Cleverest Innovation of 2009

New accounting standard BHO/DC-02009.01.

Using this standard a good friend of mine was able to create or save $30,000 by spending every penny he earned in unemployment as well as some of his child's college fund in 2009.  He is thrilled with the results and feels he will be able to convince the bank not to foreclose on his home once he shows them his accurate online tracking of the funds.

Personally I was able to show that I lost or didn't gain 20 pounds!
DKK

Update:

This is the same system, including the web reporting that we are using to determine how many jobs were CREATED or SAVED by the stimulus. If it works for Washington....

Read the Speech, Mr. President, Don't Just Quote From It!

During his December 1, 2009 speech to West Point President Obama quoted from President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Farewell Address of January 17, 1961,

I'm mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who -- in discussing our national security -- said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs."

Over the past several years, we have lost that balance.  We've failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy.

With all due respect, Mr. President, it is frankly ironic that you would choose this speech.  If you did read and understand this speech you would understand that it is a frank warning against everything you have done and proposed to date. (I have previously written about the Eisenhower speech while discussing the scientific-technological elite and global warming).

A few examples:



Take over of the nations health care:

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

Cap and Trade/Climategate:

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. 

Bailouts/Takeovers/Nationalization :

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs, balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages, balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable, balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual, balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future.

Stimulus/Economic/Resources :

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

Foreign Policy/Honduras:

America is today the strongest, the most influential, and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches, and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace, to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity, and integrity among peoples and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension, or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt, both at home and abroad.

War on Terror/Long Term Conflict:

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insiduous [insidious] in method. Unhappily, the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

It really is a fascinating prescient speech, take a couple minutes and read the entire thing.

DKK 

 

'An Army Of Davids' or Just A Different Gated Community?

The blogosphere has no doubt improved information gathering and dissemination, including many stories not covered by the traditional media -- so much so that popular bloggers have taken to calling it an, "Army of Davids," based on popular blogger Glen Reynolds of Instapundit's book of the same name.

Is that still true?

As a disabled blogger who doesn't have the stamina to blog daily (though I have repeatedly tried) or even the ability to consistently formulate proper sentences (and sometimes even difficulty in spelling and word finding, due to the cognitive part of my illness) coming up with an idea and putting it in pixels can be taxing with some even simple posts taking hours to write, however it is often quite worth it as you see a good idea right there on the internet.

However that same excitement can turn quickly to disappointment when you see that same idea, often times in nearly the same form being linked by the big blogs -- despite your attempts at getting it noticed when you wrote it.

For example:

Yesterday Instapundit linked to Bill Whittle of Eject Eject Eject with the tagline:

BILL WHITTLE ON CLIMATEGATE: A warning from President Eisenhower.

Posted at by Glenn Reynolds at 10:23 am (December 2, 2009)

Here is Bill's piece:

Hat tip to Michael Moore for reminding me about President Eisenhower’s famous “Beware the Military-Industrial Complex” speech, in which the Liberal Icon and Pacifist Saint Dwight David Eisenhower had this to say:

“…the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
(Emphasis mine – BW)

I wonder if this admonition from Eisenhower – uttered a few moments after he warned of the influence of the Military-Industrial complex — will be repeated among the Left with the same grave sense of somber warning as his previous few sentences?
December 1, 2009 11:46am

Strange thing is that if you Google scientific-technological elite the very first hit you get (as of the time of this posting) this piece I wrote almost a year ago and updated when the climategate issue came to light:

UPDATE: November 27, 2009 --  With the release of the University of East Anglia's emails this month and the beginning of the discovery of "climategate" this message has never been more important!

Everybody remembers Eisenhower’s warning about the, “military-industrial complex,” shoot, it has become the siren call of some.

(Google video search. "Eisenhower's Farewell." 53 most 2 minutes or less of a 46 minute speech one of the full speech. Reagan's, "Tear Down This Wall," gets less then half at 26, JFK's inaugural, "Ask Not...," gets 7, and FDR's, "Pearl Harbor," gets 3 (and one is from Crooksandliars ripping Condi for a comment she made))

Few if any recall — and it is never repeated — the second of the two specific warning he made in that very same speech:

“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” (emphasis added)

The scientific-technological elite, Eisenhower truly was prescient. Read the speech, it could have been written today.
DKK

More interesting are the exact same comment I made on numerous blogs during the past two and a half weeks, including the #3 commetn at  Pajama Media's Exclusive Vincent Gray on Climategate: ‘There Was Proof of Fraud All Along’ (PJM Exclusive), which read:

“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.
“Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” (emphasis and changes added)

Every Liberal remembers Eisenhower warning against the, “military-industrial complex” but few if any know his second stated warming in that same farewell message, his warning against the, “scientific-technological elite“!
This speech could have been made last week, read the whole thing.
David
Nov 27, 2009 - 5:43 am

Now I am NOT, no way, no how accusing Bill Whittle of anything -- people can come up with the same ideas.  However I did send this story to Instapundit (another Pajamas Media Blogger and other blogs nearly 2 years ago and once again when the climategate issue broke last month with nary a reply, not to mention posting that comment on untold number of blogs.

Which leads me to wonder if the 'new media' is still an, "Army of Davids," or if it has become just another elite gated community where those not on the list aren't recognized? 

Another example:

May 8, 2009 at 2:27 am I wrote:

I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.

Obama's supporters are too young to know any of this, but Roosevelt led the United States in the war against Hitler; the Allied policy was unconditional surrender, so there was very little for Roosevelt and Hitler to discuss, and in fact, the two did not meet at all (but they did exchange correspondence before the war).
So my guess is that Obama is thinking of the Yalta Conference with Churchill and Stalin as talking to "our enemies", although of course we were still allied with the Soviet Union against Germany and Japan at that point. Beyond that, is the Yalta Conference something Obama and his advisers view as a success worthy of emulation?
(Just One Minute -- Don't Know Much About History...)

Yalta was considered a diplomatic disaster that enslaved millions in Eastern Europe. Roosevelt, who called Stalin, "Uncle Joe," failed to recognize the evil that would lead to the deaths of 15 to 20 million Soviet citizens -- Time Magazine (13 April 1998) (Some estimates as large as 52 million with 30 million being the median estimate).

I can't recall when Truman talked to our enemies, other then perhaps their surrender after he dropped the atomic bomb . Truman lead the UN into Korea and did so without talking to our enemies -- they were boycotting the UN -- rather then talk he gave ultimatums and took action to remove our enemies from South Korea.

As a matter of fact Truman has his own Doctrine (The Truman Doctrine) that supported our allies financially and militarily against Soviet (our enemies) influence. This lead to what was known as the Domino Theory and formed much of the Cold War doctrine that lasted for decades (a variation of which Bush uses to push democracy).

Along with The Marshall Plan The Truman Doctrine helped feed the Soviet reaction that led to the Berlin Blockade. It was only the show of determination and strength -- redeployment of B-29's to England, the same bombers that dropped atomic weapons on Japan -- that prevented escalation of the conflict during the 11 months of the airlift.

Kennedy escalated Vietnam as a part of Truman's doctrine and while he did speak to Kruschev during the Vienna Summit it was considered a failure that caused the players (Kennedy and Kruschev) to push the world toward the most dangerous nuclear stand off in history -- The Cuban missile Crisis.

(About Vienna, Kennedy later claimed of Khrushchev, "He beat the hell out of me.")

If this is what Obama has in mind, getting the hell beat out of him by Kim and Mahmoud I don't want anything to do with it! I should just start digging the shelter now!
DKK

After posting that in the comments of popular blogs and forwarding to many including Instapundit the next day Jack Kelly at RCP posted this:

May 09, 2008

Obama Needs a History Lesson

By Jack Kelly
In his victory speech after the North Carolina primary, Sen. Barack Obama said something that is all the more remarkable for how little it has been remarked upon.
In defending his stated intent to meet with America's enemies without preconditions, Sen. Obama said: "I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did."
That he made this statement, and that it passed without comment by the journalists covering his speech indicates either breathtaking ignorance of history on the part of both, or deceit.
I assume the Roosevelt to whom Sen. Obama referred is Franklin D. Roosevelt. Our enemies in World War II were Nazi Germany, headed by Adolf Hitler; fascist Italy, headed by Benito Mussolini, and militarist Japan, headed by Hideki Tojo. FDR talked directly with none of them before the outbreak of hostilities, and his policy once war began was unconditional surrender.
FDR died before victory was achieved, and was succeeded by Harry Truman. Truman did not modify the policy of unconditional surrender. He ended that war not with negotiation, but with the atomic bomb.
Harry Truman also was president when North Korea invaded South Korea in June, 1950. President Truman's response was not to call up North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung for a chat. It was to send troops.
Perhaps Sen. Obama is thinking of the meeting FDR and Churchill had with Soviet dictator Josef Stalin in Tehran in December, 1943, and the meetings Truman and Roosevelt had with Stalin at Yalta and Potsdam in February and July, 1945. But Stalin was then a U.S. ally, though one of whom we should have been more wary than FDR and Truman were. Few historians think the agreements reached at Yalta and Potsdam, which in effect consigned Eastern Europe to slavery, are diplomatic models we ought to follow. Even fewer Eastern Europeans think so.
When Stalin's designs became unmistakably clear, President Truman's response wasn't to seek a summit meeting. He sent military aid to Greece, ordered the Berlin airlift and the Marshall Plan, and sent troops to South Korea.
Sen. Obama is on both sounder and softer ground with regard to John F. Kennedy. The new president held a summit meeting with Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev in Vienna in June, 1961.
Elie Abel, who wrote a history of the Cuban missile crisis (The Missiles of October), said the crisis had its genesis in that summit.
"There is reason to believe that Khrushchev took Kennedy's measure in June 1961 and decided this was a young man who would shrink from hard decisions," Mr. Abel wrote. "There is no evidence to support the belief that Khrushchev ever questioned America's power. He questioned only the president's readiness to use it. As he once told Robert Frost, he came to believe that Americans are 'too liberal to fight.'"
That view was supported by New York Times columnist James Reston, who traveled to Vienna with President Kennedy: "Khrushchev had studied the events of the Bay of Pigs," Mr. Reston wrote. "He would have understood if Kennedy had left Castro alone or destroyed him, but when Kennedy was rash enough to strike at Cuba but not bold enough to finish the job, Khrushchev decided he was dealing with an inexperienced young leader who could be intimidated and blackmailed."
It's worth noting that Kennedy then was vastly more experienced than Sen. Obama is now. A combat veteran of World War II, Jack Kennedy served 14 years in Congress before becoming president. Sen. Obama has no military and little work experience, and has been in Congress for less than four years.
The closest historical analogue to Sen. Obama's expressed desire to meet with no preconditions with anti-American dictators such as Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the trip British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French premier Eduoard Daladier took to Munich in September of 1938 to negotiate "peace in our time" with Adolf Hitler. That didn't work out so well.
History is an elective few liberals choose to take these days, noted a poster on the Web log "Hot Air." The lack of historical knowledge among journalists is merely appalling. But in a presidential candidate it's dangerous. As Sir Winston Churchill said:
"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Jack's is better written then mine, but even in my often confused state I hit all the points he did and I did it a day earlier.  His got picked up by the same blogs I sent mine to more then a day earlier and mine was ignored.

My point is this question, can a non journalist nobody with a cognitive disability still break through the gates or is the "Army of Davids" limited to those in the new gated community?  Because if I can't, then is it still citizen journalism?
DKK

The Future Of American Health Care -- "Just Boil It and Reuse It!"

I'm not sure why but I have yet to see the root problem with government writing a prescription for America's health care needs articulated using an easy to verify example.

The fact is, the root problem doesn't involve the debate over inclusion of a government option, it goes far far deeper then that; to the root of governments involvement in the health care process.

Most of us feel it deep down but don't really realize what the problem is.  Perhaps that is because many people see evidence of what bothers them on a daily basis right there on their own television without even realizing it!
 

Government Central Planning of medical care through the Medicare system lead to the brilliantly idiotic idea that catheters could and should be reused.  Medicare only covered 4 a month under the old ruling, today they cover up to 200.

People either had to pay for additional catheters or, it was recommended that users BOIL AND REUSE THEM.  Seriously, grab a pan, we're cooking up a wonderful plan for your health!  If you have had two (2) serious urinary tract infections in the past you could get yours covered -- that's right, you had go through the pain and risk twice.

Here is the kicker:


Even after the governments own FDA changed the labeling of catheters making them one time use products they were not covered!

Since the governments centrally planned Medicare system determined reuse was okay almost all private insurance companies followed suit!  With the change in the ruling most insurances have changed their coverage as well.

This went on for DECADES! 

It took people getting upset and finally getting a congressman to act -- that is not how we want our medical care coverage determined, via congressional fiat?

The key point -- when the government sets rules of coverage, for whatever reason (and you just know it will get political -- God forbid you get a disease out of favor with today's political will) the entire industry follows.  Doctors change their recommendations, insurers change their coverage. Having the same policy as the government keeps you just one more step away from the lawyers! 

The public option is not the devil, the devil is in the details of any program that offers or requires central planning by the government or any entity they set up.  Leave the planning to your own doctors!

Governmental Central Planning is almost always the worst solution to even simple problems, and we know from history that it is a joke when it comes to larger issues!

Increase competition in both the insurance and the medical sides of the business, reduce government interference, and reform medical malpractice, that should be all the involvement the government should have in your health care!
DKK

Medicare Changes Catheter Ruling -- IC Disease Today

Update:  It gets even better -- did you know that the Baucus plan included a tax on all medical devices?  This tax would increase the cost to everyone.  Initially it was all devices, tongue depressors, catheters, etc. but the saw some wisdom in that an have now increased that to items priced over $100.  But does that make any sense?  Imagine you need a prosthetic, or a back brace due to an accident -- you now will pay more for those, already very expensive items!   Literally adding insult to injury!  And as Hot Air points out this includes powered breast milk pumps!

Amazing, the ,"Boil it and reuse it," mentality will flourish even more then today -- seriously, do they even care about us at all because if they did they wouldn't be pulling this crap!
DKK

Public Health, Didn't We Try That Once? How Did That One Work Out?

Updated and bumped*

You know I got to thinking, didn't we already try a public health option before?  Then I remembered a reference to the Public Health System -- PHS -- it lasted about 40 years or so.

Here is what they offered:

• "special free treatment"
  
• "lower class African Americans, who often could not afford health care, the chance to join"
• "Patients were to receive free physical examinations"
•  "free rides to and from the clinic"
•  "hot meals on examination days"
• "free treatment for minor ailments"

Oh, it started great, there was a dedicated staff, the care was quality, they received praise for their work, they also received special praise for their, "flair in framing," the message to the potential patients encouraging many to join who would normally have been reluctant.

They had control of the costs and the treatments, what tests were done, what treatments were issued and it worked all quite well for the PHS.

Then about 1972 a whistleblower contacted the Washington Star and The New York Times and all hell broke lose.

I am simply amazed that anyone would even consider allowing the government to run a health system or more specifically set standards and recommended cost contained treatments for conditions.  Even today when the government makes recommendations about medications and treatments most insurers and doctors use that as their guide and only cover or prescribe those treatments.  That is why experimental treatments or medications are not covered!

But what really amazes me is why any black person in America would be in favor of a Public Health System following the end result of the above listed Tuskegee Experiment!

If you weren't aware of this your friends probably weren't either, send it to them all, click the email icon below and send it to them.
DKK

Update 9/15/2009


With the cries of racism reaching a fever pitch directed at anyone who would dare question the President (see Ace this week or HotAir this week), much of it directed at Republican lawmakers you would think that this would really freak liberals out -- how can you trust a PHS that may one day end up in the hands of those racists (everyone of them)!!!

Not gonna happen!

I keep waiting for Scotty to get that transporter fixed so he can beam me out of this alternate universe where everything is upside down!
DKK


*Update 12/11/2009 (original post date 09/14/2009 17:45)


Baldilocks tries to explain the reason Why Black Americans Think That the Federal Government Is Our Friend.  

Whether it's the Emancipation or the desegregation of the Armed Forces or Brown v. Board or the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, the federal government for the most part had seemed to be on the side of the black American as his constitutional rights were being oppressed by state or local governments.
What needs to be spelled, however is what the federal government did in the above-mentioned areas: it legally removed obstacles to the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of Americans who are black.  And that it what it was supposed to do.
The present problem in my unlearned opinion is this: the federal government began overstepping its bounds during the Great Depression and did so most infamously in the late sixties via the Great Society programs
Doing more that getting local racists out of the way, the federal government sought to and succeeded in making itself the suppliers of life, liberty and, putatively, the happiness of many black Americans.  (Try telling a senior of any race that Social Security is sending the country to financial ruin. You'll get an earful about her "rights".) 
And even many black Americans who do not rely on the federal government still view the fed as our friend because of that history.
What's needed in order to change this perception is obvious: education--not a new education but the old one, one which contains an objective explanation of the role of government.
Simply put, the role of the American government is to remove obstacles to liberty of the People--even when that obstacle is American government itself.  Supplying all of one's needs is not government's role.  That's God's purview.

Their Language and Concepts Were So Foreign to Our Way of Thinking...

Aliens (Not The Good Kind) Descend Upon Washington DC, 
Their Language and Concepts Were So Foreign to Our Way of Thinking We Dare Not Attempt to Translate.


That is what the headline should have read for the Washington Post's coverage of the DC Tea Party.

The WaPo seemed at a such a complete loss of understanding of what was happening and how these people could think this way that it seemed as if it was as foreign to them as, well, as MEAN HATEFUL scary aliens (NTGK - not the good kind) who had landed right there on the Mall!  Ideas so foreign to them that they dare not interpret choosing rather to just listed the thoughts for all to see.

Wonder how that compares to other recent protest marches?

So did I so I checked back to see how they covered the anti war protest of 2002 and 2005.  Here is what I found (all emphasis mine).

Headlines:

Tea Party

Lashing Out at the Capitol
Tens of Thousands Protest Obama Initiatives and Government Spending

2005

Antiwar Fervor Fills the Streets
Demonstration Is Largest in Capital Since U.S. Military Invaded Iraq

2002

100,000 Rally, March Against War in Iraq

The scary aliens (NTGK) lashed out and protested OBAMA while the others let their fervor fill the street, they didn't protest Bush mind you, no...

First paragraph:

Tea Party

Tens of thousands of conservative protesters, many complaining that the nation is racing toward socialism, massed outside the U.S. Capitol on Saturday, angrily denouncing President Obama's health-care plan and other initiatives as threats to the Constitution.

2005

Tens of thousands of people packed downtown Washington yesterday and marched past the White House in the largest show of antiwar sentiment in the nation's capital since the conflict in Iraq began.

2002

Tens of thousands of people marched in peaceful protest of any military strike against Iraq yesterday afternoon, in an antiwar demonstration that organizers and police suggested was likely Washington's largest since the Vietnam era.

Hmm, strange that isn't it -- scary aliens (NTGK) were angry and they were protesters who massed in the city center!  Run, see if you can get out of the city before they attack!  There were threats, or they saw threats or something like that.  Pray all we get some of the peaceful people to help save us!  But remember they were complaining, they complained for God's sake.

Second Paragraph:

Tea Party

The crowd -- loud, animated and sprawling -- gathered at the West Front of the Capitol after a march along Pennsylvania Avenue NW from Freedom Plaza. Invocations of God and former president Ronald Reagan by an array of speakers drew loud cheers that echoed across the Mall. On a windy, overcast afternoon, hundreds of yellow "Don't Tread on Me" flags flapped in the breeze.

2005

The demonstration drew grandmothers in wheelchairs and babies in strollers, military veterans in fatigues and protest veterans in tie-dye. It was the first time in a decade that protest groups had a permit to march in front of the executive mansion, and, even though President Bush was not there, the setting seemed to electrify the crowd. 

2002

Organizers with International ANSWER, a coalition of antiwar groups that coordinated the demonstration, had hoped for a turnout rivaling that of its pro-Palestine rally in April that officials estimated at about 75,000. Organizers said they easily eclipsed that figure yesterday, assessing attendance at well more than 100,000. D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey also said he figured yesterday's rally turnout exceeded that in April, but he didn't provide a specific number.

You've got to be kidding me, right? -- Grandmothers, wheelchairs, and everything  -- the scary aliens (NTGK) are loud and animated are clearly threatening grandmothers with vaporization from a primitive leader and their GOD  (if Obama doesn't get them first).   If only an electrified crowd could channel that power and save the babies!

Third Paragraph

Tea Party

"Hell hath no fury like a taxpayer ignored," declared Andrew Moylan, head of government affairs for the National Taxpayers Union, urging protesters to call their representatives. The demonstrators roared their approval. 

2005

Signs, T-shirts, slogans and speeches outlined the cost of the Iraq conflict in human as well as economic terms. They memorialized dead U.S. troops and Iraqis, and contrasted the price of war with the price of recovery for areas battered by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Riffs on Vietnam-era protests were plentiful, with messages declaring, "Make Levees, Not War," "I never thought I'd miss Nixon" and "Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam." Many in the crowd had protested in the 1960s; others weren't even born during those tumultuous years.

2002

"We think this was just extremely, extremely successful," said Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, a D.C. organizer with International ANSWER, Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. "It absolutely shows that when George Bush says America speaks with one voice, and it's his voice, he's wrong."

Mommy, the scary aliens (NTGK) roared, they roared I tell you!  Antiwar protests were nothing but impressive!  Hey, wait, they mentioned they were against Bush, huh!

You get the point.

A few more statistics:

Number of signs quoted:    
Tea party -- 9              
2005  --  0 (mentions of Bush signs and one sign with the picture of a mothers son who was in Iraq)

Chanting/shouting:
Tea Party  -- "We Own the Dome!"
2005  --  "Shame on you, Shame on you!" (a counter protester shouted)

"Peaceful"
Tea Party --0 (none)
2005 -- 1

"Angrily" or Angry
Tea Party -- 1
2005 -- 0

"Grandmother" and"Babies"
Tea Party -- 0
2005  -- One of each


Crowd estimate:
Tea Party -- No "official" estimate given
2005 -- 300,000 the organizers claim

Reason for protest:
Tea Party --

The demonstrators are part of a loose-knit movement that is galvanizing anti-Obama sentiment across the country, stoking a populist dimension to the Republican Party, which has struggled to find its voice since the 2008 elections.

2005 --

(T)he events were sponsored by groups including the ANSWER Coalition and United for Peace and Justice and focused on a succinct theme: "End the War in Iraq and Bring the Troops Home Now."

Interesting:

Tea Party -- "(H)e watches Fox News host Glenn Beck "all the time" and wanted to be part of an event that he thinks will be historic. Beck had drummed up support for the march."

2005 -- "The protest groups helped organize caravans and carpools, and many participants began arriving early in the morning after bumpy, all-night bus rides."

BEEEECCCCCKKKKK!

Yea, I'm a bit over critical perhaps, but 8 years of coded Bush hate in the press and 2 years of blatant Obama love in the same press will do that.

Hey WaPo, how are that Acorn and vetting of the Czars story going?
DKK

Please forgive the grammar and if this reads choppy -- my meds have failed in clearing the cognitive issues lately.

Who Could Have Seen The Iranian Upheaval Coming? -- The Fruits of Victory In Iraq!

While Obama sits stubbornly wedded to his promise to negotiate with the dictators of the world -- despite the human rights violations of those same dictators -- the intelligencia and Washington pundits are amazed that the upheaval is occurring. No one could have seen this coming. Better yet there are those who are besides themselves trying to credit Obama.

But who, nearly 6 years ago could have actually predicted this happening following a US victory in Iraq? And in nearly the exact manner in which it happened -- The Iranian regime losing it's credibility by rigging the Iranian elections denying the people of Iran the right to the democracy they demand.

"In Iran the demand for democracy is strong and broad … The regime in Tehran must heed the democratic demands of the Iranian people, or lose its last claim to legitimacy."

George W. Bush discussing the impact of a free Iraq on the Middle East, November 6, 2003. Nearly 6 years ago.


Ronald Reagan fought the cold war for eight years. The year he left office the Soviet Union began to crumble and fell. His successor was there willing to follow through and capitalize on that victory (albeit cautiously at first).


George W. Bush fought the Axis of Evil for seven years. The year he left office one of the remaining two members of that Axis stood on the brink -- will Obama stubbornly cling to his, "one world of rainbows and lollipops as long as we extend an open hand," philosophy or will he grab the hard fought victory that has been presented to him? (Credit where credit is due, Obama's election did shift the focus off of Bush allowing Iranians to look inward).

More:

Full text of the speech is here but here is another quote:

"Iraqi democracy will succeed -- and that success will send forth the news, from Damascus to Teheran -- that freedom can be the future of every nation. The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution. "

Even Obama's White House is claiming his speech lead to uprising -- link to Hot Air!

Update, June 25, 2009:
Robert Kaplan at the Washington Post finally notices that this was part of the goal for Iraq, but fails to mention Bush at all on the entire page -- entire column, not once.

As if the entire thing was not part of the plan but was just an after effect ... WTF people there was a plan and it was articulated!

More Bush (thanks commenter Juliesa at Hot Air):

To the people of Iran: You are rich in culture and talent. You have a right to live under a government that listens to your wishes, respects your talents, and allows you to build better lives for your families. Unfortunately, your government denies you these opportunities, and threatens the peace and stability of your neighbors. So we call on the regime in Tehran to heed your will, and to make itself accountable to you. The day will come when the people of Iran have a government that embraces liberty and justice, and Iran joins the community of free nations. And when that good day comes, you will have no better friend than the United States of America.

George W. Bush Discusses the Importance of Freedom in the Middle East January 13, 2008.
DKK

The Left Is Starting To Get What Bush Did Successfully For Years! (But crediting Obama -- WHAT?)

 Just last November I said:

Was Iraq the only way to win in Afghanistan AND secure the homeland?

Divided and distracted the forces of jihad from a country fundamentally and historically unconquerable and another that was fundamentally vulnerable.

Which I had originally pointed out back in 2003 describing the honeypot theory.

Now NYT liberal columnist Thomas Frideman agrees, but somehow gives credit to Obama -- I don't get it either, it is a liberal mind game thing I guess.   Commentary Blog went there so we don't have to!

But then we have a real doozy. It seems Bush kept us safe by taking the fight to the terrorists in Iraq, where it is still essential we complete the victory:

I believe that the most important reason there has not been another 9/11, besides the improved security and intelligence, is that Al Qaeda is primarily focused on defeating America in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world — particularly in Iraq. Al Qaeda knows that if it can destroy the U.S. effort (still a long shot) to build a decent, modernizing society in Iraq, it will undermine every U.S. ally in the region.
Conversely, if we, with Iraqis, defeat them by building any kind of decent, pluralistic society in the heart of their world, it will be a devastating blow.

So to recap: the Bush team kept us safe from an implacable foe by using interrogation methods which the American public approved of and by fighting (often against the admonitions of Friedman and his colleagues) and largely prevailing in Iraq. The latter effort may deal a death blow to Al Qaeda which one supposes made it a very worthwhile endeavor.

DKK

Manzullo Shows Why He's There -- Those Other Republicans Should Pay Attention! -- UPDATED WITH VIDEO

Rep. Manzullo to Geithner: Your Plan Is 'Radical'

In testimony before the House Financial Services committee that just adjourned, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner just had to defend his institutional takeover plan against charges of radicalism.

"Do you realize how radical your proposal is?" Rep. Donald Manzullo (R-Ill.) asked.

"It's not radical. . ." Geither began, before Manzullo interrupted him.

"You're talking about seizing private businesses and you don't consider that radical?" Manzullo replied, his voice rising.

Manzullo is trying to get Geithner to give details of the plan -- that's where Geithner got stung before -- but Geithner doesn't have them yet.

If the plan were not radical, Manzullo said to Geithner, "you would have answers to some of my questions, such as, what size business would be subject to this?"

DKK
The Ticker (WaPo)

Update:  Here is the video from Rep. Manzullo's YouTube page:

DKK