Two years late, we had a president

Fully mindful that the glow will not last and that the current administration will not ultimately pass up an opportunity to exploit a tragedy for political gain, I have to give Barack Obama a hand for his speech in Tucson. For the first time, he actually sounded presidential.

He could have been his usual partisan self and openly played to his base. But instead he struck a middle tone, telling Americans to resist the urge to cast blame for the shooting that killed 6 and injured at least 13, including a congresswoman, Gabrielle Giffords.

Too bad no one told the audience this was a memorial service, not a pep rally. Or for that matter, the organizers who dubbed the event "Together We Thrive" and sold T-shirts. From the rambling Native American blessing to the bubbly student body president, the memorial came dangerously close to becoming a campaign rally, a la the Paul Wellstone fiasco years ago. But the worst came from the audience, which applauded at the most inappropriate times, to the obvious irritation of the family members of the deceased.

President Obama was pitch-perfect last night. It was the audience that was offensive. Maybe instead of civility, this country just needs a lesson in manners.

Obama's moment of silence: What could he say?

President Obama stepped out of the White House this morning, bowed his head and led the nation in a moment of silence for the victims of the Tucson shootings.

Members of the media cried at how well he did nothing.

Rather than call on Jesus, or at least God, to watch over those wounded and to receive those killed, rather than call on the nation for introspection and putting an end to unjustified laying of blame, the president literally did nothing.

Really, though, nothing else could be expected. Obama could hardly pin the shootings on the Right when the prime suspect was so clearly the product of the Left. And he couldn't reasonably say anything about "vitriol" or "hate speech" in the conservative media, like his cohorts have tried to do all weekend, because he has been the source of much of it.

Just to enlighten those on the Left who are deaf when it comes to their own hatred, here is a partial list of incidents where the president himself seemed to be encouraging violence by his followers:

• “Don’t you think we’re not keeping score, brother.”
• “Bring it on.”
• “Get ready for hand-to-hand combat with your fellow Americans.”
• “I want all Americans to get in each others faces!"
• “You bring a knife to a fight, pal, we’ll bring a gun.”
• "Republicans are our enemies."
•  “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
• “Hit back twice as hard.”
• “We talk to these folks … so I know whose ass to kick."
• Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat.”
• “It’s time to fight for it.”
• “Punish your enemies.”
• “I’m itching for a fight.”
• “The Cambridge Police acted stupidly.”

Moral of this story for the Left: "Remove the plank from your own eye."

Left hoping for Scooby-Doo moment

Today is not a good day for the Left. You might think that would be because one of their leaders lies seriously wounded in an Arizona hospital after the Tucson shooting this weekend that left 18 injured and 6 dead. But you would be wrong.

Liberals today are more upset than ever because they spent an entire weekend trying to link the shooting suspect to the Right and failed in the eyes of thinking Americans.

They tried to blame Sarah Palin because her Facebook page almost a year ago featured a map that showed Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' district with cross-hairs on it, and during the campaign, Palin had used words like "aim," and "fire up."

They tried to blame the Tea Party for creating the "vitriol" and "hate speech" in our modern political discussions, dragging out the usual lies about Tea Party racism and anti-Semitism.

They tried to connect the shooter to Christianity.

It all failed because the shooting suspect is a dyed-in-the-wool leftist.

Jared Loughner is described by classmates as "very liberal." His writings on the Internet and statements recalled by friends show him to be an angry atheist. He listed among his favorite books the "Communist Manifesto" and "Mein Kampf," both books that helped forge murderous leftist regimes. He was a drug user, well-known as a regular smoker of pot, the "harmless" drug. He railed against the government and broadcast his contempt for the rule of law. He had an altar with a "skull" on it in his backyard.

By Sunday, the Left's frenzy to make this guy into a right-wing Palin follower had grown so desperate that someone in Homeland Security leaked an internal memo saying Loughner might be connected to a group called American Renaissance, which the memo characterizes as conservative and anti-Semitic (Giffords is Jewish) and connected to the Tea Party. American Renaissance itself admits being conservative and radical on race issues, but it denies being anti-Semitic and says nobody named Loughner ever signed up for a magazine, conference or the website. The Tea Party "connection" is based on one advertisement on the website's front page, linking to a business that sells Tea Party-style paraphernalia. It is one of 24 ads on the page.

All the while it was accusing innocent people of involvement in a heinous crime, the Left dared to proclaim its piety and call for an end to "hate" and "vitriol," by which it means the Right should just shut up.

The Left will no doubt use this weekend's shootings to try to get the FCC to start regulating conservative websites (the FCC just recently gave itself Internet authority) and to further efforts to stop conservative talk radio and Fox News.

But the Scooby-Doo moment the Left is anticipating won't occur -- at least not the way they want it to. When the rubber mask is finally pulled off the shooter, it won't be Sarah Palin's or the Tea Party's face under there; it'll be the Left's.

Jerry Brown wants Prop. 13 rematch

Whatever "new" outlook California's liberals thought they were getting by voting for Jerry Brown, it didn't take long for the recycled Democrat to drag the state back 30 years. Brown's first order of business in his new term was to tackle his old nemesis Prop. 13. Prop. 13, which kept many Californians in their homes by stopping power-hungry counties and cities from endlessly raising property taxes, is directly in Brown's sights. He opposed it then, he opposes it now. Get ready for your taxes to go up, despite Brown's inaugural speech that called for an end to partisanship. The cover for undoing Prop. 13 is that Brown says it centralized too much power in Sacramento. Of course, a lot of that was Brown's own doing, since he signed the legislation centralizing school funding immediately after Prop. 13 passed. Now, Brown says he opposes a property tax hike but wants to "restructure" the relationship between state and local governments. Translation: Your property taxes will go up, sooner than later. Overturning the will of the voters, blaming someone else for the problems their own party's years-long rule has created, and looking to raise taxes as a first response. Yup, the donkeys are in charge in California.

Obama administration: Get ready for nuke attack

“We have to get past the mental block that says it’s too terrible to think about,” W. Craig Fugate, administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said in an interview, according to the New York Times. “We have to be ready to deal with it.”

What's he talking about? Why, a major U.S. city being hit by a nuke, of course.

Along with gropedowns and naked photo scanners at U.S. airports, the Obama administration is boosting our security by not-so-subtly getting the word out about surviving a nuclear blast.

Apparently, the government's big plan to save us all is to have us hunker down in our cars and basements, because according to new studies, that will work if happen to find ourselves near a nuke blast.

If this all sounds a little familiar, you're probably flashing back to the "duck and cover" drills of the 1950s. That's rather appropriate now that Obama's START treaty would resurrect the Cold War by returning us to a policy of Mutually Assured Destruction with Russia.

Ah, yes. Some days, you can just inhale all that hope and change in the air.

How about we just tax Democrats?

When President Obama agreed to keep the Bush tax rates, my wife had to slap me, hard.

I was about this far from saying something nice about the man from Kenya finally doing something right.

The impulse soon passed.

While the tax rates don't represent a cut anywhere except inside the Beltway, they need to be extended just to keep taxes from going up and crashing the economy a second time. For this reason, Obama's agreement seemed like a momentary but welcome flash of reason from an increasingly irrational administration.

But like any bill involving Democrats, the main reason for the agreement became buried under tons of pork before the Senate Democrats could bring themselves to vote for it earlier today.

And not even the threat of losing unemployment extensions can keep the House Democrats from trying to drain the blood of the dead by raising the so-called estate tax, proving once again it's not about the little guy, it's about Nancy Pelosi's continued use of Air Force planes as her personal taxis.

Lost in the shuffle are the long-term unemployed, who still can't find jobs and who are about to lose their benefits in a lovely Christmas present wrapped in a federal bow if the House doesn't act.

Unlike many conservatives, I have no problem with extending such benefits. If we don't, those same folks will just end up on welfare and we'll still be paying for them.

But the way the game is played, whenever someone starts talking about cuts to the federal budget, politicians present the public with the choice of cutting Social Security or welfare, unemployment or Medicare. But those are false choices.

There are literally trillions of dollars being wasted by our government that could be eliminated without touching our social nets, or even our military preparedness. Start with cutting congressional salaries and benefits, then proceed to shut the many worthless and largely unconstitutional agencies we pay for, such as the EPA or Department of Education (which just sucks up money from local schools across the land).

And while we're at it, a little justice should be served up against the Barney Franks, Chuck Schumers and other Democrats whose committees set up banks, along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to fail, plunging us into this economic mess.

Now that would be a Christmas present I'd like to open.

Soldier's Gay Agenda Exposes U.S. Secrets

Just in time for the Pentagon to begin leaking preliminary positive findings of its study on the planned "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal comes the revelation of yet more classified documents given to Wikileaks by a young, gay private. That the Obama administration has allowed Wikileaks to continue over the past several months is an oddity and an embarrassment, but the obvious hurry to pass the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" during the lame duck session is irresponsible and potentially dangerous. The arrest of Pfc. Bradley Manning last summer pointed out what damage could be done by someone in a position of handling sensitive information who places himself before his country. This is the real question that should be asked about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." By repealing the policy, are we encouraging schismatic political activism in the ranks of the military, which must run on strict discipline? After all, the military exists for national defense, not to serve as a dating service. And it's not just about gays that the question should be asked. Army Maj. Nidal Hassan killed 13 of his coworkers at Fort Hood while shouting "Allahu akbar," the cry of Muslim terrorists the world round. There were plenty of signs Hassan was going to flip, but they were ignored by the Army because of political correctness, which probably also played a role in why Bradley was put in a position to get away with stealing thousands of documents. If Congress is going to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," it needs to make sure the military has the legal backing to ask the questions it must to protect its personnel and its mission. Anyone who puts his personal agenda ahead of his country should not be allowed to wear a military uniform.