into virtually every sector of economic life, government is injecting uncertainty into the marketplace and making it harder to raise capital and create new businesses."

That statement didn't come from Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh. It came from Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg, a big supporter of Obama and the president of the Business Roundtable which has been one of Obama's closest allies in the business community. Seidenberg went on to say that he was "troubled" and had to speak out because "the negative effects of [Obama's] policies are simply too significant to ignore." Another pro-Obama business leader, GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt, has also recently spoken out against Obama's policies, saying that Obama doesn't get along with the business community and is not working with them effectively. Of course, it would have been nice if these CEO's had spoken out BEFORE the health care bill passed instead of after it had already become law.

Read more about Obama's anti-business, anti-employment policies here. To paraphrase Reagan, "A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose your job. And recovery is when Obama loses his job."

Election 2010 Predictions

I have made predictions for Election 2010 U.S. Senate and governors races using a site called U.S. Election Atlas, and will be periodically updating them throughout the campaign. I will also be adding analysis to go along with the predictions. If you are interested in checking them out, here are the links:

U.S. Senate predictions page

Governors predictions page