As Polman rightly notes, this is crazy talk for the simple reason that Obama has nothing like LBJ’s experience, skill set, or treasure trove of chits and political IOUs. Obama can no more decide to become LBJ than Carrot Top can decide to become Laurence Olivier.
Now, just as critics predicted, Obama needs on-the-job training to become a president, because he’s a god no more.
The American people in their unimaginable kindness and trust voted for a pig in a poke in 2008. They wanted so much to believe Barack Obama was somehow better and different from other ultra-leftists that they simply took him on faith.
They ignored his anti-white writings in his books. They ignored his quiet acceptance of hysterical anti-American diatribes by his minister, Jeremiah Wright.
They ignored his refusal to explain years at a time of his life as a student. They ignored his ultra-left record as a "community organizer," Illinois state legislator, and Senator.
The American people ignored his total zero of an academic record as a student and teacher, his complete lack of scholarship when he was being touted as a scholar.
Now, the American people are starting to wake up to the truth. Barack Obama is a super likeable super leftist, not a fan of this country, way, way too cozy with the terrorist leaders in the Middle East, way beyond naïveté, all the way into active destruction of our interests and our allies and our future.
Centrist Democrats are going to be pressured by their progressive colleagues and the punditocracy to cave in, to support — or at least not filibuster — whatever final bill gets cooked up in a backroom House-Senate conference. They are going to get told that the failure of Hillarycare in 1994 led to the GOP electoral tsunami that year. Centrist Democrats need to be reminded that the Democrats could have lost more seats had they passed Hillarycare. They need to be reminded that after Congress passed the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act in 1988, a mob of seniors heckled and chased then-powerful Rep. Dan Rostenkowski down a Chicago street and attacked his car. His colleagues faced a public only slightly less angry. Less than two years later, before the bill’s implementation, Congress repealed the law by huge margins.
The Democrats may be struggling today, but their current attempt to take over our healthcare system is far from meeting its Waterloo.
President Obama drank Bud Light.*
Should our nation pursue an economic policy that seeks to expand liberty or should we side with Obama, Pelosi, Krugman, et al., in pursuing greater government control of economic matters?
Are we too free? That's really the question, and algebra cannot answer it. A neo-Keynesian like Paul Krugman claims to know how much deficit-funded "stimulus" the American economy needs (in a word, more) and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner claims to know exactly how that "stimulus" should be spent (in two words, Goldman Sachs), and anyone who disputes the claims of Krugman and Geithner is met with a highly nuanced argument: "Shut up."
What the neo-Keynesians wish to do is to centralize and increase economic control, on the basis of their implicit argument that the ordinary American is unfit to exercise economic liberty.
Yet it is a fairly simple matter to demonstrate that this elitist, control-oriented approach to economics -- Expertocracy, as it were -- is the source of the very problems that the experts now propose to solve by further expansion of their own power.
The fundamental question is not whether the experts who run the economy should pursue policy X or Y or Z. Rather, the question is whether experts should be running the economy at all.
[...]
The individual's desire for economic liberty is a moral choice. But the minions of the Expertocracy, who wish to deprive us of our liberty, are also making a moral choice, and they ought to be required to admit it.
Why is our desire for liberty morally inferior to the expert's desire to control us? To summarize the experts' answer: Because they're better than us.
Donald's Designated Driver says: Personally, I'm glad that our President has the balls to take on Big Tonsil.
TheBloggess: Police are here. I suggested we all go get tacos while he writes the report. He didn't even respond.This seems a small thing, yet: openly mocking a Black American Princess (Gates) represents societal progress against the choking PC culture which we have too long tolerated.
TheBloggess: Me: tacos make everything better. Police officer: *total silence*
TheBloggess: I think this police officer is racist.
wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.
Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.
Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care.
Superficially, the United States appears to have a presidential system, but in fact it more and more resembles a parliamentary form of government. When a president loses the approval of the majority of the voters and polls reflect that his ratings have fallen substantially below 50 percent, he loses his power. In this context, polls are like parliamentary votes of no confidence in European systems. While the government does not fall if it loses in the polling, it limps on until either its ratings improve or it is voted out of office at the next election.I don't want America to be beholden to the whims of voters on a week by week basis.
...
Now Obama faces the loss of power that comes with dropping poll numbers. The two early symptoms of this creeping impotence are his inability to pass the union card-check legislation or to force action on healthcare before the August recess, once highly touted administration goals.
As is usually the case, the apparent cause of these defeats -- the buildup of public disapproval of both bills -- is not what is really at work. Rather, it is the president's obvious inability to improve the economy that is exacting the daily toll in his approval ratings evident in all of the surveys. Like the body counts that mounted in Iraq and drove Bush's numbers ever downward, the rising unemployment numbers are stripping Obama of his popularity and power.
Obama's very activism in promoting the stimulus package in January as a cure-all has set him up for failure now that he cannot deliver on his overblown promises. Unlike Clinton's presidency, Obama's cannot be rescued by good public relations. His obvious failure to turn the economy around drags him down at every turn.
A black president [of U.S.], a black governor [of MA] and a black mayor [of Cambridge, MA] all agree with a black Harvard professor that he was racially profiled by a white-Latino-black police team, headed by a cop who teaches courses in how to avoid racial profiling. The boundless elasticity of such endemic racism suggests that the "post-racial America" will be living with blowhard grievance-mongers like professor Gates unto the end of time.
In a fairly typical "he said/VIP said" incident, the VIP was the author of his own misfortune but, with characteristic arrogance, chose to ascribe it to systemic racism, Jim Crow, lynchings, the Klan, slavery, Jefferson impregnating Sally Hemmings, etc. And so it goes, now and forever.
Connie Rice, a black Los Angeles civil rights attorney who has played a leading role in reforming the Los Angeles Police Department“Black American Princess Syndrome". LOL.
[...]
Gates, she said, seemed to manifest what she called “Black American Princess Syndrome".
Obama has now put the presidential imprimatur on a set of untruths that will only fuel disrespect for the law and impede the police in their efforts to protect inner-city residents from crime.
[...]
Gates seems not to understand that he was arrested for disorderly conduct, not for burglary. He was not “the first black man that [the officers] saw” committing what they viewed as disorderly conduct; he was the only man they saw committing disorderly conduct.
[...]
Obama does not seem to understand the power of his office. If he is going to weigh in on something as crucial to the health of cities as policing, he had better get his facts straight. But everything that he said about the Cambridge confrontation was untrue. He presents a highly telescoped version of the events that echoes Gates’s implication that he was arrested on the burglary charge: “The Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home,” Obama intoned. But Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct; his being in his own home is irrelevant.
[...]
Obama then decided he was going to give us a history lesson: “What I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there’s a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That’s just a fact.”
This statement has many possible meanings, all of them untrue.
[...]
Virtually identical proportions of white, black, and Hispanic drivers — 9 percent — report being stopped by the police, though in 2005, the self-reported black stop rate — 8.1 percent — was nearly a percentage point lower than the self-reported white stop rate (8.9 percent). The stop rate for blacks is lower during the day, when officers can more readily see a driver’s race.
[...]
As for urban policing — where the police have victim identifications and contextual and behavioral cues to work with — blacks are stopped more, but only in comparison with their proportion of the entire population. Measured against their crime rate, they are understopped. New York City is perfectly typical of the black police-stop and crime rates. In the first three months of 2009, 52 percent of all people stopped for questioning by the police in New York City were black, though blacks are just 24 percent of the population. But according to the victims of and witnesses to crime, blacks commit about 68 percent of all violent crime in the city.
[...]
Obama has only increased the racial paranoia that Gates put so vividly on display. Officers of all races say that the first thing out of a black driver’s mouth during a traffic stop for speeding or running a red light is often: “You only stopped me because I’m black,” a reaction ginned up by decades of anti-cop agitating and now bolstered by Obama’s recycled fictions. The advocate-fueled resentment of the police in inner-city neighborhoods makes crime fighting more difficult and more dangerous. Obama’s hope for reviving urban economies rests on a crucial precondition: that cities stay safe. He has just put that precondition in jeopardy.
Now is the time at SDA when we juxtapose!I remember listening to this Liebau interview, and I remember a separate observation she made. She said Harvard was so liberal that Barack was able to get along with conservatives merely by being polite to them, as opposed to sneering at them and denigrating them. Liebau said she has an odd sense that Barack still believes that interaction with conservatives and Republicans will work that way, i.e. that Barack believes if he is merely polite, and is not overtly rude, that such will constitute a sufficient and successful effort in working with the other side, i.e. Repubs will work with Barack b/c they will grateful he is not rude to them.
Carol Platt Liebau (Harvard Law Review), February 20th -"[Tom Pirelli] did most of the day to day work [on the Harvard Law Review]. Barack Obama was nowhere to be seen. Occasionally he would drop in he would talk to people, and then he'd leave again as though his very arrival had been a benediction in and of itself, but not very much got done."CNN Political Ticker, July 21st -One Democratic senator tells CNN congressional Democrats are “baffled,” and another senior Democratic source tells CNN members of the president’s own party are still “frustrated” that they’re not getting more specific direction from him on health care. “We appreciate the rhetoric and his willingness to ratchet up the pressure but what most Democrats on the Hill are looking for is for the president to weigh in and make decisions on outstanding issues..."
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) — A black police officer who was at Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s home when the black Harvard scholar was arrested says he fully supports how his white fellow officer handled the situation.
Sgt. Leon Lashley says Gates was probably tired and surprised when Sgt. James Crowley demanded identification from him as officers investigated a report of a burglary. Lashley says Gates' reaction to Crowley was "a little bit stranger than it should have been."
Asked if Gates should have been arrested, Lashley said supported Crowley "100 percent."
People on the left do not really argue the facts. It's really an emotion based sense of the world. And when it's challenged, they do not quite know how to argue back. They are taught, they assume, that those on the right are not merely wrong, but evil. The notion that someone could disagree with them, on abortion, for example, is not merely incomprehensible, but fury-making.
[...]
Essentially, they just cannot get their heads around someone not sharing their views.
[...]
As much as anything else: they're baffled [at how I could be conservative]. They really don't get it . I don't look like a monster. I don't drag my knuckles when I walk.
[...]
To be not part of the left liberal herd is to be incomprehensible; and, perhaps worse than that, evil.
[...]
None of these people listen to Limbaugh, but they all hate him. In fact, they don't know what conservatives think at all. Basically, they deal in the crudest kinds of caricatures: we are racists, sexists, homophobic, whatever other epithets get thrown around by various NYT columnists. And that's good enough for them. There is no real interest in investigating the ideas of the other side. And I think this is a real difference [between left and right]: we know what they think. We can't help but be aware of the predominant attitudes on every major social and political issue. They know what they know of us basically by rumor and innuendo.
[...]
You're never going to win them over. In my previous book, "How I Accidentally Joined the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and Found Inner Peace", I actually hoped to speak to people on the other side. It doesn't work. It's impossible. I don't think a single liberal read that book, and I'm including members of my family. They were appalled by it. [...] In this book, I don't want to spend any time arguing with persons of the left. It's almost the definition of a fruitless endeavor.
[...]
I absolutely agree, you have to fight back [against the left's prejudice against and intolerance of the right, and against the left's mischaracterization of the right], to push back. But I would caution: they're very very hard to embarrass. [Intolerance of the right] doesn't have the same moral weight in their universe as a black person. By the way: if you're a black conservative, it doesn't help much either. Look what they did to Clarence Thomas.
I'm very keenly aware, when I'm at a party, if there are one or two other people who are not responding - when the talk turns to Obama - with the amen chorus. And, potentially, those are people I could get along with.
"The notion that someone could disagree with them, on abortion, for example, is not merely incomprehensible, but fury-making."Why is it fury-making?
Most committed left persons believe their political opinions confer virtue upon them. Their political opinions must be correct, as holding an incorrect opinion amounts to being unvirtuous (according to their thinking), and they cannot possibly be unvirtuous. Besides, everyone they respect holds the same political opinion, ergo the opinion must be correct. Echo chamber."Essentially, they just cannot get their heads around someone not sharing their views."
Circa 1870, an English gentleman was touring the American West. After meeting a cowboy and talking with him for a moment, he asked:Somebody smart - can't remember who or where - said left philosophy, taken to it's logical conclusion, inevitably leads to fascism. I laughed when I read it. I dismissed it. Now it nags at me. More and more, I might believe it.
“And where is your master, my man?”
Cowboy replied: “Son of a bitch ain’t been born yet.”
I think the core Obama-ites are truly troubled by the idea of masterless men, and this is a major factor behind their hostility toward small business.
Increasingly, I find, people on the left simply cannot accept any right-wing view as legitimate. The mere fact it can be so labelled puts it beyond the pale.I agree with this take on Sarah Palin. She's going to say what needs saying. She hopes she catches on as a Presidential candidate. However, if she doesn't catch on, she will have nevertheless done her part, via saying what needs saying, via championing sanity and truth, via speaking up for Warren's "Earthlings". Hers is a shrewd move. It is consistent with her values and principles. If she fails in running for President, she still contributes to our nation, and she greatly increases the wealth of her family. Win/win. Plus, Alaska probably will be more successful if it is governed by the current Lt. Governor. Win/win/win. Palin displays audacity and shrewd strategic judgment.
We often read that the old categories of "left" and "right" have become irrelevant. It is an argument almost invariably propounded by the left. They have been freed, for more than a generation, from anything resembling serious public debate, and have thus got in the habit of proceeding with an infinitely extendible agenda (through the courts if there are legislative delays). The right has meanwhile got in the habit of feeling disenfranchised.
The right is still there, however: mostly invisible to media editors, beyond their goldfish world. (The immense success of Fox News came from recognizing this "niche market," consisting of about half the population.)
We have one group that lives under the highly artificial and intensely regulated conditions of post-modern urban life. (Even if they go to a cottage, it will be equipped with the electronic paraphernalia to create a bubble of urbanity.) And, we have another group who remain in contact with the eternal verities of life on this planet. (Who, for instance, associate electric power with doing work, as opposed to "making consumer choices.")
Perhaps better terms for the two sides, to replace left and right, might be "martians" and "earthlings."
It is to the earthlings in this scenario that Ms. Palin is speaking [in her Wa-Po opinion piece]. And when she writes lines like this intentional jaw-dropper in the Washington Post -- "We are ripe for economic growth and energy independence if we responsibly tap the resources that God created right underfoot on American soil" -- she is quite intentionally signalling that she is ready for war.
That only implies an immediate run for the presidency to people who cannot understand her. Instead, she intends to use her celebrity to champion the views of the many earth-based Americans who have been overlooked -- and whom the Republican establishment will continue to patronize, and overlook, at the cost of their own annihilation.
We are going to have a war, next door in the U.S.A. -- a war between two world views that have become very nearly mutually incomprehensible. One might almost say that it was quietly declared on the op-ed of the Washington Post Tuesday.
40 years ago today, on July 20, 1969 an American set foot on another world.
Science fiction had long predicted it, but I don't recall it ever predicting that we would go (multiple times), get bored, and never go back.
In 1972, I had the unforgettable privilege of watching the liftoffs of Apollo 16 and Apollo 17 from a bit over 12 miles away on the beach at Titusville, Florida.
At that distance the curvature of the Earth would cut off a portion, except for the fact that the launch pad is placed on top of a ramp that rises about four stories and the pad itself probably adds another 10 feet or so, making the whole thing visible.
Hold your thumb and forefinger a few millimeters (or 1/8th of an inch) apart, at arms length and imagine a skinny white splinter held vertically between them. That's what a Saturn V looks like at that distance to the naked eye. A pair of 7x50 binoculars, or a 300 mm telephoto lens does a decent job of showing it.
When it fires up, it takes a full minute for the sound to reach you, and it's a low-pitched rumble that is felt as well as heard.
Something I'll remember 'til the day I die.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"When faced with a problem you do not understand,
do any part of it you do understand; then look at it again."
(Robert A. Heinlein - "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress")
I am John Roberts. I am not a "wise Latina". I am not a blowhard Joe Biden. Mine are not the opinions you read in my speeches and see in my video. I am John Roberts. I am not a "wise Latina". I am not a blowhard Joe Biden. Mine are not the actions of Ricci; mine are not the 6 decisions (out of 8) which were overturned by the SCOTUS. I am John Roberts. I am disciplined of thought and speech.What we have, in Barack, in Sonia, in the left which roots them on, is conviction that lying is okay, that lying doesn't matter, that lying is acceptable. All that matters is victory over the dastardly right. Lying to defeat the right is a virtue.
Law professors complained to journalists that empathy "went out the window," that they were "completely disgusted" by Sotomayor giving answers indistinguishable from what John Roberts and Samuel Alito might have said.
The interesting question is why she did this.
[Greg's note: this is the interesting question. My answer: Sotomayor was in slight danger of being thrown under the bus by Democratic Senators, as the Senate is extemely sensitive to public opinion polling. Sotomayor "did this" to prevent public opinion polls from turning against her any worse. She was taking no chances.]
She does not have to please Republicans. She could have answered them by standing and singing "The Internationale," and she'd still end up on the court.
Yet she went out of her way to spurn President Barack Obama's view about empathy: "Judges can't rely on what's in their heart," she said. She's disavowed that moral superiority is granted by being part of a minority. "I do not believe that foreign law should be used to determine the result under constitutional law or American law," she said Thursday, throwing overboard the progressive dream of correcting our bad habits in the court of world opinion. Asked whether the Constitution is a living, breathing document, she replied it is "immutable" but for amendments. "It doesn't live other than to be timeless," she said.
Antonin Scalia must have wept at the beauty of this statement.
Why such a thorough repudiation of all that progressives feel? Why must Sotomayor be portrayed as identical to a George W. Bush appointee before Democrats can vote for her?
Because, apparently, that's what Democrats suspect the public wants. On some level, the president and his congressional allies believe the public would not stand for a justice who thinks the Constitution must breathe modern air, that world opinion must inform our law, that abortion is a constitutional right if not a sacrament and that who you are should matter to how the law treats you.
The Democrats might be right. The Rasmussen poll Wednesday said that while 90% of respondents figured Sotomayor is going to be confirmed, only 37% favored it, while 43% were against. And 83% of them said the legal system "should apply the law equally to all Americans rather than using the law to help those who have less power and influence."
So much for the empathy gambit.
From this, two possible outcomes emerge. One, Sotomayor is confirmed, and it turns out her conversion is real. Wise Latina? Nah, she's an umpire in the Roberts mold. Result: Conservatives win.
Two, she's faking. She's confirmed and becomes a reliable liberal vote to mutate the Constitution into what she's sure the writers would have made it had they been as smart as modern liberals. Result: No change from the man she replaces, David Souter, and Obama loses more credibility with independent voters.
Either way, what's become clear is that the week that was supposed to be the humiliating rout of old white guys in the Senate has turned into the surrender of judicial liberalism. That has become the philosophy no potential justice can admit to, even when her president owns the Senate. Whoever in the administration coached Sotomayor knows this: A conservative Supreme Court is not at odds with America. It is its reflection.
So, how wrong was Cronkite about Tet? About as wrong as can be, it turns out. History has declared unequivocally that there were winners and losers in Tet: it was a grand strategy that failed miserably for the North in the tactical military sense but succeeded beyond its wildest dreams as a propaganda ploy—due in large part to Cronkite and his colleagues in the MSM.Read it all. An outstanding and informative blogpost.
One of the oddest things about Cronkite isn’t what he did then; it’s that apparently he remained proud of it for the rest of his life. I’ve read and listened to a number of his interviews on the subject; at no time did he even address the fact that he was wrong about Tet in the military sense—nor did his questioners bring it up. Was this reticence on their part a show of respect for the frailty of an elderly man? Or were both he and his interviewers largely unaware of the discrediting facts that had been uncovered and widely aired in the intervening decades? Or did they not care if they were wrong about those things, because, after all, they were pursuing that “higher truth?”
The “lower” truth (otherwise known as the actual truth) is that Tet was a disaster for the Vietcong and the North—especially the Vietcong, who never recovered from the blow. But, in the end , it didn’t matter. How they managed to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat was detailed in the definitive work on the subject, Peter Braestrup’s 1978 analysis of MSM coverage of Tet, entitled “The Big Story.”…the nationwide Vietcong offensive turned out to be an “unmitigated disaster” for the communist side. But the media consensus was just the opposite—an “unmitigated defeat” for the United States.
Cronkite, along with several hundred reporters from two dozen countries, focused on how the Vietcong guerrillas managed to blast their way into the U.S. Embassy compound (but didn’t make it past the Marines in the lobby).
[...]
Yet the Vietcong didn’t reach a single one of their objectives and lost most of their 45,000-strong force....
[...]
Interestingly enough, Braestrup doesn’t posit press political bias as a major part of the problem. The real difficulty was sheer ignorance, especially about anything military.
Al Qaeda in Iraq followed this strategy. For the longest time - years - AQ in Iraq exploded a car bomb every weekday morning within earshot and camera shot of the media hotel in Baghdad: the Baghdad Hilton. The bombs were timed for the morning so that video of the smoke (taken from an upper floor of the Hilton) could be played on each day’s evening newscast in America. One car bomb, every weekday morning. That was part of the prescription for propaganda victory.…The press was impressionable. General Bruce Palmer succinctly summed up the problem when he stated that the foe “took the battle down around the Caravelle Hotel and, so, from the standpoint of the average reporter over there, it was the acorn that fell on the chicken’s head and it said ‘The sky is falling.’”
"The American people will never vote for Socialism. Yet, under the name of liberalism, the American people will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program."
- Norman Thomas, six time Presidential candidate of the American Socialist Party, speaking in 1927, as quoted by (former liberal) Ronald Reagan
"You have to love a nation that celebrates its independence every July 4th, not with a parade of guns, tanks and soldiers who file by the White House in a show of strength and muscle, but with family picnics where kids throw frisbees, the potato salad gets iffy, and the flies die from happiness. You may think that you have overeaten, but it is patriotism."
"The players and equipment staff worked with NIKE to design a contemporary set of uniforms that would represent Baylor well and appeal to recruits."Players ... equipment staff ... Nike ... represent ... contemporary ... appeal to recruits.
24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:Whoever approved this jersey design doesn't understand what Baylor is selling. It's worrisome: "it fell: and great was the fall of it".
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
The Well Dressed Man With A Beard
After the final no there comes a yes
And on that yes the future world depends.
No was the night. Yes is this present sun.
If the rejected things, the things denied,
Slid over the western cataract, yet one,
One only, one thing that was firm, even
No greater than a cricket's horn, no more
Than a thought to be rehearsed all day, a speech
Of the self that must sustain itself on speech,
One thing remaining, infallible, would be
Enough. Ah! douce campagna of that thing!
Ah! douce campagna, honey in the heart,
Green in the body, out of a petty phrase,
Out of a thing believed, a thing affirmed:
The form on the pillow humming while one sleeps,
The aureole above the humming house...
It can never be satisfied, the mind, never.
The plan is expected to cost $1 trillion dollars over 10 years.
I examined the plan and released a detailed flow chart highlighting the 31 (at current count) departments, agencies, and programs that will administer the proposed Democratic government-run healthcare bureaucracy.
I exaggerate, but . . . well, maybe I don't. The truth is, despite the great promise of new medical technology out there now, in terms of new cancer treatments, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and more, the potential marvels of the next twenty years will never be developed unless some developer thinks there's a market.h/t
And with bureaucrats in charge of deciding what treatments to pay for, the existence of such markets will be much less certain. Oh, sure, federally-funded medical research will still go on at the NSF, NIH, etc. But turning that research into actual products is a different story.
My family benefited from innovative treatments that probably wouldn't be around if the United States had adopted socialized medicine when that was first proposed over half a century ago. In 20 years from now, a lot more treatments -- and, probably, dramatically better treatments -- won't be around if we adopt a national healthcare program now.
It's ironic that the same Democrats who were pushing the medical prospects for stem-cell research during the last election are now pushing a program that will make such progress far less likely.
There is a lot of bewilderment down there as to why Pres. Obama sided with Castro and Chavez.
The Hondurans are hoping that they can cut off enough of the foriegn intervention in order that they may be able to hold free Presidential elections in November.
They are very proud of the fact that Honduran printers refused to print the illegal ballots and that their military refused to distribute the ones that were printed in Venezuala.
The Honduran Minority leader: Antonio Rivera, explained to me that the political landscape began to change when Castro and Ortega sent in 900 teachers to help the poor in the country. They began organizing and indoctrinating almost immediately.
Posts
All Comments
