The Empty Chair of Liu Xiaobo At Nobel Prize Ceremony

Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. An empty chair held the award symbolically.

It was the first time in 74 years the prestigious $1.4 million award was not handed over, because Liu is serving an 11-year sentence in China on subversion charges for urging sweeping changes to Beijing's one-party communist political system.

The last time an empty chair was tasked with representing an awardee was 1936, when Carl von Ossietzky, a German pacifist jailed by the Nazi regime, was prevented from attending the ceremony

The Chinese government was in full censorship mode as the ceremony date approached.

The Web sites of the BBC, CNN, Britain's Channel 4 and Norwegian television NRK were blocked starting Thursday, preventing live streaming. On Friday, CNN and BBC television broadcasts were on the air for people with satellite dishes, but with intermittent blackouts during some segments.

Various news Web sites remained inaccessible, with a message saying the sites are "temporarily unavailable."

Some Beijing cafe and restaurant owners have been warned by police not to allow any Nobel celebrations or demonstrations at their establishments.

His family was not allowed by the Chinese government to attend the ceremony.

The man is an intellectual in China. The man is a literary critic.

China's Communist government has ratcheted up the rhetoric since the October announcement that the prize would go to Liu, a bespectacled 54-year-old dissident who is serving an 11-year prison sentence in China's northern Liaoning province for "inciting subversion of state power."

Liu was jailed after authoring Charter '08, a pro-democracy manifesto that was published Dec. 10, 2008 and has since been signed by more than 10,000 people inside and outside China.

In typical narcissist Obama response, he said, after the ceremony, he regretted that Liu and his wife were not allowed to go to the ceremony as he and first lady Michelle Obama did when he won the peace prize last year.

"Liu Xiaobo is far more deserving of this award than I was," he said.

What an understatement. How sad that our president is so ego-driven that he actually even preens about his own award at a time like this. Obama made a mockery of the status of an award when he was given one before he accomplished anything to merit it. It was presented to him for winning the presidential election, not for a worthy act. It was an embarrassment. But, as usual, it is always all about Barack Obama for Barack Obama.

Obama continued the embarrassment by making a congratulatory statement to Liu Xiaobo all about himself.

Clinton to Obama: "Please go."

An amusing, or not, tidbit from the joint appearance presented by President 44 and President 42 recently with the White House reporters was as Obama made his exit and Clinton began his half hour of uninterrupted attention from the press. Not to be taking the blame for bailing out on President Clinton, Obama made reference to the fact that he had already kept the First Lady waiting for attendance to a White House Christmas party.

After Clinton took a question on last month's Democratic election defeats, Obama announced: "I've been keeping the First Lady waiting for about half an hour, so I'm going to take off ...

Clinton said, "I don't want to make her mad, please go."

That Michelle, she's a scary one.

It was odd. It was Clinton telling Obama to run along, I don't want to make Michelle mad. A weak looking president looked even weaker. It wasn't supposed to, of course, but it stop to the dynamics of the situation. It was a cringe-worthy moment.

Now, Obama has taken credit for the tax bill compromise in his weekly radio address. Of course he did. It is always all about Obama, 24/7. He immodestly grabs credit for bringing together Democrats and Republicans in cobbling together the deal.

Obama re-writes history as he is in the middle of it. Amazing.

Actually it was the voters stampede to the voting booths on November 2 that booted the Democratic majority out of power in the House of Representatives and came just short of doing so in the Senate over the hideous handling of the economy so far by Team Obama. Then, taking the message to the president, Senate Minority Leader McConnell sent a letter to him stating that the Senate GOP would not allow any business in the Senate until the issue was resolved on tax code renewals. The Republicans were presenting a united front on that action and Obama realized in order to get the other issues handled in the lame duck session he would have to begin working with Republicans. Obama sent over Treasury Secretary Geithner to smooth the way.

Obama's reality and true reality continue to run different paths.

Another Obama Bow - To Bill Clinton

Senator Lindsay Graham referred to President Obama as "politically immature" in a recent interview. The subject was the ongoing maneuvering behind the scenes to bring together the Democrats in the House of Representatives and the Senate Democrats to allow a vote on the "compromise" made between the White House and the Senate on extending the present tax code to all income earners. Graham served in the Senate with Obama, brief those that time was for Obama, and offered his assessment of Obama's performance in office. He pointed out that Obama had very little experience with dealing with stubborn politicians from both parties and no executive experience as preparation for the job.

The sight of Barack Obama handing over the podium to Bill Clinton to booster up Democrats as he tries desperately to get a deal on the pending tax code extension was verification that he's just in over his head. It was very much a student/master kind of signal. Student of the world, Obama bows to the expertise of the master of politics Clinton as the White House press corps chomps at the bit to pick the brain of Clinton. Obama excuses himself to attend a Christmas party. He made a lame joke that he was keeping the First Lady waiting. Clinton immediately told him to scoot along - no one wants angry faced Michelle popping up.

So, Clinton hung with the guys in the press room and answered questions. They were eager to pick his brain, breaking the tedium of a typical Friday afternoon. Clinton was happy to oblige as he loves that stuff. Press Secretary Gibbs was tasked with calling an end to the impromptu bull session, which appears to be about 30 minutes later. It was Obama admitting he has lost the bully pulpit on the legislation to be voted on in the Senate, scheduled for 2:00 PM Monday afternoon.

Clinton presented common sense compromise as the way forward. He spoke of his governing with Republicans in the 1990's. He said the deal gives some to Democrats and he was happy some was given to Republicans, as their numbers significantly increase come January. He was being the grown-up in the room.

My, how times have changed. Bill Clinton, the man impeached by the House of Representatives for lying under oath to a Federal grand jury over an affair with a young woman - an intern in the White House - is now the elder sage of his party.

It must really grate Obama to have to fall back on Clinton to move his agenda through Congress. No love lost between the two, despite the ugly nonsense lobbed at Clinton during the presidential campaign, the made up charges of racism about the "first black president" and the fanboys in the press for Obama, Bill Clinton still dominates a room.

Bill Clinton stepped in and filled the vacuum of leadership created by Barack Obama.

Sanders Filibusters and Clinton Drones On

Does it get any better on a Friday afternoon during a lame duck session than Senator Bernie Sanders bringing back a good, old-fashioned filibuster on the Senate floor and former President Bill Clinton appearing by Barack Obama's side in the White House press room to make a pitch in favor of the deal Obama struck with the Senate? No, it does not.

What a strange optic, in the current vernacular du jour, to see Obama and Clinton stroll over to the podium and speak somewhat briefly, for each of them, to the White House press corp about Clinton's summons to the Oval Office. Clinton, still a hero to Democrats of all shades in ideology, was to be the calming, reassuring voice that really, everything is ok and don't fret about the deal Barack just cut to get the extension of the current tax rates for everyone. Really, children, it's for the best, I promise.

The former president, feet firmly planted at the podium, forced Obama to speak from the side of the microphone rather than step aside for the President's answer. Amusing. Clinton brings his own version of the filibuster to the briefing room. Obama excused himself to attend a Christmas party and left Clinton on his own to answer press questions.

Clinton spoke about the "two trillion" dollars being hoarded by companies instead of being used to hire more people, create more jobs, etc. The fact is, whether this tax code renewal for all brackets goes through or not, businesses are not trusting of Team Obama and they will not be moving too far off the sidelines before 2012. Clinton spoke about the boost the extension of unemployment benefits will be to the economy. This is an odd little meme from Democrats - you may remember the nonsense Pelosi recently uttered about unemployment benefits being the best economic stimulus out there - and Bubba was happy to oblige, too.

When asked, he said he didn't think Obama could have or should have stood his ground and not compromised with the GOP. After all, he reminded everyone, the GOP will be in the majority in the House in January. He didn't, however, mention that the GOP picked up seats in the Senate for a better balance come January.

For good measure, Clinton weighed in on the ratification of the pending START Treaty. He's on board. He also brought the name of George H.W. Bush into the mix as a supporter.

All the while, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the only avowed Socialist in the Senate, is filibustering the deal. A vote has been scheduled for 3:00 PM on Monday. No word yet on how long - how serious - Sanders will continue on with the filibuster.

Senator Sanders? Bravo, Sir. That is what I would say to him. I have wanted the Senate to employ this very democratic action for some time. Nothing disappointed me more than during the previous administration, after threats of a filibuster bantered around, an actual filibuster never occurred. Sure, cots were rolled in and cable news stations covered each move with panting excitement. Then, nothing. No filibuster. It was sheer laziness. Senators, so accustomed to a cushy schedule of time on the Senate floor and no true fire in the belly for specific legislation, were unwilling to put in the time and energy needed for a filibuster.

The record remains with now deceased Senator Strom Thurman. Fortified with a good rest, a steam bath and a sirloin steak, Sen. Strom Thurmond (search) talked against a 1957 civil rights bill for 24 hours and 18 minutes — longer than anyone has ever talked about anything in Congress.

As a Republican, I do not agree with the Socialist agenda of Sanders. I do, however, strongly applaud his effort. The filibuster allows a Senator, or a team of Senators, to express opinions on pending legislation. It is meant to obstruct the schedule. It is meant to shut the Senate down for conducting business. What's not to like?

It is fine by me that Sanders chose today to shut the Senate business down. I hope he goes on for a long time, though his staff say he is not going to be setting any records.

This lame duck session has been fairly useless. Lots of stagecraft, lots of false urgency over every bit of a far left agenda not acted upon for two years. Now, with the Democratic super majority squashed and Democrats realizing the GOP will have a place at the table for the next two years of Obama's reign, hysteria overcomes reason.

Bravo, Senator Sanders.

Recidivism Increases By Released GITMO Detainees

One of the clear distinctions drawn since Barack Obama was inaugurated as President has been over the way forward for GITMO and the future of the detainees. Clearly, the Democrats expect the detainees to be dealt with through our Federal courts system and Republicans believe in treating them as prisoners of war, as we are a nation at war. Are the detainees criminals or are they terror detainees captured on the battlefield?

150 former Guantanamo detainees are either “confirmed or suspected of reengaging in terrorist or insurgent activities,” according to a new intelligence assessment released by the Director of National Intelligence’s office on Tuesday. In total, 598 detainees have been transferred out of U.S. custody at Guantanamo. 1 out of every 4, or 25 percent, of these former detainees is now considered a confirmed or suspected recidivist by the U.S. government.


A report released by the Director of National Intelligence confirms previous reports of those released from GITMO returning to fight again with the numbers significantly increasing.

The difference between confirmed and suspected recidivists is made and analysed:

As with past studies, the DNI differentiates between “confirmed” and “suspected” recidivists. For a former detainee to be considered a “confirmed” recidivist, analysts must find that a “preponderance of information” identifies “a specific former GITMO detainee as directly involved in terrorist or insurgent activities.” The standard for “suspected” recidivism is somewhat less, with only “[p]lausible but unverified or single-source reporting” being necessary.

The DNI finds that 81 of the 150 former detainees on its list are confirmed recidivists, while 69 are suspected. This, too, is a marked difference from previous estimates. The last assessment of Gitmo recidivism that was released to the public, dated April 7, 2009, found there were more suspected recidivists (47) than confirmed recidivists (27). Now, not only are there more confirmed recidivists (81) than suspected recidivists (69), but the number of confirmed recidivists has also increased dramatically – from 27 to 81

None of this is particularly surprising if common sense is to be used in determining policy and standards of incarceration. Most of the bad actors have popped back up and re-captured or killed on the battlefield after release during the Bush years. This is also not surprising as most were captured originally during his administration's years. The Bush administration, bowing to public outcry, began attempting to release prisoners to willing nations as the first steps in closing GITMO. It has proven an impossible task for many of them. No country, even their own native countries, wants them to return. If it were easy, trials would have been held and others would have been released.

Barack Obama made this a centerpiece of his foreign policy as he ran for President of the United States. He enjoyed bashing President Bush for the Iraq war and played to his base support. He pledged that the first act of his presidency would be to issue an Executive Order to close GITMO and made good on that. Needless to say, it has not happened. It was an early lesson to Obama that bloviating on the campaign trail and actually governing are often two opposite actions.

Now, the spokesperson for the State Department admits that the increase in recidivism exists and is rising. He also claims the release of the detainees is a problem created by the Federal Courts and must be adhered.

A bit of truth emerges:



Just months ago, Director of Counter-Intelligence John Brennan claimed that none of the detainees released under the Obama administration had returned to the battlefield. That claim is shown to be incorrect now. It was simply political posturing by the administration to support their policy that the detainees should be released.

Of the 66 detainees transferred by the Obama administration, 5 are now on the DNI’s recidivist list. Two of the five former detainees are confirmed recidivists, while three are suspected.

As recently as February of this year, the Obama administration claimed that none of the detainees it had transferred had returned to terrorism. “We believe that significant improvements to the detainee review process have contributed to significant improvements in the results,” John Brennan wrote in a letter to House speaker Nancy Pelosi. Brennan continued:

“I want to underscore the fact that all of these cases relate to detainees released during the previous Administration and under the prior detainee review process. The report indicates no confirmed or suspected recidivists among detainees transferred during this Administration, although we recognize the ongoing risk that detainees could engage in such activity.”

The article ends with the conclusion that this administration will no doubt have to moderate their pious claims further as time goes on: The DNI’s new assessment notes that the “number of former detainees identified as reengaged in terrorist or insurgent activity will increase.” On average, there is “about 2.5 years between” when a detainee leaves Gitmo and the U.S. Intelligence Community first learns that he has reengaged in terrorist or insurgent activities.

In other words, it is likely that more detainees who have been transferred since January 2009, and even before, will be added to the DNI’s recidivist list in the future.

It is really bad public policy to politicize the detention of the detainees.

Can Obama Be Saved From Himself?

A man who is not gracious in victory or defeat is not to be trusted by anyone, most of all his most ardent supporters, his political base. Barack Obama, a man with no experience with the art of compromise, tried mightily to appear to have gone to the center of the tax code debate. He tried to appear as a centrist, to begin the process of winning back the independent voter. He cannot win re-election in 2012 without these independents, those that put him into office in 2008, who now lean conservative and vote for Republicans.

If you suggest, as the president did, that the seemingly moderate plan you agreed to is awful and you'll try to rescind it in two years, you won't leave the center thinking, "He's our guy!" You'll leave them thinking, "Note to self: Remove Obama in two years."

The problem is that Obama has lost everyone at this point in his presidency. Publicly, his party talks a good game of support for the man, not necessarily the politician or the leader of the party. Privately, the Democrats talk of the possibility of a challenger coming up in presidential primary season. The far left is not happy and the far left is Obama's political base. The far left hasn't not reconciled to the fact that the nation has firmly and loudly rejected the change brought forward by this administration. The radical liberal base of Barack Obama has been utterly disappointed by their guy.

The liberal base thought for sure they had it all in the disaster that is the health care reform package rammed through Congress on a final vote on Christmas Eve, 2009. Then there was the reality that the biggest point in their plan, the public option, was taken out in order to make the deal with more conservative Democrats. The bonus of abortions funded by the federal coffers was alleged to have been re-written to satisfy Democrats in more conservative districts.

A major new social entitlement program has never before been pushed through in Congress without bi-partisan support. The health care reform disaster has only Democratic votes to blame. There is some Obama change.

So, when President Obama held the press conference and out popped his angry man persona, he alienated everyone. The far left is shocked that Obama threw them under the bus again. How dare he compromise on the tax code extension. Then, in order to toss them a bone, he said he'd re-consider when the expiration has to be negotiated again in two years.

And, then, he referenced the public option that wasn't in the deal. He re-opened that wound. All along, he continued to refer to Republican opposition to his policies in terms of terrorist lingo, in terms like "holy grail" and the like, too. This is not how a leader speaks. This is not how the President of the United States leads the entire country, not just his own party.

So, the question remains - will Obama draw a challenger for the 2012 race? If so, as Peggy Noonan points out, it will come from his base. This is change, ironically. Modern day presidents who were challenged in re-election bids within their own party were always challenged by discontented party members from the get-go, not from the base.

There is only one Democrat who could possibly challenge Mr. Obama for the nomination successfully and win the general election, and that is Hillary Clinton. Who insists she doesn't want to.

What are the Democrats to do? If you are stuck with a president, you try to survive either with him or, individually, in spite of him. Some Democrats will try to bring him back. How? Who knows. But that will be a great Democratic drama of 2011: Saving Obama.

That is now the task dropped at the feet of the Democrats - get out there and sell the President as worthy of re-election.

When Is WikiLeaks Held Accountable by U.S.?

When asked during a recent White House daily briefing about the WikiLeaks document dumps, Press Secretary Gibbs answered as though he were a petulant middle school student -

"Our foreign policy and our country is stronger than one guy with one website," Gibbs said. "We should never be afraid of one guy who plopped down $35 and bought a web address. ... Let's not be scared of one guy with a laptop."

"We're the United States of America," he added. "We have a robust foreign policy that pursues our national interest and ensures the safety and security of those around the world. That's something this administration and administrations in the future, regardless of what one guy with a web site or what somebody does when leaking highly classified information. Those people are criminals and they'll be punished as such."

Oh, brother.

The documents were dumped by an Australian citizen, not an American, so "criminal" prosecution may be dicey. And, when exactly would that be brought into play, as this man has pursued the document dumps for about six months now.

Asked by a news anchor why the Obama administration chose to not stop WikiLeaks, if the capability was there all along, Defense Department Spokesman Geoff Morrell answered:

"We … clearly have offensive capabilities. But at the end of the day, the determination of those who are charged with such things, the decision was made not to proceed with any sort of aggressive action of that sort in this case. It was just deemed not appropriate for us to consider such a thing …

At the end of the day, as you heard from the Secretary of Defense yesterday, Megyn, this creates some awkward and embarrassing situations for the United States government, it clearly puts those who cooperate with us, even some of our diplomats, in difficult positions—hopefully not endangered situations. But, at the end of the day, it does not, at least over the long term, adversely impact America’s power or prestige."

So the Obama administration could have stopped WikiLeaks, and those “charged with such things” considered taking action. But in the end they chose not to proceed—because the leaks really weren’t so bad after all.

Keep in mind the original document dump was documents on the Afghanistan war in particular. Not so bad? Does that mean, not so important stateside? But that was then. This is now.

The author of the piece notes a different reaction from Morrell said of that document dump:
Morrell was singing a very different tune at an August 5 press conference, after WikiLeaks released 75,000 documents on the war in Afghanistan that exposed the identities of more than 100 Afghans who were secretly cooperating with the United States against the Taliban. Back then, Morrell thought the damage WikiLeaks had done was pretty severe. He said:

WikiLeaks’s public disclosure last week of a large number of our documents has already threatened the safety of our troops, our allies and Afghan citizens who are working with us to help bring about peace and stability in that part of the world. Public disclosure of additional Defense Department classified information can only make the damage worse. The only acceptable course is for WikiLeaks to take steps immediately to return all versions of all of these documents to the U.S. government and permanently delete them from its website, computers and records … They’ve shown no indication thus far that they appreciate the gravity, the seriousness of the situation they have caused—the lives they have endangered, the operations they have potentially undermined, the innocent people who have potentially been put in harm’s way as a result.

This failure to act prompted a patriotic hacker who goes by the name th3j35t3r (the Jester) to attack WikiLeaks himself, repeatedly taking down its Web site.

The article continues to conclusion: Some say attacking WikiLeaks would be fruitless. Really? In the past year, the Iranian nuclear system has been crippled by a computer worm called "Stuxnet," which has attacked Iran's industrial systems and the personal computers of Iranian nuclear scientists. To this day, no one has traced the origin of the worm. Imagine the impact on WikiLeaks's ability to distribute additional classified information if its systems were suddenly and mysteriously infected by a worm that would fry the computer of anyone who downloaded the documents. WikiLeaks would probably have very few future visitors to its Web site.

WikiLeaks represents a new and unprecedented cyber threat that cannot be ignored or wished away. Just as terrorism allows small groups of individuals to wreak destruction on a scale that was once the province of nation-states, information technology allows small actors such as Julian Assange to wreak previously unimagined destruction on U.S. national security through cyberspace. This is a threat that requires aU.S. response. Hillary Clinton is right - WikiLeaks has attacked America. The only question is: Will America return fire?

A Bigger Bang for the Taxpayer Buck in Public Education

What is the way forward for public education in this country? Here is a step in the right direction: an organization under the guidance of Michelle Rhee, a true pathmaker and former superintendent of schools in Washington, D.C. She is innovative, open-minded and willing to take a stand for those without a voice - the student.

The application to fulfill the mission of the organization is clearly put forth:

To succeed in our mission, we're working with parents, teachers, administrators, and citizens across the country to ensure great teachers, access to great schools, and effective use of public dollars. Together, we'll demand that legislators, courts, district administrators, and school boards create and enforce policies that put students first. We'll make sure politicians and administrators recognize and reward excellent teachers, give novice teachers the training they need, and quickly improve or remove ineffective educators. We'll work to ensure that every family has a number of options for excellent schools to attend, so that getting into a great school becomes a matter of fact, not luck. And we'll make sure all Americans understand that our schools are not only an anchor for our communities, but an absolute gateway to our national prosperity and competitive standing in the world economy.

This point stands out - We Believe: Public dollars belong where they make the biggest difference—on effective instructional programs; we must fight ineffective practices and bureaucracy.Schools need smart spending — not more money. Tax dollars should go toward programs that help our kids, ensure their long-term success, accurately evaluate teacher performance, and produce results — not layers or bureaucracy that only serve to protect the needs of special interests.

The same idea has been found to be true in the State of Texas for public colleges and universities. According to a recently released survey conducted by Texas Public Policy Foundation Texas voters want a bigger bang for their taxpayer buck. Texas voters are in strong agreement that educational quality can be improved and money can be better spent on operating costs simultaneously.

“Texas voters want more value and higher quality teaching for the tax dollars they pay to support higher education,” said Justin Keener, TPPF vice president of policy and communications. “The results give lawmakers and university officials clear marching orders for how Texans want them to address budget shortfalls and rising tuition costs: put our students first and cut higher education overhead.”

A step forward is to demand professors spend more time in the classroom, actually teaching ( even if this cuts into research time ) and carry a heavier class load. In other words, put in the time necessary to teach and interact with students so that the subject material is truly disseminated. More classroom time, less research subsidies.

Holding professors accountable and rewarding performance is high on the list of problem solving measures.

Raising tuition or taxes were the least favorable options, at 6 percent and 10 percent respectively.

A recent report by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) exposes rising tuition costs among Big 12 institutions at the cost of taxpayers and students. The report reveals that three major Big 12 public universities in Texas—University of Texas, Texas A&M University and Texas Tech University—charged 23.6 percent more on average for tuition and fees in 2009-10 than they did in 2004-05.

The need for greater efficiency in colleges and universities is mirrored in the beliefs of parents with a child who currently attends a Texas public university. Eighty-one percent believe that colleges and universities can be run more efficiently.

As the parent of a college student, I strongly agree.

Texas voters want less financial resources devoted to expanding the campus - delay building more facilities.

And, those participating in this survey believe that students are trustworthy in conducting performance evaluations of professors. Who would be better to judge than those being taught in the classroom?

The road to better results in education begins with working harder and budgeting smarter. Common sense solutions rise to the top.

Obama Press Conference on Tax Deal as Performance Art

That was quite a performance by President Obama, billed as a press conference with the White House Press Corps. It would really more aptly be described as a piece of performance art.

The man is lost and he has not a clue as to which path to take to the promised land of re-election in 2012. A man accustomed to getting his way, of winning, he did not come into the office of the presidency with an ability to re-group gracefully after a defeat. Setbacks are not coming to this man easily.

President Obama walked to the podium and started swinging. First, it was at his favorite punching bag, the Republicans. A prickly Obama, at times raising his voice, called Senate Republicans “hostage-takers” and “bomb-throwers” for opposing his agenda, and said critics on the Left who portray him as weak on core issues are “sanctimonious.”

This is from the same president who feigns a desire for bi-partisan solutions to our nation's problems. This is from a man who claims he is rising above politics and doing the business of the people.

Yeah, right.

Obama called out soon-to-be Speaker of the House Boehner as a person who will find it not as easy to govern the House as it is to "stand on the sidelines throwing bombs." Wow. How's that for reaching across the aisle? And odd since the House already passed their version of the tax code extension and the hold-up has been in the Senate.

This was Obama's way of proving he is still relevant after the shellacking he received on November 2. This was Obama's way of being in control and blustering as scolding both sides of the aisle.

The problem was, he sounded graceless and whiny. This is a man who accepts neither defeat nor victory gracefully. He goes from telling Republicans, "I won" to pointing fingers at reporters posing questions and declaring he has "many lines in the sand" of which he uses in negotiations.

Paging Dale Carnegie.

President Obama does not appreciate negative pieces his press coverage, either. For a man who claimed he didn't pay attention to critics, that he didn't watch polls to make his decisions, he sure can rattle off examples of not so favorable articles about his governance. During the Democratic bashing part of the program, he referred to the far left's displeasure that the public option was not included in the health care reform power grab rammed through last Christmas eve.

“This is the public option debate all over again,” Obama said of leftward criticism of the tax deal. “So I pass a signature piece of legislation . . . something Democrats have been fighting for for a hundred years,” but since it lacked a “public option” it was seen by liberals and progressives as “a sign of weakness.”

“If that is the standard . . . then let’s face it, we will never get anything done,” Obama said. “Sanctimonious” progressives “will have the satisfaction of having a purist position and no victories for the American people.”

“That can’t be the measure of what it means to be a Democrat. This is a big, diverse country,” Obama added, raising his voice. “Not everybody agrees with us. . . . The New York Times editorial page does not permeate across America.”

See, it is all about him, all the time. That crazy patchwork of legislation called health care reform is his legacy. He thinks quite highly of it and himself.

Tax Code Renewal Deal Struck As Obama Sulks

President Obama's deep trouble within his own party is revealed in television interviews with the likes of theatre critic turned political opinion bloviator, New York Times columnist Frank Rich. Rich said recently that the president no longer seems to have a clear point of view. On anything. He said there is a void of leadership shown by trotting out Treasury Secretary Geithner to negotiate the extension of tax rates with the Senate and calling up a deficit commission to handle putting together some sort of path to a stronger economy.

There is a void of leadership with this president because this president has never been a leader. This is precisely what those not supporting his bid for the presidency were warning of as the election of 2008 was held. The times in which we live called out for someone to have a consistent and strong sense of core principles, yet Barack Obama has no such history. This has proven to be true repeatedly and we are the worse for it as a nation.

President Obama's liberal and far left base of support is dwindling, to be sure. The focus of the first two years of this presidency should have been to focus like a laser beam on boosting the economy and promoting an atmosphere for employers to expand small business. By allowing Speaker of the House Pelosi to run the country as far as the economy goes, by allowing her to write the economic stimulus packages passed by the House of Representatives and then the Senate, Obama abdicated his responsibility on getting the country back on track. Instead, he chose to make sweeping social policies into law and took over 1/6 of our national economy by the government takeover of the health care delivery system. On Christmas Eve, 2009, the health care system takeover was voted into law, not to go fully into effect for up to six years, yet taxation would begin in 2010.

More fuel for the fire of the emerging strength within the Tea Party movement, the health care takeover reception fell with a strong thud. The only applause the President received was from the small sliver of the electorate that identifies as "progressive" - the far left of the political curve. Business owners recoiled and stopped any plans for expansion or future development of new businesses. With increased cost and governmental red tape in paperwork, the new demands of health benefits are job killers. The President's conclusion? He stated that he simply was not selling it correctly. He stated that he didn't deliver the message clearly.

The first two years of the Obama administration have been an exercise in the stark contrast between the political philosophies of the two parties. This has worked out well for Republicans and their resurgence, after being written off as a party doomed to be in the political wilderness well into the future. The President and the Democrats were strongly defeated in the November 2 mid-term elections. The American voters chose to remain in support of center/right policy and progressive politics are clearly are on the endangered species list. Only 20% of the electorate consider progressive/liberal/Democratic party policy as their own. More than 40% consider themselves conservative and independent voters. Just short of 30% consider the Republican party their home base. Without the independent voter, neither party will win an election. Though the independent voter decided to take a chance on Barack Obama in 2008, the tide has turned and he no longer has that support.

Now, in this lame duck session of Congress, President Obama is trying to tie up lots of loose ends brought on by his negligence as he was a one issue President. Progressives/liberals who thought he would push the social issues agenda are disappointed. Conservative leaning independents have been betrayed by this economic policies agenda which amount to little more than traditional tax and spend Democratic standard policy. Instead of focusing on extending expiring tax code so that small business owners and taxpayers will have some knowledge of what to plan for the coming year or two, instead of producing a fiscal budget - the first time in decades that Congress has failed to do so - and dealing with appropriations to keep the government functioning into the new year, Obama has encouraged the Democratically controlled Congress to waste time with social issue policy. Obama still doesn't show clear concern and focus on the economic issues of the day.

Finally, a compromise has been struck between the White House and the GOP in the Senate on the tax code. The framework is: all tax code remains in place for the next two years; unemployment benefits will extend out another thirteen months; and there will be a payroll tax (social security) cut of 2% next year; the estate tax remains in place for one year. In two years, the tax code extension in question.

The path to a vote is now paved. When he announced the framework, Obama used his typical partisan voice and the whole announcement was to sway his liberal base - those who will be furious at any compromise at all with Republicans. They will appreciate the consistent blame by Obama on Republicans for demanding common sense solutions over simply raising taxes.

Obama looked angry at the compromise announcement. He was not humble. He did not thank the Republicans for working with the Democrats on an agreement. The far left ideologues, led by Obama, are neither gracious in victory or defeat.

The economy will stregthen with the tax code remaining in place. It is to the country's benefit that the Republicans stood firm. Too bad President Obama doesn't understand that this compromise will probably even help him as he runs for re-election in 2012.

He's too busy sulking.

Assange Is No Whistleblower

Whatever happened to the whistleblower category of humans behavior? With the WikiLeaks documents dump, the term is not an acceptable description of this man's behavior. What is he blowing the whistle on? Nothing.

What he does do is deliberately and aggressively try to destroy the United States' place in the world's order. That is what originally puzzled me about the reporting of his behavior. This guy, Assange, is no whistleblower. He's a thief. He's a thug. And, now he is an extortionist. He threatens if he is jailed, he will spread the ability around to those aiding him to punch in passwords and release all kinds of damaging documents.

Last spring when he dumped documents, it was on the operations in Afghanistan. It was meant to try and criminalize the war effort. There is no crime - or the potential - in diplomats sending e-mails to each other. Interoffice information sharing is normal and expected of any organization. He was not exposing bad behavior as it pertains to governance. This is not a transparency issue.

The results of this abhorrent behavior will be deaths of innocent foreign service men and women.

As reporters wade through the documents leaked recently to embarrass America and her partners in the war on terror, one has risen to the top for its ability to put deadly information into the hands of evil men.

Here is the link to a report of the facilities listed by our State Department that would cripple our nation and disclosed by WikiLeaks.

The US State Department in February 2009 asked all US missions abroad to list all installations whose loss could critically affect US national security.

The list includes pipelines, communication and transport hubs.

Several UK sites are listed, including cable locations, satellite sites and BAE Systems plants.

This is probably the most controversial document yet from the Wikileaks organisation.

The definition of US national security revealed by the cable is broad and all embracing.

In addition to obvious pieces of strategic infrastructure like communications hubs, gas pipelines and so on, it contains, amongst other things, a cobalt mine in Congo, an anti-snake venom factory in Australia and an insulin plant in Denmark.

This man is a psychopath.

Obama Lied, Offshore Drilling Died

Some are coming around to what we, those of us working within the oil drilling business, have said all along - the horrible tragedy of the Deepwater Horizon explosion gave cover to the Obama administration to kill the industry. First it was to impose the six month deep water drilling moratorium, though it was not recommended by any expert in the field. Currently it is by slowly drying up the new lease applications and permits by mounds of time consuming red tape. Add to that the cancelling of the offshore drilling green light given by Obama earlier this year for the coasts of Virginia and Florida and the administration just may get its way.

Just prior to the mid-term elections, President Obama ended the drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico, at long last heeding an outcry that included members of his own party. However, the gesture was purely political, and as it turns out, deceptive. Behind the scenes, his regulators imposed new red tape so complex that a de facto “permitorium” effectively kept the ban in place.

The result was permanent job losses, even as it came to light that the Interior Department doctored scientific reports to enforce what turned out to be an unnecessary shutdown of Gulf energy exploration in the first place. The oil and gas industry supported $12.7 billion in household earnings in Louisiana alone, according to state data, and a study by LSU Professor Joseph Mason found that the ban cost up to 155,000 jobs. The impact extended to the region’s small businesses
from suppliers to grocery stores relying on revenue from the oil and gas industry.

On December 1, the president finally gave up the charade and declared that no drilling will take place in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico for the next five years. He even upped the ante, adding the Pacific and Atlantic Coasts to the no-drill zones.

The petroleum industry lobbyists are on Capitol Hill asking for Congressional oversight and a reversal of the reversal by the President.

American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard told reporters Monday he’s hopeful Interior will change its mind, but also made clear he’ll lobby Congress to mandate wider development. He slammed “unelected bureaucrats” for making what he called harmful decisions.“We hope Interior will reconsider,” Gerard said on a conference call. “We also think that congressional action and oversight are needed.”

Asked about seeking legislation that would require expanded leasing, Gerard replied, “We will pursue whatever avenues we think are in the best interests of the American people.”

Three dollar a gallon gas is just around the corner. Heating oil prices will increase in the northeast. The usual chain of events occur. This time, however, there is no George W. Bush to blame.

In a time when our nation is battling a deep recession, no jobs can be allowed to go elsewhere in the world. That includes jobs within the energy sector. True leadership - a leadership not blinded by impractical political ideology - is needed from President Obama to step up and do the right thing. Stop the moratoriums issued on offshore oil drilling.

The Fall-out Over WikiLeaks

Some smart folks who write for a living think that Hillary Clinton should be fired. The issue is Clinton's directive for State Department diplomats to spy on other diplomats. The conclusion is now that the wikileak documents have become public, Clinton will no longer be effective in her job as Secretary of State.

In the name of fairness, the publication names former Secretary of State Rice as another who issued the same directive. And, oh yeah, it is mentioned that others probably did it before them. Duh! What wonderful insight, guys!

But what makes Clinton's sleuthing unique is the paper trail that documents her spying-on-their-diplomats-with-our-diplomat orders, a paper trail that is now being splashed around the world on the Web and printed in top newspapers. No matter what sort of noises Clinton makes about how the disclosures are "an attack on America" and "the international community," as she did today, she's become the issue. She'll never be an effective negotiator with diplomats who refuse to forgive her exuberances, and even foreign diplomats who do forgive her will still regard her as the symbol of an overreaching United States. Diplomacy is about face, and the only way for other nations to save face will be to give them Clinton's scalp.

I tend to come down on a more measured side of this dilemma. I think the real damage is in the chilled ability of diplomats and foreign service personnel to speak freely with each other in memos without the fear that it will end up in the public domain.

I agree with this:

The greatest danger of episodes like this is not the “damage” that might be done to foreign policy—which is minimal, since everybody knows that friendly governments gossip about one another, have occasional spats, and negotiate on many fronts—but to free and unfettered communication on matters of war and peace, life and death. If an ambassador or military officer knows that his honest answers to questions from superiors will soon be in the public domain, he will begin to furnish dishonest answers—or no answers at all. How any news organization can conclude that this is in the public interest is beyond me.

And of the news organizations involved, it is noted that The Wall Street Journal and CNN didn't play ball with the slimy person releasing the material: On the other hand, the Wall Street Journal refused to play along.

“We didn’t want to agree to a set of pre-conditions related to the disclosure of the Wikileaks documents without even being given a broad understanding of what these documents contained,” a spokeswoman for the paper said. CNN also declined to make an agreement with WikiLeaks.

The State Department is going on the offense after being put on defense: even to the extent of warning college students not to post on Facebook about the leaks.

Hi students,

We received a call today from a SIPA alumnus who is working at the State Department. He asked us to pass along the following information to anyone who will be applying for jobs in the federal government, since all would require a background investigation and in some instances a security clearance.

The documents released during the past few months through Wikileaks are still considered classified documents. He recommends that you DO NOT post links to these documents nor make comments on social media sites such as Facebook or through Twitter. Engaging in these activities would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government.

Regards,

Office of Career Services

And there is a report that the Obama administration will move around personnel within the Pentagon, State Department and Embassies.

Administration officials tell The Daily Beast that while planning is only in its preliminary stages, the State Department, the Pentagon, and the CIA assume that they will have to shake up staffing at a number of American embassies and consulates within the coming months.

The State Department acknowledges that the WikiLeaks dump has done damage to American foreign policy, a problem that is likely to be compounded by the withdrawal of U.S. diplomats and other embassy officials who cannot be easily replaced because they are—not surprisingly—among the government's best-trained specialists on the foreign nations and regions where they are now posted.

It seems to me that the real problem is the availability of a young soldier stationed north of Baghdad to the secure and separate Internet system on which the classified information of our government operates. Secure it and tighten security on who has clearance to use the computer system. If the information is classified and secret, then why was it not better secured?

Hypocrisy Alert! Democrats Concerned About Tax Code!

The hypocrisy flag was raised and flapping in the wind as the Democrats found willing fans in the American media with microphones to stand before and feign empathy of the American taxpayer. Well, for those not labeled as "millionaires" and "Billionaires".

One example is Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY). After the Senate vote, which didn't allow anyone's taxes to rise at the beginning of 2011, he even used the word "hostage" to describe the opposition's tactics. He claims the tax cuts are being held hostage by those voting against penalizing success in our country. Problem is, no one will receive a tax cut - renewing the existing tax code, enacted ten years ago - it simply keeps in place what is on the books now. If it is not extended, or renewed, everyone's tax rates rise.

The hypocrisy is that Schumer and the Democrats have known all though out the legislative year that the tax code must be attended to by the end of 2010. The Democrats have been in control of both houses of Congress since 2007. With the election of Barack Obama as President in 2008, all of Washington is run by the Democrats. Instead of moving to answer the tax code question, they chose to push other issues and leave the most important - to the American people - to the end of the session. It is utter malpractice that the Democrats have not produced and voted on a budget - the first time in decades - and only now in the lame duck session moved to vote on continuing appropriations bills to keep the government running 15 days at a time.

If Schumer and Obama and all the others hogging the microphones with sob stories and crocodile tears over the difficulties facing the struggling middle class in this country truly were sincere, this loggerhead would not have occurred. Only now is the White House expressing a willingness to bring in the GOP to work out a compromise. Plus, the President is insisting on extending unemployment benefits - already at a 99 week high mark - without offering a way to pay for them. This from the Democratic Congress who promised PAYGO would be enforced.

Sen Menendez of New Jersey compares negotiating with Republicans as negotiating with terrorists. Not only did the Democrats receive a "shellacking" on November 2, they continue to operate as though nothing has changed. Once the new GOP senators are sworn into office in January, it will be impossible for Senate Majority Leader Reid and his deputies to ram through any business without Republican support.

Checks and balances. It's a beautiful thing.

BP Disputes Government Numbers in Gulf Oil Spill

The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling commission have experienced a come to Jesus moment. They feign surprise upon learning of BP's intention to protest the government's numbers on the amount of oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico. Or, maybe the members now realize that the administration's insistence of squeezing BP for a multi-billion dollar down payment as quickly as possible to appear as though the White House had a handle on the situation was a charade. BP negotiated the amount of $20 billion to be set aside to compensate the victims of the spill.

Now that the time frame has expired to file claims for individual and business compensation, the government is moving to the business of restoring the Gulf coast. Previously, the administration - and by administration, I mean Carol Browner - has admitted the estimates of the spill and the damage to the Gulf were misquoted on their end. We all remember the talk of the mysterious appearance and disappearance of those oil plumes here and there spotted in the Gulf, right?

So, now, BP tells the commission that the numbers the company will present is not going to be the same as those the commission presents. BP will be charged per barrel of oil spilled and rest assured, the company does not intend to pay any bigger fines than necessary.

BP said on Friday it has presented its position to the U.S. Justice Department, which would likely be involved in any settlement or litigation. The Justice Department had earlier led talks that prompted BP to agree to set aside $20 billion into a fund to compensate those harmed for economic losses.

The fines facing BP under the Clean Water Act could at a minimum amount to $4.5 billion, which would be $1,100 for each of the 4.1 million barrels (out of a total of 4.9 million emanating from the well) that spilled out into the waters. A maximum fine could be $21 billion if gross negligence is found by the courts. That fine would carry a $4,300 penalty for each of the total of 4.9 million barrels.

"BP has not offered its own numbers yet, but BP has told us that it thinks the government's numbers are too high," Priya Aiyar, deputy chief counsel at the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling commission, said Friday on the panel's final day of public deliberations. "It thinks the actual flow rate could be 20% to 50% lower."

The response reported from William Reilly, co-chair of the commission was "wow".

To shrink the fines that would be imposed on BP, they say the estimates used by the government were the higher end of what could have spilled, not what most likely really spilled. Rep Edward Markey is quoted as saying he thought BP was motivated by a fear of higher fines. Yeah. No kidding. Is that a light bulb moment for the Representative? It shows the travesty that was this commission from the beginning. Politicians, retired or in office, mixed with former cabinet members and advisers does not a good commission make when it comes to something as specialized as oil drilling. Who are they kidding? The chair, former Senator and Governor Graham is vehemently anti-drilling in offshore waters and makes no bones about it. What kind of good faith would BP put into these people?

The Gulf coast must be restored. The initial damage done to the coastline was overestimated and exaggerated so that the White House could get the initial monies set aside from BP. Right result, wrong method. Drama does not inspire faith in the people in charge. The situation was a human tragedy - eleven men were killed and several were injured in the explosion. The Gulf waters were harmed, that is certain.

Here's hoping the waters will be righted and businesses recovered. Let's deal with reality.

Democrats Talk About Civility Yet Act Otherwise

If Democrats would like to see more civility on Capitol Hill between the two parties, in order to work together, I suggest they check themselves. It is easy to say the minority party is just being uncivil because they are criticizing on policy differences. The problem arises with Democrats who have made it their practice to devolve into name calling and phony drama.

Senate Democrats are frustrated because they do not have the votes to only extend the tax code expiring at the end of the year to only those earning $250,000 and less. A handful of moderate-leaning Democrats are coming together with all of the Republicans and intend to vote for all the tax code to be renewed, including for "the rich". Rational people understand that raising anyone's taxes is a dreadful idea in a recession.

Senator Bob Mendendez compares working a deal with the GOP on the tax code about to expire to negotiating with terrorists. I'm not kidding. You can watch the video here.

Another fine example of civility on the part of Democrats? MSNBC show host Chris Matthews claims the GOP are "mean" and "nasty" and want to "put a heel on your neck", you know, because they are so much worse than those angelic Democrats. His liberal panel members dutifully agreed and chimed in their two cents worth on the evil Republicans in Congress. Here, listen for yourselfav

And, just for good measure, Senator Claire McCaskill wants blood running in the streets unless Republican Senators cave into her wishes and raise taxes on absolutely everyone earning a living in America. You can see her performance here.

Notice the trend? For the Democrats it is "do as I say, not as I do." They expect Republicans to follow along as sheep and make the job easy. The opposition party, well, opposes the majority. It is the job of Republicans in Congress to make votes on common sense logic. There is absolutely no history of a tax increase ever boosting the economy in a recession. If anything, it hinders recovery.

Hey, Democrats! You want civility? You go first.

Helen Thomas Still Hates the Jews

Helen Thomas is at it again. Speaking to

On Thursday in Dearborn, Mich., Thomas defended the comments that resulted in her abrupt resignation from Hearst Newspapers (telling the Jews to get out of Israel) and went on to assert that Zionists controlled America’s foreign policy and institutions.

“Congress, the White House and Hollywood, Wall Street are owned by the Zionists. No question, in my opinion,” Thomas said. “They put their money where their mouth is. We’re being pushed into a wrong direction in every way.”
Thomas has received more than 30 honorary degrees and has had several awards named in her honor, including the Society of Professional Journalists’ Helen Thomas Award for Lifetime Achievement.

In response to her latest anti-Semitic ramble, Abe Foxman, Anti-Defamation League national director, has called for all awards and degrees given to Thomas to be rescinded. He points to the fact that these remarks were constructed in advance and were no off the cuff remarks made into a video camera.

Thomas has forever discredited her professional reputation. She appears now to be an old and bitter woman looking to push her political agenda on her audience. She has over stayed her welcome.

President Obama, You Are No Ronald Reagan

President Obama would like you to think that Ronald Reagan would approve of his insistence that the START Treaty be ratified in the Senate during the lame duck session. Not so fast, say two men who were in the Reagan administration.

Ed Meese and Richard Perle wrote the following on why Reagan would not approve of those claims.

There are many reasons why this treaty falls short of those negotiated by President Reagan. For one thing, its verification regime is inadequate. For another, it gives the Kremlin an unwarranted influence over the structure of our nuclear deterrent. Most important, it will almost certainly reduce our freedom to deploy vital defenses against ballistic missiles.

Moreover, the administration is asking a lame-duck Senate, dominated by a party that was rebuked at the polls by the electorate, to vote for this major arms-control treaty, in contravention of the settled traditions of our country—a tactic Reagan surely would have deplored.

Never in U.S. history has a lame-duck Congress voted on a strategic nuclear arms-control treaty with the Soviet Union or Russia. That is why a group of 10 newly elected Republican senators sent a joint letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid demanding that they be allowed to perform their constitutionally mandated task of advice and consent on this treaty.

Mr. Meese was attorney general and a member of the National Security Council, and Mr. Perle was assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration.

The first red flag was Barack Obama evoking the name of Reagan in the first place. While some far left bloggers like to gnash teeth and wring hands that Obama is going all Reaganite on them, it is silly to even contemplate that notion.

The second red flag was Barack Obama asking for and receiving support from Republicans from former administrations, by way of producing letters signed by them in favor of the treaty ratification. He even did a photo op with the White House press corps using Colin Powell as a prominent Republican in his corner. The problem with that endorsement is that Colin Powell, while thanked for his service to our country, is no longer considered much of a voice of authority in Republican politics. He chose to play racial politics and endorse Barack Obama over John McCain, though he had been a strong McCain supporter up until the end of the campaign and suddenly changed teams. Then he denied it was about supporting the potential first bi-racial president. At that point, he lost credibility as a voice of reason. If Obama wanted legitimate and intelligent Republican support by a widely respected Republican public figure, he would have brought in Condi Rice and listened to her for endorsement. She is an expert on Russian politics. Her years of public service and dealing with Russian issues goes back decades.

Obama is not a man of his word. This, unfortunately, is a continuing pattern. As this op-ed summarizes, we have no reason to believe that Obama would stand strong on a nuclear defense treaty. Future restrictions on U.S. missile defense are an even greater concern. The treaty's preamble language argues America should reduce its defensive systems, a passage the White House dismisses as not operative. Moscow, however, reads this as restricting the U.S. missile-defense effort. Russian officials warned if the United States continues to develop missile-defense capabilities, the treaty would be null. The ill-defined Bilateral Consultative Commission established by the agreement will become the primary vehicle for Russia to impose its version of the treaty language. Combine this with the Obama administration's general lack of enthusiasm for missile defense and it's a recipe for disaster.

Thanks to previous moves, Obama has placed Poland and the Czech Republic in a vulnerable position by cancelling the previous administration's plans to put missile defense protection in place in eastern Europe. He bowed to Russian pressure in that decision.

With Russia continuing to intimidate and bully its neighbors and the country run in a mafia-like atmosphere, this is no time to grant a weak-kneed American president a broad path of discretion in our nation's security.

President Reagan was a strong voice for a free eastern Europe and took on the Soviet Union. Thanks to his strong will and principles in action, that country is now called Russia.

President Obama, you are no Ronald Reagan.

House Vote On Tax Code Extension Political Stunt

First billionaires like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates made news on cable television by declaring they would really like to pay taxes at a higher level. They claimed they were simply not taxed enough. Neither seemed to understand that they could send in any amount they felt they didn't deserve to keep into the IRS as extra payment at any time. Checks and money orders are accepted, any working business day.

Now this week we have the "Patriotic Millionaires". No, really. They wrap themselves in their own patriotism because they are all about higher tax rates, too.

These "Patriotic" Millionaires want to pay more in taxes? Why am I skeptical about that claim?

All three took exception to the idea that instead of calling for higher taxes, they should just personally mail the government a check.

“The government is not a charity,” said both Garret and Katzman. “It cannot and should not be run like one,” added Garret. Pearl noted the same thing That's right, Mr. Garret and Mr. Katzman. The government is not a charity. If it were a charity there would be demands for transparency and accountability for every dime spent. Currently, the massive behemoth of a government we operate under has waste and fraud out the wazoo. Technically, the government is to be held accountable for expenditures. Realistically, we know this is not the case. Add into the mix that Democrats traditionally enact huge social programs that cost millions upon millions of taxpayer monies, as a way of buying votes for the party in elections. Voters dependent on social programs will be loyal voters, the thinking goes.

This is not the time to delve into the morality of keeping folks dependent on the government versus the integrity of self-reliance. Give a man a fish and he eats one day. Teach a man to fish and he eats every day. I paraphrase.

The name of the group, the “Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength,” has prompted questions as to whether the signatories consider those who do not support higher taxes unpatriotic.

“Not at all. I never thought such a thing,” said Pearl.

“Disagreeing does not make you unpatriotic,” echoed Garret. “Patriotism is not a zero sum game.”

So, on Thursday, the House of Representatives voted on the "middle class tax cuts" part of the extensions. Those families and individuals making $250,000 or less will keep the present tax rates. The rest of the people earning income will be seeing tax increases. This includes small business owners who pay taxes on individual tax rates.

The final vote was 234-188, with 20 Democrats joining a nearly unanimous block of Republicans against the plan.

The vote in Congress' lame-duck session was a symbolic one boosted by Democrats, still in the majority, who sought to force Republicans to vote against a tax cut.

All about the politics of re-election. This vote will be used in the election cycle of 2012, rest assured of that fact. The Democrats will claim that those mean Republicans don't care about the working families, about the average Joe and Jane. It is a basic difference in political philosophy. Democrats divide by income and status. Republicans unite by clearing the path for all to do best. Republicans believe that it is the money of the individual earners, not the government's money, in the first place.

Good riddance to a House of Representatives led by Democrats. Americans deserve much better than cheap political stunts, especially in difficult economic times. The tax code vote could have been done before the election in November, and should have been, but the Democrats decided to be cowards and go into recess instead of doing the peoples' business.

Upcoming GOP Hand Print on House Emerges

Some coming attractions have come to light as to changes that will be made in the House when the GOP takes over majority leadership.

One of the first announced to be on the cutting board is the Select Committee on Global Warming. It was set up by Speaker Pelosi as a vehicle to push cap and trade legislation. Just a quick look at the home page of the website tells the viewer this is a far left, environmentally radical opinion of our world.

“We have pledged to save taxpayers’ money by reducing waste and duplication in Congress. The Select Committee on Global Warming — which was created to provide a political forum to promote Washington Democrats’ job-killing national energy tax — was a clear example, and it will not continue in the 112th Congress,” said Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner, Ohio Republican.

At a time when our economy is struggling to rebound, it is good to do away with an unnecessary hyper alarmist venue which allows far left politicians to bash the development of our country and the punishing of prosperity.

No more wasting time with proclamations of congratulatory this and that for athletes, sport teams and the like. The new rule proposed by the transition team would prohibit any bill that "expresses appreciation, commends, congratulates, celebrates, recognizes the accomplishments of, or celebrates the anniversary of an entity, event, group, individual, institution, team or government program; or acknowledges or recognizes a period of time for such purposes." It would still allow members of Congress to propose legislation naming post offices in their districts.

And, it still permits statements of condolences and the like to recognize difficult times.

Also, a bit of House renovation - a new restroom for women in the House. The irony is not lost that it takes a male new Speaker of the House to re-model for a new restroom for the women lawmakers - something the first female Speaker of the House failed to do.

Incoming House Speaker John Boehner is tearing down the Parliamentarian’s office to build female members of Congress a restroom.
Currently, only male lawmakers are afforded the ability to walk steps from the House floor to use the restroom. Women must walk across Statuary Hall to the Lindy Claiborne Boggs room, but the 71 women who will serve in the 112th Congress will be able to walk out the Democratic side of the chamber straight to the bathroom.

It's a start.