It's not enough that he hates America.  No.  It's not enough to go around apologizing wherever there is a microphone for the sins of this country -- the list of sins continues to grow bigger.  But to have an elected President releasing national security secrets is simply unconscionable.  And that is exactly what these legal opinions released by Obama are.  The feeding frenzy of the media is only a sideshow.  Only the extreme left really cares about this so-called torture and that's why the "torture" stories haven't helped increase the circulation of the NY TImes or other newspapers.

But that's a sideshow.  And the show trials coming up -- those will be sideshows too.  The sensitive national security information which this administration so cavalierly releases to the press (they don't even bother with leaking the info, they simply print it up) signals any enemy, actual or potential, that our most precious national secrets are for sale by an administration seeking nothing more than fleeting political gain in exchange for the information.  It's absolutely sickening.  Unfortunately, I don't think that a President can actually be charged and tried for treason.

Worse still, Republicans will one day be elected to clean up yet another mess of Jimmy Carter proportions.  Those Republicans will do the responsible thing and not act like current Democrats in criminalizing politics by going after former administration officials who acted in good faith.  Yet, they will get no kudos for doing the right thing and will face the same witch hunt when the next Democrat gets elected.

Am I alone in thinking that Obama is more dangerous than we give him credit for?  Going around apologizing to everyone, embracing a dictator like he's a bosom buddy, slicing up the economic pie in ever smaller pieces, rather than growing a bigger pie.  He has no problem at all revealing secret internal memos on critical intelligence and national security matters.  On the same day that Ahmedinejad runs off at the mouth, all we get is a weak "the President obviously doesn't share this view" from his press secretary.  Yet, the President will speak to this dictator.

Because our president believes in the righteousness of everyone else's anti-American causes.  I have been lying low for a few weeks (Passover and all), but also because I am in despair.

Our Teleprompter-in-Chief unveiled his budget proposal.  "This budget makes the investments that will lead to real growth and real prosperity," Mr. Obama said.

Real Growth = growth in government

Real Prosperity = take from the productive and give to the idlers.

No, I don't wish him well;.  I'm so sick of that namby-pamby qualifier, "Of course we wish him well . . ."  I don't like him; don't like what he stands for.  Why should I want him to succeed?  This nonsensical idea of hoping he succeeds is premised on the idea that his success will mean that that the economy has turned around and for the better.

Quite the opposite!  Obama's success means socialism, plain and simple.  It means the economy will be stuck in a Luddite limbo.  Progress will end on any and every front:  economic stagnation will be the rule; healthcare will be rationed out (who will be the winners in this rationing system, I wonder?); productive people will be asked to work in order to support those living off the system.

Don't you love cap and trade?  How it will create the incentive for alternative forms of energy through confiscatory tax policies?  This is alot like the way they keep raising the cigarette tax in order to finance bloated state government budgets.  Yet as less people smoke, somehow the spending models built on the humane goal of eliminating cigarette smoking never seem to be scaled back.  And the tobacco companies just look overseas for their sales growth -- did you think they would waste their time trying to develp a safe cigarette?  I don't even think such a thing exists.  Yet, these same experts believe that we will develp alternative enrgy sources.  What will happen is that our quality of life will go down as we start to use less energy in response to increased energy taxes -- we are going to have some cold unheated homes, so we betterhope for more global warming.  The energy companies -- no dummies they -- willo pursue growth opportunities overseas, where the regulatory environment will be more inviting.

Fossol fuels will not go away.  We just will find it more expensive to use them here.  Throwing gobs of money at alternative energy research will not produce a breakthrough -- you cannot dictate or legislate innovation.

But let's get really real here:  Gobs of money will not be thrown at alternative energy research or any other kind of basic research.  Instead, the tons of money generated by this tax and trade caps scheme will instantly put gobs of money into the national coffers.  Our politicians will just build spending models based on ever-increasing sums of money coming in, forgetting that the revenue intake from this scheme will quickly flatten rather than grow; ultimately the revenue stream will begin decreasing.  But those entitlement programs -- both those being proposed now, as well as those not yet dreamed of -- will be with us.

So I don't want Obama to succeed.  His success means institutionalizing lowered expectaions, zero-sum growth, and makes failure a virtue.

We must continue to resist.  If only our elected leaders showed some spine.

Obama rambles on , but always makes sure to use the phrase "shared prosperity."  He is so unabashed in his communism; never gets called out on it.  But he is praised for promising to "call out" officials for wasting stimulus money.

I haven't posted anything in a few days.  I find that the more I focus on and stay engaged with current events, the more nervous and depressed I get.  As I feared, Jindal has been marginalized.  Never mind that Bill Clinton made an absolute fool of himself when he spoke at the 1988 Democratic Nataional Conventon.

On the other hand, burying my head in the sand will not accomplish anything.  I heard Mark Levin (among others) say he was confident that Obama would be a one-termer.  I hope so.  But saying this over and over again will not make it happen.  What do we need to do to assure Obama's defeat in 2012?  We can say "Reagan" over and over again until we are blue in the face.  His name will not accomplish anything.  And it is shorthand for nothing other than lazy thinking and betrays an inability to articulate the common-sense positions which should appeal to voteers.

A good friend of mine said to me "Give Obama a chance."  I most certainly have.  And every day I am rewarded with more and more grandiose spending plans which are not thought through, will not create (or ":save") jobs (and what does it actually mean to save a job?).  None of these plans will augment the private sector; they will crowd it out and that is the point of these programs.  Government can legitimately spend money on a limited number of things:  weapons systems and maintaining our armed forces are really all that come to mind, but I am sure there are some other legitimate (as opposed to legal) areas for government spending.  What it can legitimately spend money on benefits its citizens (provides protection) and also creates jobs.

I cannot see any of these spending plans helping the economy.  Indeed, the economy will have its own recovery in spite of these crazy plans.  And won't Obama and the Democrats claim credit for that when it happens, despite the fact that there massive spending will have sown the seeds for an even more crushing recession/stagflation period?  And during that short period of recovery which will coincide with elections, won't Obama be re-elected?  Can this nation survive eight years of this man?

President Obama said today that if he sees any wasteful spending by government agencies, he "will call them out."  Well, he can't veto the spending bill anymore.  So he will call them out.  I can't wait to see the mainstream media report this as a "good government" initiative.

On another note, listening to Lou Dobbs' show in the car, I heard a clip of Obama going ever further in ratcheting up the panic/catastrophe angle.  He will not stop until every last person in this country is paralyzed with fear.  I have seen otherwise intelligent people buying into the fear, saying things like this is the worst we've ever seen.  I'm not that old, but I remember the 1970's.  That was really dispiriting, but we muddled through.  And the beginning of Reagan's presidency saw such an uptick in unemployment and interest rates, that I was convinced that Reagan had no idea what he was doing.  Yet Reagan didn't talk down our future.  Things were bleak, but hope emanated from our leaders.  Not this leader, however:  he is Jimmy Carter redux and more (what more I'm not sure).

If I understood Holder correctly, he wants to get into our private lives.  Perhaps Holder wants to draft some laws or issue regulations which will curtail our freedom to associate as we please.  Of course, this could not be sold as a curtailment of our freedom of association, but rather as the "full realization of that right."  I just cannot seem to get my arms around this, but I can think of no other reason why Holder would speak of how Americans act outside the workplace and on the weekends.  Can anyone help me with this?  Am I getting too paranoid?

On another note, why does Obama need to make every policy proposal a campaign rally?

I am not surprised by the news that our new government will centralize the monitoring of our medical records through the new computerized records requirement contained in the "Stimulus" bill.  But what happens after these dogcatchers are thrown out of office?  Will the Republicans have the nerve to roll back any of this overreaching?

Obama's early foreign policy -- can wanting to be liked/loved be a foreign policy or the basis of one? -- is reminiscent of the early days of JFK when he met Khruschev (in Vienna?) And was perceived to be clearly out of his depth. What's different is that Obama is seen to be out of hsi depth (Russia, Iran, Arab street, North Korea) and he has yet to meet them. When they meet him, he will be perceived to be out of his depth and naïve to a degree that they cannot even imagine. Also, JFK at least learned some lessons and toughened up -- he did serve in WWII after all. No such toughening is likely from a president barely qualified to be our dogcatcher-in-chief; watch, they will create a federal dogcatcher position. This president believes that apologies, mea culpas, self-demonizations, and good public platitudinal speaking will lead us into an era of improved security. I can only hope that we will all live to regret the election of such a clearly unqualified president. Even Jimmy Carter was more qualified to be president. Hopefully, he will be like carter and only cause us one term of American weakness and misery.