ON THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S INTERNET ID POLICY: “So, I need to give my ‘real’ identity to use the Internet, but not to vote? That makes sense…”

Heh.

UPDATE: Reader Kevin Greene snarks: “I’d be more than happy to present the government a copy of my original long-form birth certificate in order to use the internet. And I’ll do that the day Barack Obama shows me his.”

from: Glenn Reynolds

lately .... there was just so MUCH of it it was too easy.  But occasional instances need pointed out which brings me to THIS little gem:

Democrat New Tone: PA Politician Asks if She Can Kill a Colleague, ‘Blow His Brains Out’

Then of course there was 

Keith Olbermann’s tweet that conservative commentator S. E. Cupp is “a perfect demonstration of the necessity of the work Planned Parenthood does” — i.e., she should have been aborted. It’s just a variation on Dan Aykroyd’s classic rant in a Point-Counterpoint spoof:

Jane, you ignorant, misguided slut! Once again, you missed the point entirely. [ enraged ] Why should I pay hard-earned dollars so welfare tarts can have sex anytime they want, without regards to consequences? Haven’t these bimbos heard of abstinence? I, myself, haven’t had sex for two years – and I’m rich! Why should I foot the bill for killing unborn infants, anyway? I’ll pay for something practical like sterilization – but abortions? Never! With one exception – if I had been around when your mother was having you, not only would I have paid for the abortion, but I would have performed it myself!

What’s the problem? Olbermann’s also a comedian just doing an act.

Isn’t he?

(from Mark Kerkorian)

Department of Injustice

We can start with Patrick Poole’s report (at Pajamas) alleging, based on information from an anonymous DOJ official, that the Obama/Holder Justice Department has quashed investigations against Muslim Brotherhood-connected Islamist organizations — including a top CAIR official — designated as unindicted co-conspirators in a major Hamas financing prosecution. Alas, there’s more DOJ news to share — more of the same, that is.

Then there's this: After refusing to prosecute the Muslim Brotherhood proxy groups in the US for funding jihad terror (despite overwhelming evidence and the groups' being named as unindicted co-conspirators) and dropping the case against the Black Panther thugs who were threatening voters on election day with billy clubs, here is who Obama's DoJ is persecuting.

And finally, the creeping Sharia watch from Andy McCarthy:

My column this weekend is about the Obama administration’s infatuation with those loveable, “largely secular” “moderates,” the Muslim Brotherhood — who did not exactly get the Paul Ryan treatment when the president invited them to one of his speeches.

To get a succinct read on the state of U.S. policy regarding the Islamic ummah, you should really have a good look at Roger Kimball’s post at Pajamas (on his blog there, Roger’s Rules). It boils down to two rules:

1. You don’t burn the Koran, because if you do, Muslims might go on a killing spree.

2 You do burn the Bible, because if you don’t, Muslims might go on a killing spree.

As Roger explains, this is not the contradiction it seems to be — not if you have accepted the sharia premise that Islam must reign supreme and that other religions, and their adherents, represent a form of life that is less than fully human.

This is explained in greater detail by an excellent 12-minute video included at the end of the post, from the website AnsweringMuslims.com, which relates the startling difference between our government’s condemnation of the burning of the Koran (sorry, the Holy Qur’an) and our government’s direction that bibles be torched.

Change you can believe in — or else …

He vanishes easily.  There has been much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth and even some tears regarding Obama's recent ventures into policy making. The Boy was in Chicago on election night and partied joyfully with the other revelers along Lake Shore Drive. Today it makes many of them sick to their stomach to even THINK about what they've wrought. The angst isn't limited to just the “rube's” that voted for him either. The JournOlists and political elites are beginning to express buyers remorse as well.

As Dr. Reynolds recently observed What is it about Barack Obama that caused his vice president Joe Biden to fall asleep during the president’s speech Tuesday? “Barack Obama has become the most tedious president in my lifetime. He is like those college professors whose classes you did everything you could to avoid but, if you had to go, sat as far back as possible in order to get a little shut-eye yourself. But what is it about Obama that makes him so boring? I submit it is something quite simple — he has nothing to say.”

Even the NYT's own Paul Krugman whom I dislike with a fervent passion asks the musical question “What have they done with President Obama?” As observed by Mark Metroulas over at Big Journalism “The smart play in 2009 was to load up on Pfizer stock since lefties have undoubtedly been inhaling Xanax in record numbers to take the edge off the hangover.

Is it any coincidence that Pfizer went from around $12 in early 2009 to over $20 today? Look for it to keep climbing as we approach the 2012 election as lefties contemplate a Republican president in the White House. That’s a dissertation right there: “Benzodiazepine Use in Light of Broken Political Promises: A Case Study of Early 21st Century American Liberalism.”

What did Krugman expect from our celebrity president? Solid leadership based solely on personality?  Principled American liberalism? The dude’s from Chicago for crying out loud.

He goes on: Krugman’s disappointment in Obama reminds me of a line from Arthur Penn’s Bonnie & Clyde, when Faye Dunaway as Bonnie says to Clyde as he rejects her physical advances: “Your advertisin’ is dandy … folks’d never guess you don’t have a thing to sell.”

Obama got many people all hot and bothered. It’s a shame there’s no payoff.

Obama isn’t missing; he’s exactly who many people knew him to be: not necessarily a bad guy, but not a proven leader.

This analysis has NOTHING to do with the economy, domestic or foreign policy or any of that fun stuff like, you know, reality.  Butthe good folks over at http://www.270towin.com/ make it possible to tinker withthe electoral map.

Start with the EV's for 2012 (a smal red swing there due to populatio shift.) and back out the close 2008 states.  Assume they go red,  NOT too tough.  Montana & Missouri are the outliers.  Ohio wend SOLID Elph in '10 and Indiana may have a favorite son in the race.  Look for NC to revedrt to it's usual color.  Florida?  Two words.  Marco Rubio.  That maks the Elphs 18 votes shy. 

Where do they find the rest?  IMHO VA swins to red leaving a 5 vote gap.  Rubio and a strong Elph governor deliver NM's 5 votes and the magic 270 is reached.  

It ain't easy but it's tough to see where Team Obama can duplicate their edge from 2008.

In his recent post Reflections on Constitutional Questions: 'Constituting America' and 'Letters from an Ohio Farmer'

Steven F Hayward opens with props to Geraghty for bringing to our attention a couple weeks ago that wonderfully revealing statement by Rep. “Baghdad” Jim McDermott about being “tired of reading the Constitution and all the silly things we’ve done for the last thirteen weeks.”  He eventually gets around to linking to an new ongoing series “Letters from an Ohio Farmer.” which I think are worth a look.  But in the middle?  Ah, in the middle.

We get this: “Constituting America” .  Or perhaps I should give te FULL link.  Janine Turner’s “Constituting America” website, which contains up-to-date essays about specific clauses of the Constitution and each of the Federalist Papers. This is a fully interactive website, with nifty videos to go along with erudite essays.

OMFG!  Janine Turner AND the Federalist Papers???!!!!  You have NO idea the mix of emotions (many of them unsavory and unfit for this website) this stirs in me.   

(warning: Ms. Turner's site open with a sound clip of the reading of the Preamble, so muting may be in order)

Paul Ryan: 'Excessively Partisan, Dramatically Inaccurate and Hopelessly Inadequate'

Victor Davis Hanson: Obama vs. Obama (short, must read)

George Orwell: my favorite of course .... might need a whole new issue of the Donk Dictionary for this one:  They’re not tax increases, they’re “spending reductions in the tax code.”but “Hey, at least he’s not calling them ‘kinetic spending action.’”

and other tunes by the same name from Glenn Reynolds: Obama Transforms Tax Hikes Into Spending Cuts.

even Jon Stewart got into the act: on President Obama’s ‘Spending Reductions in the Tax Code.’ “Can we afford that and the royalty checks you’re going to have to send to George Orwell? That’s the weirdest way of… just say ‘tax hike’! That’s like saying, ‘I’m not going on a diet, I’m going to add calories to my excluded food intake!’”

at least one more to come, plus other assorted short subjects.  

to the Russian generals at the Battle of Stalingrad: “Not One Step Backward.”

That's the essential takeaway from the POTUS big speech this week.  

Many in the MSM tried to paint the speech as a move to the middle but as Jonah Goldberg observed:

In 2008 the guy said his chief opponent was “cynicism.” He decried the scare tactics and divisive rhetoric of the past. Now he cynically embraces them in a bitter and dishonest attempt to portray himself as a “centrist.”

Obama’s centrism has only one substantial component: He desperately desires to remain at the center of political life for another term.

Goldberg also throws in a nice Simpsons reference:

The president said (taking on a congressman): 

One vision has been championed by Republicans in the House of Representatives and embraced by several of their party’s presidential candidates.  It’s a plan that aims to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion over the next ten years, and one that addresses the challenge of Medicare and Medicaid in the years after that. 

Those are both worthy goals for us to achieve.  But the way this plan achieves those goals would lead to a fundamentally different America than the one we’ve known throughout most of our history. 

Am I wrong or is that just tonedeafness? People are worried the current road is the one that is leading to a fundamentally different America. And it is not a good one. (from NRO.com)

Mitt Romney:

“President Obama’s proposals are too little, too late.  Instead of supporting spending cuts that lead to real deficit reduction and true reform of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, the President dug deep into his liberal playbook for ‘solutions’ highlighted by higher taxes.  With over 20 million people who are unemployed or who have stopped looking for work, the last thing we should be doing is raising taxes on job-creators, entrepreneurs, and small business owners across America.”

Kevin D Williamson:

Even if we took his plan seriously — and it is hard to — $4 trillion in forgone deficits over twelve years does not amount to very much in the absence of a restructuring of the entitlement programs. This is what Paul Ryan gets and Barack Obama does not: The scale of those unfunded entitlement liabilities is shocking, in the neighborhood of $100 trillion. Obama is talking about eliminating some deductions for 2 percent of U.S. households and squeezing some phantom efficiency out of the Pentagon, but he adamantly refuses to address the three things that absolutely must be addressed: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Oh, wait, he’s going to have a committee of experts. Never mind, problem solved!

and from James Pethokoukis: A Plan to Have a Plan

more to come.