Obama will "find savings in" Medicare and and Medicaid . . . hmmm

From today's "Morning Jolt" newsletter (sign up here) at NRO:

2. Obama: Let's Undo That Big Tax Compromise I Made Three Months Ago

I mentioned this yesterday, but as this becomes Tax Hike Week in the Obama White House, I hope the country notices that the president is now seeking to undo the concession he agreed to just a matter of weeks ago. I know all statements from Barack Obama come with an expiration date -- I'm the one who made the axiom! -- but it's kind of striking that he's willing to return to this well so quickly. By this standard, START will be up for renegotiation soon.

Thankfully, Eric Cantor hasn't forgotten: "Mr. Cantor called the debate over top personal-income-tax rates 'settled' by last year's elections and the subsequent tax deal. 'It was then that we all agreed it wouldn't be a good thing if we want to see job creation for taxes to go up,' he said."

It also will include, well, something about spending less on Medicare, but the wording is going to be pretty interesting. The Washington Post hints, "The speech is intended as a declaration of Obama's commitment to seriously tame the deficit while outlining his long-term budget principles -- key components of his campaign for re-election in 2012. After gingerly avoiding any discussion until now of cuts in the government's massive benefit programs for the elderly and poor, Obama will acknowledge a need to reduce spending on Medicare and Medicaid while at the same time tackling defense spending and calling for increased taxes on the wealthy, White House officials said."

The Media Research Center notices the New York Times is spinning already; Obama's plan to spend less on Medicare somehow is completely different from the "cuts" of the other guys: "Examine Calmes'[s] word choice: While she portrays Republican plans as involving a 'shrinking of Medicare and Medicaid,' Obama 'envisions a more comprehensive plan' that includes finding 'savings in Medicare and Medicaid,' as if Obama was making a painless offer. Which phrase will be more palatable to undecided voters nervous over the impact of Medicare cuts?"

What's that? You're not going to "amputate" my leg, you're just going to "find savings in my lower extremities"? Oh, that sounds much better!

A couple things about the O'Reilly Obama interview

1. Bill O'Reilly is rude and self-important. Interrupting and stepping on the statements of the President (or, heck, any interviewee) is annoying and unprofessional. If he wasn't able to do the interview without "having" to interrupt, etc. he shouldn't have done the interview.
2. Obama did a good job and stayed on point. That being said, I disagree with his policies and presuppositions, and think that he is--like most liberals, a master of image over substance,

Watch the entire interview here . . . Video - Bill O’Reilly interviews President Obama before Super Bowl XLV - National Political Buzz | Examiner.com.

Rev. Graham's teachable moment . . .

It's interesting to read these stories about polling data that reflects a significant portion of Americans believe that Obama is a Muslim. Like this one: ("Franklin Graham Says President Obama was 'Born a Muslim.' As Pew Poll Shows, More Americans Confused About President's Religion." - ABC News) The interjections "correctly" :

At the same time, the number of Americans who said they believed, correctly, that Obama is Christian has declined from 48 percent in March 2009 to 34 percent today. But 43 percent of Americans now say they don't know what Obama's religion is at all.

And this article in Time: One Fifth (Wrongly) Think Obama’s Muslim - Newsweek And this ABC online article: ("The Rev. Franklin Graham Says President Obama was 'Born a Muslim' -- Comments Come As Poll Shows One in Five Americans Wrongly Believes Obama Is Muslim" - ABC News) From inside the article:

The poll found that 18 percent of those surveyed wrongly identified Obama as Muslim, up from 11 percent in March 2009. At the same time, the number of Americans who said they believed, correctly, that Obama is Christian has declined from 48 percent in March 2009 to 34 percent today.

They seem to be falling all over themselves to remind Americans of what they SHOULD believe.

Personally, I think (a) that Franklin Graham's statement (as opposed to the MSM's characterization of it) is accurate, (b) that the MSM is dying to find a way to impugn and demonize Franklin Graham (how's that for "outreach"?!), (c) that Obama is probably less devout (about anything) than he wants voters to believe he is, and (d) that this op/ed, kind of like a stopped clock that is right twice a day, is worth reading (except for the last sentence which reflects a confusion between one's culture and one's practiced faith). According to the red letters in the Bible, a person is not born a Christian . . . it is an individual choice which is typically confirmed by "fruit."

UPDATE:
Aha! The MSM must be reading Michael Kinsley:Change of Subject: Still more depressing poll results: "Michael Kinsley has an on-point observation:

I blame pollsters themselves. They have created a world where everything is an opinion, nothing is a fact, everybody is entitled to an opinion, and every opinion is equally valid. The Pew press release about this latest poll is scrupulously neutral. It talks about 'the view that Obama is a Muslim,' as if it is just like any other view about the president's religion. Not a word in it hints that there might be a right answer and a wrong one . . ."

This is stupid. I guess Kinsley thinks that "push polls" are a more accurate view of what people think than plain ol' polls?

And the Chicago Tribune's Eric Zorn appears to share my skepticism about Obama's "faith."

Lastly, it's somewhat entertaining to watch Lefty journalists who are beside themselves that a segment of the public is skeptical of their guy. "The nerve of these morons!! these idiots!! They're in a full-court press on this, which is only going to backfire on them.

Come on Mr. President

I can understand a person's support for a Ground Zero mega-mosque to be built by apolojihadist Imam Rauf, but I am disappointed that Obama is waffling on his support of it. Finger to the wind and all that.

A couple things about those Boo Scouts . . .

I skimmed this story last week and wanted to comment on it, but forgot until now. In case you missed it, here's the video:


Not cool. Not consistent with what the Scouts teach (esp. "Boy Scout Law"). Not good that this group of Scouts are getting this much attention. They're "kids," sure, but they should not be heralded. It's much more important that young people learn self-control, respect for authority and discretion than . . . whatever character quality defenders of these boys claim was being demonstrated.

For your consideration . . .

From Jonah Goldberg's lengthy, insightful article, What Kind of Socialist is Barack Obama?:

Surely if fans of President Obama’s program feel free to call it socialist, critics may be permitted to do likewise.

This Brit ain't Enquiring . . .

I don't know whether any of the The Enquirer's allegations of Obama infidelity are true (I hope they aren't, but know that Liberals' moral relativism is a tar pit); however, this 2008 British article linked at Drudge is hilarious in how Liberally slanted it is. Here are the first few lines of the story.

Barack Obama is the target of a shadowy smear campaign designed to derail his bid for the US Presidency by falsely claiming he had a close friendship with an attractive African-American female employee.

The whispers focus on a young woman who in 2004 was hired to work on his team for his bid to become a senator.

The woman was purportedly sidelined from her duties after Senator Obama’s wife, Michelle, became convinced that he had developed a personal friendship with her.

The allegations were initially circulated in August, just two weeks before the convention at which Obama finally beat his opponent for the Democratic Party nomination, Hillary Clinton.

The woman, now 33, vigorously denies the vicious and unsubstantiated gossip.

Emphasis mine.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1076695/Obama-hit-affair-smears-following-claims-attractive-aide-banned-wife.html#ixzz0mpaKdsF6

Fmr. Obama staffer: experiences helped shape her art

Ironic story about artist, Alexa Meade, who paints human subjects into icons.  The artist who turns people into paintings - CNN.com:

A former staffer on Obama's presidential campaign, Meade has no formal art-school training. She says her projects "spin reality," and that her experiences in politics have helped shape her work as an artist.

"What one experiences cannot always be interpreted at face value; seeing is not necessarily believing," she said.

"Progressives" love them some marches

Recently I was looking into Mao's "Long March" and into the totalitarian/communist penchant for "forced marches" and militarism in general, so it was poignant to get a email today from former Obama Campaign Manager David Plouffe announcing Obama and the Democrats' "Final March to Reform" on healthcare. Reminds me of the iconic Soviet propaganda movie "Our March." Heaven help us.

The "reality-based community's" president.

Rich Lowry highlight's "The president's reality problem.":

Obama came to office under fundamental misapprehensions that hamper him still. It's not true that all that was keeping the Israelis and Palestinians apart was the lack of US engagement, or that the Iranians were amenable to getting talked out of their nuclear program, or that Guantanamo Bay was a pointless contrivance.

Nor is it true that government is a sustainable source of economic growth, or a more efficient allocator of capital than the market. This is why Obama's stimulus program -- inevitably, a dog's breakfast of politically driven priorities -- is such a shambles that his aides never utter the word "stimulus" anymore. It is on to the next program, a nearly $100 billion "jobs" bill that reflects the touching belief that to work as intended a program only has to be named appropriately.

He's the tax man . . .

Hat tip, The Corner.

Hope and Change for Jihadists!

I thought this was a peculiar quote in an article about the failed Detroit bomber:("Wealthy, quiet, unassuming: the Christmas Day bomb suspect" - The Independent):

Another significant factor is the report that the bomber was an engineering student at University College London. Dr Leivesley said that al-Qa'ida was recruiting people with engineering qualifications as well as highly placed scientists, particularly in the nuclear field.

"Al-Qa'ida is finding it difficult to recruit young people," she said. "And, interestingly, the election of Barack Obama is a factor in that, because, whatever you think of him as a president, the fact of him shows young people that there is an alternative to killing yourself. Al-Qa'ida is, however, targeting more highly skilled people." (emphasis added)

Whuh?

Obama lets handlers handle this one

The question of where, if at all, the Obamas would attend church in D.C. had not even crossed my mind until I heard today that they were still church hunting. But I thought the following paragraph on the subject was ironic, given Obama's history of apparently indiscriminate pew-filling "Washington Churches Eye the Obamas" - NYTimes.com):

"Mr. Obama’s search for a church home has touched off a frenzied competition among ministers of various colors and creeds who are wooing the first family. The president, in turn, has sent emissaries to observe worship services, interview congregants and scrutinize pastors. (His aides even searched YouTube to vet one local minister.)"

(emphasis added) And later in the article we read this choice detail:

In January, Mr. Obama prayed at his first Sunday service here at Nineteenth Street Baptist Church, where hundreds of black professionals worship in a gleaming white sanctuary well beyond this city’s corridors of power. (The president took notes.)

(emphasis added)

Though I can hardly imagine how it is possible to be a part of a church when you are president or a president's family member, godspeed in finding your church, Mr. President.

Because Norwegians don't get to vote in American elections . . .

This paragraph provides all the necessary context for the Nobel Peace Prize Committee's controversial pick of simply-successful-presidential-candidate Barack Obama ("Nobel Committee Courts Controversy Over Obama Peace Prize Decision" - WSJ.com):

The committee has also been criticized for political bias, especially after it awarded the Nobel to Jimmy Carter in 2002 and Al Gore in 2007 -- moves that were both seen as rebukes to the then U.S. President, George W. Bush.

UPDATE: Thankfully, even Obama supporters are acknowledging--and calling the Nobel Committee out regarding, this silly decision.

PostPartisan - A Nobel for a Good Two Weeks?:

This is ridiculous -- embarrassing, even. I admire President Obama. I like President Obama. I voted for President Obama. But the peace prize? This is supposed to be for doing, not being -- and it’s no disrespect to the president to suggest he hasn’t done much yet. Certainly not enough to justify the peace prize.

'Extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples?” “[C]aptured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future?” Please. This turns the award into something like pee-wee soccer: everybody wins for trying.

The Olympics whiff

A couple of finger-pointing references in articles over at Drudge got me to thinking about what would have motivated the Obama to go to such lengths on behalf of getting the 2016 Olympics bid. Which led me to this intriguing article about the person--Valerie Jarrett, who led Obama et al down this path. Based on her bio, it's going to be unfortunate if she continues as the proverbial power behind the throne.

Obama's speech: loco parents or in loco parentis?

One last thing (maybe) about Obama's homeroom assembly for public school kids K-12. The Left's response to criticism about the speech and accompanying lesson plans has been intriguing. Sure, some of the outrage was from people who see a socialist plot behind every Obama-era tree. But a lot of the outcry is/was from parents because the Obama Adminstration's strategy (yes, "strategy") upset, in my estimation, the delicate relationship parents have with schools. Parents rely on teachers and schools to exercise discretion in how they influence our kids, and the intent of this campaign (based on the pre-public-outcry lesson plans, really) was unsettling to many. Charles Krauthammer said something along these lines late last week:

Look, this was never about content. We were not going to have the president urging eight-year-olds to come out in favor of high taxes as patriotic. And anything he said would be perfectly OK, it will be “tie your shoelaces and be nice to your neighbor.”

What is odd and creepy is the conception of government that underlay whoever it was in the Education Department — and it could have been a plural — to have a question [for the kids to write about]: 'How can you help your president?'

That is not innocuous. Look, it is not going to do any real damage. We're not going to have people chanting poems about their Dear Leader. The question is that that kind of thing — about a relationship between the child and the president — is extremely odd. A child has a relationship with a parent or with a teacher, later a mentor or a coach, but not a president.

A child swears allegiance to the flag and the republic for which it stands, but not the man who happens to be sitting in the White House. That's the difference between a 'popular democracy' (which is really a dictatorship) and a constitutional democracy.

And the idea that you would want a child to have any relationship with a president is odd. He shouldn't have any at all.

Update: NBC says (here), "A lot of the parents complaining aren't smart enough to raise them very effectively." I'm just sayin' . . .

Re. Van Jones: "lies"? "distortions"?

Of course Van Jones would shamelessly would flat-out deceive about his critics, but what is Dr. Dean, M.D.'s excuse?Van Jones decries 'lies and distortions,'quits as Obama's environmental advisor -- latimes.com:

The only person Sunday to offer a defense of Jones was former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, who has emerged as a titular leader of the country's liberal movement.

Dean told 'Fox News Sunday' that Jones was "brought down," and he called it a "loss for the country."

He said that he had spoken with Jones, and that Jones should not be held responsible for signing the Sept. 11 petition.

"He was told by the people waving those clipboards around that he was signing something else," Dean said. "I think that's too bad."

Well, I think it's too bad that you have such contempt for Americans' intelligence. And it is interesting to see that Democrats aren't apologizing for Jones' Commie-ness.



For the record, I don't ever recall demanding or calling for Van Jones' resignation . . . I just think it's valuable to tar and feather a Marxist, though not run him out of town on a rail. Maybe people like me are who Jones was thinking of when he stated he had, "received encouragement from across the political spectrum to 'stay and fight.'"

Elementary principles of Obama's cookie jarred hand

Well, Liberals and Obama supporters are mocking concerns about plans by the Obama administration to speak directly to every school-aged child in America. But even though Democrats are flooding the media with fresh claims that the message was "to be about the need to work hard and stay in school," the facts are that this is their revised message. From reports:

"The Obama administration is rethinking its course recommendations for students ahead of President Obama's address to the the nation's schoolchildren next week, rewriting its suggestions to teachers for student assignments on how to 'help the president.'
. . . .
Among the activities initially suggested for pre-K to 6th grade students was to 'write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.'

Another assignment for students after hearing the speech was to discuss what 'the president wants us to do.'
. . . .
Presidential aides also acknowledged to [the Washington Times] that they helped the U.S. Education Department write the suggested assignments, which stirred criticism by many who say Obama is trying to indoctrinate the education system."

In light of the creepy Pledge of Allegiance (to Obama) video (here), and the original lesson plans disseminated by Obama's Department of Education (and "presidential aides") non-koolaid-drinking parents legitimately questioned the motives and intent of this virtually unprecedented maneuver.

UPDATE: Libs (in this case blogger Mark Brown) are pulling out all the Soros-funded tools to defend the Obama administration's blatant political overreach. Holding up a Q&A by Reagan with four groups of middle school-aged visitors to the White House (here) and history teaching mat'ls available at the Reagan Library. Come on, just admit that you got busted Libs and we can all move on.

Classless and stupid

Not only is the statement--by Obama czar Van Jones, that "Republicans are a**holes," offensive, the premise of it is laughable: that Republicans were able to ram through unpopular legislation while "bi-partisan" Obama and the Democrats have been stymied these past eight months:

Less oversight, over interrogation practices

This story, announcing the intention of the Obama administration to bring interrogation of certain detainees under the White House's direct authority, is interesting as the KOSsacks are surely foaming at the mouth to try anyone (ANYone!!) from the Bush administration for a war crime.

Though I think it is appropriate to review and criticize policies of current and past administrations, it seems ironic to me that Obama appears to be choosing to insulate these important actors from oversight from outside the Executive Branch (and even from outside the White House).

In addition, it is ironic to me that Obama is commissioning people to analyze various aspects of interrogation and provide a report to him . . . which is what people like Jay Bybee and John Yoo are being crucified for. From the article:

Still, the Obama task force advised that the group develop a "scientific research program for interrogation" to develop new techniques and study existing ones to see whether they work. In essence, the unit would determine a set of best practices on interrogation and share them with other agencies that question prisoners.

Guys, you better be careful what conclusions you reach after your analysis.