"Cautioning [that] the Obama administration's 'deficit projections...are just that, projections,' NBC's Chuck Todd on Monday evening [February 1] bought into the White House's claim that Democratic health care reform bills that would add millions to the system are actually spending reduction measures, as he warned: 'If health care doesn't pass, because this budget assumes health care will pass, that's yet another $150 billion that would be tacked on to the deficit.'" (Italics added.)

No, that's not the case. What that is, is like when your significant other goes to a sale and buys something you don't really need but claims it was 60 percent off, so he or she "saved" 60 percent. Well, if they hadn't even gone to the sale, that would've "saved" you 100 percent, right?

This is just another example of this White House's "fuzzy math," like how many jobs they've "created or saved" in whatever period of time, and it seems NBC's Chuck Todd either unwittingly bought into their "logic" or was knowingly helping them foster a fake comparison on the public.

Since I think Chuck Todd is smarter than that, as well as NBC having done whatever they could first to elect President Obama and now continuing to do whatever they can to support him, I have my suspicions that it is the latter (knowingly), not the former (unwittingly).

[ABC's Jake Tapper, another usually seemingly "straight shooter," also passed along the same White House spin but at least stressed that Team Obama was assuming passage of “reform” that was very unlikely to actually be enacted. His report more resembled, "Here's the White House lie, but (wink, wink) don't worry because what they're claiming probably ain't gonna happen anyway." On the other hand, during that same evening's alphabet network "news" coverage, CBS' Katie Couric was more "worried" about Obama's "struggle" in submitting the largest federal budget in our nation's 200-plus year history. What a burden, but what a guy, huh?]

But, remember, NBC is the network:

(a) which a few years ago "manufactured" reports about SUV rollovers;

(b) which "staged" a young female reporter in a canoe reporting on Katrina for dramatic effect, until someone walking into the live shot behind her revealed the water was only about knee deep;

(c) which had its evening "news" anchor Brian Williams run a "hit piece" intended to undermine John McCain's heroic military service and sacrifice just days before the November 2008 election, highlighting sympathetic "interviews" with his former North Vietnamese "nurse" who allegedly treated his injuries within hours of his capture, rather than days later, and his former captor and "pal," the commandant of the Hanoi Hilton prison, who joked about how "it wasn't so bad" and that they all used to sit around and play cards and talk politics; and

(d) which paid people to dress up like Muslims and attend a NASCAR event, just to see if "the rednecks" would give them some good "discrimination" footage.

Yeah, that "reliable" and "objective" network.

I think the only deficit reduction "sale" going on here is what the Obama White House, aided and abetted by its NBC and other alphabet network enablers, is trying to "sell" the public.

Jonathan Cohn, Senior Editor, The New Republic, in a January 30 article entitled "At the Two-Yard Line," states that, "In the days immediately after the special Massachusetts election, which gave Senate Republicans the ability to block votes on legislation, the prospects for reform looked so bleak that one reliable source emailed me a one-word message: 'Dead.' But within 24 hours, that same source had emailed me another one-word message: 'Alive.'"

[Oh, goody! With the Super Bowl coming this Sunday, a football analogy! How apropos!]

Mr. Cohn adds, "That’s a pretty good description of where things stand today, at least based on what I've gleaned from conversations with insiders over the last week."

He goes on to say there's a Democratic "plan" to still pass some version of what's commonly called ObamaCare, stating that, "On paper, the plan is straightforward and sensible: Pass the Senate bill, but only after coming to agreement on a set of amendments that would make the bill more acceptable to the House. Because the Democrats now have 'just' 59 members in their caucus -- one shy of what it takes to break united Republican filibusters -- they'll almost certainly have to pass those amendments through the budget reconciliation process."

I would strongly suggest to Mr. Cohn, any other hopeful liberals and especially Congressional Democrats that if there's a "secret plan" being worked on to use reconciliation to pass even pieces of ObamaCare, instead of full and open debate, with or without filibustering, and an up-or-down vote, Democrats had better go back into the huddle on that one and call a different play. Another way to put it would be, "What, you're not unpopular and mistrusted enough by the American people already?"

A growing number of "regular Americans" are already outraged at not only the Democrats' out-of-control spending and trying to "governmentalize" and "bureaucratize" 1/6th of our national economy and overly invade our personal lives with federalized healthcare but also with the methods used for the House and then the Senate to each pass the separate monstrously cumbersome bills they've passed so far. All of the Democrats' backroom meetings, closed door sessions, backdoor deals, dead of night negotiations and votes, along with their strongly partisan and persistent pejorative of denouncing the excluded and ignored Republicans in the Minority as "the Party of No," is not "the American way."

[Aside: By the way, I use "regular Americans" to differentiate most of us from the effete and elites among us but I don't use "ordinary" because, since I believe in American exceptionalism, no Americans are ordinary -- in my not so humble opinion (IMNSHO).] 

The Republican win in Massachusetts was not only in part a repudiation of Obama's and liberal Democrats' policies in general and ObamaCare in particular, it was also a condemnation of the practices they have pursued to try and prevail in pushing their programs. And, on top of all that, if the Democrats now persist in twisting reconciliation -- a legislative process limiting debate and amendments which was introduced in 1974 and is intended to allow consideration of contentious budget bills without threat of filibuster and not for dealing with major pieces of legislation -- to subvert the Senate filibuster and pass pieces of ObamaCare in a piecemeal fashion, what some of them already fear as the looming backlash of November 2010 will only multiply and magnify.

Regular Americans have an innate sense of fair play and if you already control both the White House and the Congress, as the Democrats do, that would be seen as legitimate but also should give you enough of an apparent advantage. But, if in addition to that, you are then also perceived as twisting the rules and "cheating to win," that's too much, and the American people may, and probably in this case will, "punish" you. If the Democrats subvert the Senate filibuster by using reconciliation to pass pieces of ObamaCare, I think there are either of two words from which the Democrats can choose for what passing ObamaCare will mean for them in November: "Millstone" or "Albatross."

Mr. Cohn continues: "... Democrats have made progress -- more progress, certainly, than might be evident from all the dire headlines of the past few days. There seems to be a plan in place for enacting reform, even with the Massachusetts setback. But it's not an easy plan to execute, at least in this political environment. And it's not clear -- to me and to many of the people I've interviewed -- whether Democrats in the House, Senate, and administration are sufficiently committed to making it work."

Well, at the outset, Mr. Cohn said that his two-yard assessment was "...based on what I've gleaned from conversations with insiders over the last week," and that's his first mistake in estimating where this football game is. It's not the "insiders" he and others should be consulting. It's the "outsiders" -- the regular Americans, the TEA Partiers, the growing number of disillusioned and disaffected Democratic voters and Independents who are leaving the far-left liberal "fold" in droves, all of us people outside the Beltway -- with whom all politicians and pundits should be checking, because it is WE THE PEOPLE, the "regular" people, who will decide their fate in the end.

And, given all that, while admitting the Democrats definitely have the ObamaCare ball and may even be inside the Red Zone, I'd say they're not yet at the two-yard line. They're only at the 15 and it's third and ten, with ten seconds (months) to play and with the same five-point score spread by which the Republican beat the Democrat in Massachusetts. A field goal isn't going to close the gap and, given the size and strength of the defense (opposition), I don't think a quarterback sneak -- or anything sneaky -- is going to work, because even if it helped the Democrats win the current "playoff game," it's only going to add to by how much they're defeated in the "Super Bowl" in November.

[By the way, I know it's a little early but because of the football analogy used here -- the real Super Bowl? Colts by at least 10.]

"PRESIDENT OBAMA last night looked bold and forceful. He spoke in high-minded terms about the state of the union. He reached out to conservatives by touting his commitment to tax cuts, small businesses, and nuclear power. He endorsed universally popular ideas like curbing the influence of lobbyists. There was a lot to like, and little to oppose."

"PRESIDENT OBAMA last night looked bold and forceful."
Yeah, he's got that jaw-jutting, head tilted back and canted slightly to the side (oh my, momentarily looking away from his teleprompter!) look down pat, doesn't he? I think he thinks it makes him look presidential, whereas it usually actually makes him look arrogant (which he is), if not downright imperious. (Hey, hand me that laurel wreath for my head. All hail, Obamicus! Where are those damn stage set Roman columns, anyway? Can't somebody carry them around for him everywhere, along with his ubiquitous teleprompter?)

And, he sure looked and sounded "bold and forceful" alright, when he not only arrogantly and shamelessly broke protocol but even the bounds of common courtesy by berating a recent SCOTUS decision with the members of the Court sitting right in front of him and with all of them on national television. Perhaps, Justice Alito, instead of merely shaking his head and silently mouthing "not true," should have returned the president's "favor" in full force and shouted "You lie," like South Carolina Republican Congressman Joe Wilson did the last time Obama outright lied while addressing a joint session of Congress on national TV. But then, Justice Alito is not only more of a constitutional scholar than Obama, the former constitutional law lecturer (not professor, as is sometimes claimed for Obama, but merely lecturer), ever thought about being, but Alito is also obviously more of a mature and true gentlemen, as well.

"He spoke in high-minded terms about the state of the union."
Well, see, part of his problem, and unfortunately therefore ours as well, is that he always speaks in "high-minded terms" -- soaring rhetoric but no substance -- plus, there is subsequently the gaping disparity between what he SAYS and what he then DOES. There's a lot of "promising" but no "delivering," a lot of "talking" but no "walking," as well as a lot of whining and often blatant lying. So, yeah, aside from all that, he does look good and gives a pretty speech. It's just that what he says doesn't mean anything, either because he didn't really mean it in the first place or because he promises stuff he consistently shows he doesn't know how to deliver.

"He reached out to conservatives by touting his commitment to tax cuts, small businesses, and nuclear power."
Well, first, read the paragraph above again on what Obama says versus what he actually does. Next, consider that all three of those topics are among those which "conservatives" (in this instance, the Republican minority in both chambers of Congress) have repeatedly been suggesting to him for at least the past year, along with many other ideas and amendments, for example, to actually pass some form of what has been universally admitted to be much needed health care/insurance reform. So, finally, good for him for at least saying that he's now in favor of those things. Now, we'll see what he and his Democratically controlled Congress actually do about any of them.

However, up to now, Obama's idea of bipartisanship has been to mouth the words, while reminding Republicans "Hey, I hear you, but we won" and the Democrat majorities in both Congressional chambers have signaled their bipartisanship by not only closing but in some instances actually locking doors to keep Republicans (and their ideas and proposals) out, while they make back room deals and buy votes from within their own coterie to pass legislation which poll after poll shows the American people do not want.

"He endorsed universally popular ideas like curbing the influence of lobbyists."
Yeah, well, see, unfortunately, here we go again, because after his campaign mantra that he would have no lobbyists in his administration and having repeated that same refrain many times since taking office but then actually giving "waivers" to and hiring several of them, and in policy-influencing positions, too (I can easily give you a list of about a dozen with no problem), we should now, all of a sudden, believe he actually means what he says -- er, why, exactly? Hello? Anybody from The Boston Globe, or any other liberals, there?

When, or if, you listen to President Obama's State of the Union Address tomorrow night (yawn), remember this: He didn't give a State of the Union Address per se last January, but he did address Congress, promising to focus on job creation and getting our economy moving again. Sadly, he's since focused instead on a big government agenda that:

a. Passed a $787 billion "stimulus" bill which was payback for political allies and supporters and poured more money we don't have into pet projects which produced few, if much of any, jobs -- even using the specious metric of those jobs "created or saved." He promised his so-called "stimulus" plan would ensure unemployment did not exceed 8 percent, but today unemployment is at 10 percent and real unemployment in parts of the country which needed economic stimulus the most is at 17 - 20 percent, and in a few locations even higher.

b. After saying he would cut government waste and unnecessary spending, he signed a $410 billion Omnibus Bill into law, which was replete with over 9,000 pork barrel projects amounting to millions and millions in wasteful spending.

c. He called for cap-and-trade legislation that would dramatically raise taxes on gasoline and utility bills, kill hundreds of thousands of jobs, and intrude on the freedoms of Americans in their everyday lives, and all this in the name of a global warming/climate change ideology (radical left-wing theology, really) which becomes more and more questionable as any type of credible "science" with each passing day. 

d. He signed a fiscal year 2010 budget that raised non-defense, discretionary spending by 12 percent at a time when American families and businesses are having to cut back on their budgets because of the recession.

e. With jobs continuing to be lost and Americans worried about out-of-control government spending and our economy's future, he decided his top priority was to reform health care, which morphed into reforming health care insurance, and in the process spent months of his and Congress' time and numerous speeches promoting the spending of trillions of taxpayer dollars on a government health care takeover that would (1) reduce patient choice, (2) denigrate the quality of our existing health care, (3) contain NO medical tort reform, and (4) create over 100 new government agencies with tens of thousands of new federal bureaucrats.

Although Obama's so-called stimulus plan hasn't done what he fearmongered everyone into hurrying up and passing it to do, his expansion of big government is what has resulted in the most jobs "created or saved" in the past year, many of those for his union allies and supporters. First, government jobs don't grow the size of the economy; they only grow the size of the government and represent a distribution (redistribution? spread the wealth around?) of money already produced by the taxpayers and given to the government. Second, for the first time in the history of unions in this country, it's been recently reported that the majority (51 percent) of union members now work for the federal government. (I don't know about you, but to me that's a formula for making already less than effective bureaucracies even less effective. I mean, what's more slothful than a bureaucracy, unless it's a bureaucracy full of union workers who can't be fired and who have Cadillac pay, pension and health insurance plans and the "right" to take 15-minute breaks every half hour?)

One of the things that's been "leaked" in prepping us all for Obama's State of the Union Address is that, concomitant with his new (renewed?) promise to reduce spending and try to control the debt and the deficit, he's going to propose a "spending freeze" for the next three years. Why for the next three years? Well, I don't know, but surely it's only coincidental that that's the amount of time he has remaining in what I hope will be his only term. Could he be trying to "buy" something here -- votes, time, regained support? At any rate, once again, no matter how sweeping and grand he makes that proposal sound, keep in mind that such a "freeze" would not, could not, apply to nondiscretionary spending, like entitlement programs and defense, and in fact supposedly will specifically exclude defense, veterans' programs, foreign aid and homeland security.

Thus, it would affect at most only a miniscule percentage of the overall federal budget, what would amount to a rounding error -- one small step for fiscal responsibility but hardly a giant leap for manageable government. However, I anticipate that Obama will make it sound like the best thing since sliced bread (which we've only had since the late 1920s, by the way). After all, he's good at making things sound good, just not very good at making them do any good.

I don't know what else will be in Obama's State of the Union Address. If it's like most, it will be too long and too boring and will be mainly an exercise in papering over mistakes, painting things with the best face possible, and making lots of promises which have little chance of really being kept. In other words, more kabuki theater. Just remember, with this president, it's been all about (a) attacking Big Business (and small businesses in the process -- you know, those businesses, big and small, which HIRE people and give them private sector, instead of public sector, JOBS and therefore actually GROW the economy), (b) paying back his supporters in Big Labor, and (c) growing Big Government.

And, from what I've seen and heard over the weekend, from Obama himself, as well as all his happy henchmen and handmaidens appearing on the Sunday political talk shows, he, nor they, have yet learned what they need to learn from the elections in Virginia, New Jersey or Massachusetts, with, unfortunately for them, many more still to come.

Americans in general, and TEA Partiers in particular, don't want to hear the president say he's going to fight, fight, fight, even if he SAYS it's for them. We're not talking college football here, so just more rah-rah-rah isn't going to work. Whether he admits past mistakes or "being out of touch" or not, Americans want to see, after what's been -- for their benefit, at least -- a largely wasted year, that he finally GETS IT. That it's NOT Big Government, it's NOT trying to sound like a populist by bashing Bad Ole Bush, Big Banks and Big Business, and it's certainly NOT repaying your Big Labor buddies. It's also not just constantly trying to tinker with the economy or socially engineer this or that cradle-to-grave, utopian plan. It's not even broadly what Democratic strategist James "the death mask" Carville once so famously said, "It's the economy, Stupid."

It's JOBS, Stupid. Real JOBS, pure and simple. Get those going -- basically by getting Big Government and Big Labor out of the way -- then just stand back and America's entrepreneurs and workers will take care of the rest. Instead of once again trying to tell us you ARE the light, Mr. Prez, just tell us that you've finally SEEN the light. 

Mr. Krugman opened his article with (if he were actually speaking, that would be "Mr. Krugman sonorously intoned"): "A message to House Democrats: This is your moment of truth. You can do the right thing and pass the Senate health care bill. Or you can look for an easy way out, make excuses and fail the test of history." (Italics added.)

This from "Paul the Historian" only days after the January 19th Republican victory in the Massachusetts special Senate seat election clearly indicated that Democrats couldn't send a modified health care bill back to the Senate, because Republican Scott Brown had made it pretty clear that he would kill it, maybe even by driving his high mileage pickup truck over it if necessary -- which truck, by the way, Obama derided in his subsequent Ohio town hall speech.

(Aside to Obama: Kinda arrogant and not too smart, don'tcha think, Barry, to talk dismissively about the guy, or his truck, who just derailed your big liberal locomotive of a health care bill into a train wreck? I'm just sayin'.) 

Mr. Krugman, obviously one of those liberals now in reality denial, maintained that's a shame because the bill that would have emerged from House-Senate negotiations:

(a) would have been better than the bill the Senate had already passed (perhaps, but better than bad is often still bad),

(b) but the Senate bill would also be much, much better than nothing (sometimes, Paul, nothing is actually better than something which is bad), and

(c) all that would have to happen to make it law would be for the House to pass the same bill and send it to Obama to sign into law (well, except for a fly in the ointment and all that).

Speaker of the House Nancy "nanny state" Pelosi, herself only days after saying that there would definitely be some kind of health care reform passed, and soon, had to admit that she didn't have the votes in the House from among her own internecine-warring Democrats to pass the Senate bill as it was.

But there is no good alternative, Mr. Krugman whines -- er, opines. Yes, there is, Paul. There's just no longer any "good alternative" to get it done (a) in a hurry, (b) behind closed doors, (c) in the dead of night, (d) to let it contain only what liberals want in it and (e) to ensure it permits the federal government to take over 1/6th of the U.S. economy and "bureaucratize" and ruin our already best-in-the-world health care system.

Everyone agrees that our health care/insurance system needs some adjusting. But when the car just needs a tune up, you don't just junk it and design an entirely new model. Besides, most models designed by politicians and bureaucrats are more like Edsels and lots less like Lamborghinis anyway.

So, the "good alternative"? Start over and do it the way it should have been done in the first place, in a bipartisan way, with input from both sides of the aisle, and fully debated, with any and all compromises negotiated out in the open. In other words, with bipartisanship and transparency. I'm sure you've heard about both of those concepts before, right? Ah, yes, now I remember, Candidate Obama talked a lot about them.

Krugman accurately points out that some are urging Democrats to scale back their proposals in the hope of gaining Republican support but says that anyone who thinks that would work must have spent the past year living on another planet. Yeah, Paul, I agree with you on that one. Besides, after being consistently closed out of any bipartisan participation, having their ideas and amendments summarily shunned and repeatedly and libelously being labeled the obstructionist "Party of No," the Republicans should do the Democrats a favor now, all of a sudden? I don't think so. What goes ..., comes ..., ya know whatta mean? Karrma is a real you-know-what. Hah, it can make the "Party of No" into the "Party of Know" in two -- no, that's three now (NJ, VA and MA) -- swishes of a defeated donkey's tail.

However, Krugman inaccurately goes on to say that the Senate bill is a centrist document (no, it's not, Paul), which moderate Republicans should find entirely acceptable (why, Paul? -- again, they weren't even allowed to make any input -- reasons, please) and that, in fact, it's very similar to the plan Mitt Romney introduced in Massachusetts just a few years ago (you mean the one which is currently in so much funding trouble in Massachusetts now, Paul? -- nice try, but no cigar).

Mr. Krugman points out that the Senate version of health care reform has faced lock-step opposition from the G.O.P., which is determined to prevent Democrats from achieving any successes. Wait a minute, Paul, you liberals had a very popular president which is he, The One, who made health care reform his first-year centerpiece legislation; Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, to include a supermajority in the Senate; and a whole year to sell and seal the deal. I mean, how many speeches did just Obama himself make which included a pitch about health care? Over a hundred? And it was the obstructionist Republicans who stopped the train? Oh, please. Sounds more like Democrat ineptness to me. Seems like the Democrat engineer (train driver to you uninitiated) Obama and some of his Democrat conductors and brakemen along the way may have also had something to do with not only slowing the train down but now, with the Senate supermajority gone, at least sidetracking it for a while.

Paul further moans, "Why would this change now that Republicans think they're on a roll?" I hate to break it to you, Pauley, what with you already suffering reality denial and all, but Republicans ARE on a roll, and especially for those with TEA Party backing, it's just getting started. You ain't seen nothin' yet. More liberal wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth ahead. Maybe even, hopefully, some running around and pulling out of hair as well.

Mr. Krugman also accurately sums up that, alternatively, some are calling for breaking the health care plan into pieces so that the Senate can vote the popular pieces into law, but that anyone who thinks that would work hasn't paid attention to the actual policy issues. He suggests thinking of health care reform as being like a three-legged stool and says: "You would, rightly, ridicule anyone who proposed saving money by leaving off one or two of the legs. Well, those who propose doing only the popular pieces of health care reform deserve the same kind of ridicule. Reform won't work unless all the essential pieces are in place."

Again, I couldn't agree with you more, Paul, but I like my car analogy better than your stool analogy. So, let's don't worry about stools or designing a whole new, expensive model of car or putting together or taking apart these parts or those pieces. Let's just roll up our sleeves, work together, tune up the Caddy we've already got to make it more economical and run better, and get on down the road without that whole, big train you liberals were trying to steamroll us with, especially since its now sidetracked, if not entirely derailed.

Pass me some of that medical tort reform, will ya? I need to squirt some of it right here on the carburetor.

Such is the recent op-ed piece by Bob Herbert (who, although it's not particularly germane, happens to be black, as well as apparently smart), entitled "Obama’s Credibility Gap," in which Mr. Herbert leads off with: "President Obama is in danger of being perceived as someone whose skillful rhetoric cannot always be trusted, and Americans want to know what he stands for."

Aside from using a preposition to end his lead sentence, which can be forgiven for the sake of colloquial ease of expression, Mr. Herbert goes on to ask the almost perennial question about this president: Who is Barack Obama? Mr. Herbert gives multiple examples of why we should be more confused about this than ever and makes the point that, unless he finds a way to change course and clarify, Obama will only worsen the disparity between what he says and what he does and therefore the distrust between him and the American people.

One of Mr. Herbert's points: "He is creating a credibility gap for himself, and if it widens much more he won't be able to close it."

Herewith, my comments to Mr. Herbert, his NYT's readership and now to you:

First, good article and especially noteworthy for being an op-ed in the NYT, previously not known for being very objective or critical about the Obama administration.

However, second, aside from the "Well, duh!" and "Where have you been?" factors, change that from "He IS creating" to "He HAS BEEN creating," because people really paying attention know that Obama has been acting differently than he spoke during the campaign since at least last February.

It was apparent pretty quickly that he had evidently "lost" his little red Sharpie, the one he had said he would use to line out pork barrel spending; that "transparency" to Team Obama meant something entirely different from what he had promised and which most of us understood; and that the promised "new age" bipartisanship stopped at "I hear you, but we won."

I could list many more examples of what was promised versus what's been delivered, Obama as candidate versus Obama as elected, Obama as left-wing centrist versus Obama as radical left-wing ideologue, Obama as decisionmaker-in-chief versus Obama as deliberator-in-chief, but I shan't here and now. Besides, this article would become way too long, if I did.

Suffice it to say that examples between what Obama has SAID and what Obama has DONE abound. The American people, even many of those who didn't vote for him, basically gave him about the first six months of his presidency to see the difference between his promises and his governance. The results have, to say the least, been disappointing.

And, yes, we still don't know who Obama really is. And it almost seems, if he has his way, that we never shall. For example, he's already spent somewhere from one to two million dollars to suppress all his school and travel records from kindergarten through law school. One must occasionally ask, or at least wonder, who does that, except someone with something to hide? Well, we don't know, which is seemingly just the way Obama wants it.  

We just know that we don't like what we've seen so far. Obama recently said that he would rather be a good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.

Well, the third alternative, of being a mediocre, or even a terrible, one-term president, is where he is headed at present. And the points Mr. Herbert makes in his op-ed are a big part of why.  

Gee, it seems it was just earlier this week that new White House Communications Director Dan "froufrou" Pfeiffer, just as his predecessor Anita Dunn did before him, said: "We don't feel an obligation to treat [Fox News] like we would treat a CNN or an ABC or an NBC or a traditional news organization. But there are times when it would make sense to communicate with them and appear on the network."

Why, now that I think about it, it WAS just earlier this week! I wrote about it on my blog in "Dan Pfeiffer - More White House Hoof and Mouth" just three days ago. So, the new commo director joins his predecessor in an almost verbatim attempt to discredit Fox on Monday or Tuesday and by Friday the president's very own personal mouthpiece Big BS-ing Bad Boy Bobby Gibbs is to lead off on FNS -- kinda all of a sudden, don'tcha know. I guess one of those "times when it would make sense to communicate with them and appear on the network" just jumped up and presented itself, huh? (Either that, or the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing in this White House, which is also entirely possible, now that I think about it. It does sometimes look like The Amateur Hour, after all.)

So, wow! Wha-hoppen? Well, for one thing, the Tuesday election for Massachusetts' open U.S. Senate seat happened ..... and the Democrat lost ..... in spite of Obama's personal intervention for the Democrat ..... and the Republican won ..... big time ..... 200,000 mile Made in America pickup truck and all ..... and the Democrats' filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the Senate is -- poof! -- gone ..... and what Obama-Pelosi-Reid spent a lot of time on this past year instead of helping with jobs, to wit, ObamaCare, now hangs by a thread ..... and a lot of that was because of Independents turning on Obama and his policies in droves and the TEA Partiers from throughout at least the New England region psychologically, physically and financially supporting the Republican ..... and a LOT of Independents and conservative TEA Partiers of all stripes -- guess what? -- watch Fox News.     

(Hey, I'm just pretending to be the New York Times, or any one of several other liberal "news" outlets, here.)

1/20/2010 - POLITICO.com Breaking News: "Erroll Southers, the president's stalled pick to lead the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), withdrew from consideration Wednesday, saying his nomination had 'become a lightning rod for those who have chosen to push a political agenda at the risk of the safety and security of the American people.'" (Italics added.)

[Aside: W--E--L--L, Mr. Southers, just to be a little cynical here for a moment (which I am wont to do from time to time, mainly just to annoy people, and by that I mean mainly liberals), I don't suppose the timing of this has anything at all to do with a certain Republican candidate named Brown decisively winning the Massachusetts people's U.S. Senate seat last night (I predicted he would), therefore destroying the Democrats' 60-seat supermajority in the Senate, the confirming legislative body for your nomination, now, does it, h-m-m-m-m-m? Oh, probably not. That's just me, being all cynical and all, again, right?]

But, Mr. Southers, do you mean "those" with the "political agenda" of not confirming someone who had abused his previous position with the FBI by the unauthorized use of government databases to check on his ex-wife's boyfriend, and then who initially lied to Congress about it? Oh, and someone who also wanted to "unionize" the TSA, which could cause all kinds of dysfunction, especially, for example, with a union "strike" or "slowdown" during a national security crisis?

Those "thoses" with that kind of "political agenda"? Well, then, I say, good for them and their political agenda.

Besides, Erroll, it seems just a little arrogant to suggest that your confirmation would somehow have automatically enhanced the safety and security of the American people, anyway, especially when the president, the guy who nominated you, thought your prospective job of such a high priority (well, prior to Christmas Day at Detroit and the knickers igniting Nigerian, anyway) that: (a) he waited eight-plus months into his term to even suggest your name for consideration, and (b) he obviously didn't have you sufficiently vetted before naming you in the first place -- something which, by the way, seems uncommonly all too common with this White House and its nominees in general. At least, so far as we know, and unlike many of Obama's other nominees for various jobs, you seem to have paid all your taxes.....that is, unless you lied about that, too.

So, boo-hoo, Boo-Boo. So sad, too bad, but I'm glad, no cushy "gubmint" job for you. And don't let the door bump you in the butt on your way out, either.

NEXT!

(And, Team Obama, please at least try, if you even know how, to properly vet the next one, okay?)

Hey, Dan, first, how can you, and with a straight face, too, maintain that any of the alphabet networks, especially ABC (the All Barack Corporation) or NBC (the Narcissist Barack Corporation), are anything even close to a "traditional news organization" any more? That must take practice, and in front of a mirror, no less. And, second, how nice of you to agree to "throw Fox a bone" every once in a while, as there may be "times when it would make sense to communicate with them and appear on the [Fox] network."

Hey, don't do Fox News any favors, Danny, or their ratings and audience share may jump again, like it did when your predecessor Anita "dumber than dirt" Dunn shot her mouth off, as she and the rest of the Team Obama spin machine (Dissembling Davy Axelrod, Ranting Rahmy Emanuel and BS-ing Bobby Gibbs) tried to marginalize Fox. Where does Team Obama find these people? These people whose salaries are being paid with my tax money? These people who glibly talk like they know so much more than any of the rest of us and yet act so, well.....dumb?

Well, Daniel H. "Dan" Pfeiffer, originally from Wilmington, DE (the long-time "home" of Joe Biden, another Team Obama "gaffer par excellence"), is the 34-year-old Assistant to the President and the newly minted (November 2009) White House Communications Director. Remember, his predecessor Anita Dunn had to quit so her husband, already Obama's personal counsel, could come to work at the White House as White House Counsel to the President -- and probably also because Anita said some really pretty dumb (there's that word again) things.

Pfeiffer was previously communications director for the Obama campaign and a member of Obama's transition team. In 2000 (when he was all of 25 -- why, he must be a wunderkind!), he was a spokesperson for then-VP Al Gore (which may tell me more than I really need to know, about Pfeiffer's politics anyway). He has since worked for U.S. Senators Tim Johnson, Tom Daschle and Evan Bayh. In fact, he was part of the team that lost the effort to re-elect Senator Tom "tax cheat" Daschle in 2004 (well, maybe not such a wunderkind, then, after all). He graduated magna c*m laude (* - see note at end) from Georgetown University in 1998 with a B.A. in Government (what, not summa c*m laude, Dan? -- okay, probably really not a wunderkind at all, then) and, in 2006, married Sarah Feinberg, a senior adviser and spokeswoman for Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm "run amok" Emanuel. I've heard that vice is nice but incest is best, so it seems "the Pfeiffers" are keeping things within the Team Obama family. Both of them working at the White House surely must make carpooling to work easier, as well. It's so hard for a couple of up-and-coming, left-wing 30-somethings to "make do" in DC, you know, even if they are each receiving at least near-six-figure incomes paid with our tax money.

It's reported that Fox's (classy and classic) reply was, "Obviously new to his position, Dan seems to be intent upon repeating the mistakes of his predecessor ... and we all remember how well that turned out."
 
Boo-yah, Danny Boy! Mix THAT with your Kool-Aid and take a big swig.

It's absolutely amazing to me that this White House's liberal Kool-Aid drinkers persist in doing the same things and expecting a different outcome, which is, of course, the axiomatic definition of insanity.

Anita "tongue wagger" Dunn shot her mouth off and yet never called Glenn Beck's red phone to dispute anything he said, especially when he was sometimes breaking news as a NON-journalist compared to those so-called "journalists" at those other used-to-be "news" outlets. And now Dan "froufrou" Pfeiffer can do no better than repeat the same BS in trying to discredit about the only real news organization which does try to give this White House and this black president some kind of "objective coverage," which means reporting the good AND the bad? Keep it up, Dan, and you may be looking for another job in about 10 months or so, too.

I don't know if the fruitloopers currently inhabiting the White House are (a) just so ARROGANT that they think they can "take on" the only cable network which is bigger in every way than its closest TWO or THREE competitors COMBINED (Mark Twain's quote about not picking fights with people who buy ink by the barrel comes to mind), or if the current White Housers are (b) just so TIN EARED about the growing "awakening" of the American people to what the progressives are really up to, or if it's (c) just that Team Obama is just plain STUPIDER than any of us first thought possible. But tin-eared arrogance and a tendency toward hoof and mouth disease is not just a little bit stupid in my book -- it's a LOT stupid.

Obama goes to Copenhagen to get Chicago Olympics -- S-T-R-I-K-E ONE!
Obama goes to Copenhagen to "lead" Climate Change Conference -- S-T-R-I-K-E TWO!
Obama campaigns in New Jersey to help Democrat incumbent win mid-term election -- S-T-R-I-K-E TH-REE!
Obama campaigns in Virginia to help Democrat win mid-term election -- S-T-R-I-K-E FOUR!
Obama campaigns in Massachusetts to help Democrat win mid-term election -- S-T-R-I-K-E FIVE?

People who wear Che Guevara T-shirts are more idealistic and ignorant than they are cool or clever. Che Guevara is celebrated as a "revolutionary" by the Left and the uninformed masses. But, Humberto Fontova reveals in "Murder & Myth: The Truth Behind the T-Shirt," the truth that Guevara was a brutal killer and tyrant with a fetish for death and destruction, especially of the youth. Fontova escaped Fidel Castro's Cuba with his mother and siblings in 1961 and offers a chilling look at the murderer whose image is plastered on the shirts of Lefties everywhere.

In a famous speech in 1961, Guevara denounced the very "spirit of rebellion" as "reprehensible." "Youth must refrain from ungrateful questioning of governmental mandates," commanded Guevara. "Instead, they must dedicate themselves to study, work and military service." "Youth," wrote Guevara, "should learn to think and act as a mass."

Those who chose their own path (by growing long hair and listening to "Yankee-Imperialist" Rock & Roll) were denounced as worthless "roqueros," "lumpen" and "delinquents." In his famous speech, Guevara even vowed "...to make individualism disappear from Cuba! It is criminal to think of individuals!"

Tens of thousands of Cuban youths learned that Che Guevara's rantings were more than idle talk. In Guevara, the hundreds of Soviet KGB and East German STASI "consultants" who flooded Cuba in the early 1960s found an extremely eager acolyte. By the mid-60s, the "crime" of a "rocker" lifestyle (blue jeans, long hair, fondness for the Beatles and Rolling Stones), or any type of effeminate behavior, got thousands of youths yanked from Cuba's streets and parks by secret police and dumped in prison camps with "Work Will Make Men Out of You" emblazoned above the gate and with machine gunners posted on the watchtowers.

Today, the world's largest image of the man that so many Lefties sport on their shirts adorns Cuba's headquarters and torture chamber complex for its KGB-trained secret police. Nothing could be more fitting.

Ignorance, of course, accounts for much of the Che Guevara idolatry. But so does mendacity and wishful thinking, all of it boosted by reflexive anti-Americanism. The most popular version of the Che T-shirt sports Guevara's image with the slogan "Fight oppression" under it. This is the face of the second in command, chief executioner and chief KGB liaison for a regime that jailed political prisoners at a higher rate than Stalin and executed more people in its first three years in power than Hitler executed in his first six. Fight oppression, indeed!

If you're going to wear a T-shirt with someone's image on it, it seems like you should know more about the real person whose image you're sporting (and therefore sponsoring), like, say, Che Guevara, Mao Tse Tung, Karl Marx.....or even Barack Obama.

The rather obviously liberal Mr. Blow (well, he IS an op-ed columnist for the NYT, after all), I think rather wistfully, speculated in his op-ed that the former (dying movement), rather than the latter (labor pains), is the case. My response, by online comments to him, the NYT and its readers and now to you, was as follows:

Wow, judging by the general tenor of comments here, one can surely tell he's plugged in to a site full of liberal NYT readers. Pass the Kool-Aid, please.

What Mr. Blow, whose article is chocked full of liberal wishful thinking, and many of you, as well as many RINOs, don't seem to realize is that the TEA Party movement is not going away. It represents an awakening in this country and is still growing by leaps and bounds.

Many who actually wish us ill feign "fretting" that we have no leader. Don't worry. Unneeded at present. We'll be fine. Only need the loose, grassroots organizations we already have. You know, the ones which produced 1 to 2 million protesters from all across the country in DC on 9/12, as well as hundreds of thousands at other venues nation-wide, and repeatedly, all this past year?

Many who actually wish us ill feign "fretting" that we will give out, give up and go away, or that the Republican Party will co-opt us, etc., etc. Not gonna happen. The TEA Party movement is already comprised of real Repubs, disappointed and disillusioned Dems, Libertarians and Indies, from all walks of life, from all parts of the country (well, maybe not Massachusetts or Vermont). It's more likely that we will "co-opt" the Republican Party and cause it to go back to its roots of smaller, more fiscally responsible federal government than the other way around.

John Brennan, a 25-year CIA veteran and President Obama's Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (whew!) since January 2009, appeared on Chris Wallace's Fox News Sunday (FNS) show -- and definitely was an apparently more credible spokesperson than Nincompolitano. So, let's take a little closer look first at who John Brennan is, beyond just his current title (which is, admittedly, in and of itself, long, impressive and almost intimidating).

Brennan was interim director of the National Counterterrorism Center immediately after its creation in 2004 through 2005, and since 2005 has served as CEO of The Analysis Corporation.

The National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), which was, at the direction of former President Bush, originally Brennan's project -- his "baby" -- to start up and get running, is the primary federal government organization for analyzing and integrating all intelligence possessed or acquired by the federal government pertaining to terrorism and counterterrorism (except for intelligence specific to domestic terrorism and domestic counterterrorism, which is the province of Nincompolitano at DHS (God help us!) and the FBI. However, consistent with applicable law and direction from the president, the NCTC may also receive intelligence pertaining exclusively to domestic counterterrorism from any federal or SLT (state, local or tribal) government, or other source(s), necessary to fulfill its responsibilities and retain and disseminate such intelligence. In other words, the NCTC (a) serves as the central and shared knowledge bank on known and suspected terrorists and international terror groups; (b) ensures agencies, as appropriate, have access to and receive all-source intelligence support needed to execute their counterterrorism plans or to perform independent, alternative analyses; and (c) ensures that such agencies have access to and receive intelligence needed to accomplish their assigned activities.

In short, after Bush directed removal of the turf-protecting "wall" between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI on one hand and the CIA and other intellligence-gathering agencies on the other, the "wall" which had been advocated by Clinton's Attorney General Janet "Waco" Reno (is the name Janet just a curse of some kind -- Janet Reno and Janet Nincompolitano?) and which actually prevented the sharing of domestic- and foreign-gathered intelligence, the NCTC was (is) supposed to be that central outfit, that "clearing house," to "connect all the dots." Remember "connecting the dots"?

Well, um, then.....hmmm.....maybe an "oopsie" is warranted here. Doesn't that mean that even as Brennan sat there on FNS, giving the latest Team Obama spin to the whole Christmas Day terrorist attack fiasco, he knew it was his "baby," the NCTC, which at least had a part in obviously NOT connecting the dots this time? Hey, just askin' - just sayin'.

W-E-L-L-L, seems like there's another reason Brennan would want the NCTC to do a good job -- and perhaps to have even some more turf to protect if it didn't. Not only was the NCTC his "baby," but it seems that TAC, of which he was and still is the CEO, is a mainstay in helping the NCTC to do its job properly. So, (a) he's paid as the presidential advisor in the very subject area in which (b) the NCTC (which he "invented") is responsible for connecting the dots (but this time looks like it didn't very well) and (c) is paid as the CEO of the civilian defense contract company which gets lots and lots of government (read: taxpayer) money for helping NCTC do that -- connect the dots, that is. Hmmm, just call me cynical, but can we all say "possible, multiple conflicts of interest"?

By the way, just extra info, from 2007 until 2008 when he was picked as Obama's advisor, Brennan also served as Chairman of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance (INSA), a non-profit, nonpartisan, 501(c)(6) professional organization for members of the U.S. Intelligence Community, based in Arlington, Vriginia. It was assumed by some insiders that Obama would appoint Brennan the next Director of the CIA, but Brennan withdrew his name from consideration in November 2008, over concerns that his nomination would be a distraction, due to his previous associations with controversial harsh CIA interrogation techniques. Well, I personally count that as a "plus" for the guy, but that's just me. Answering the question -- to waterboard or not to waterboard? -- is easy for me. Since it doesn't physically harm the "boardee," I say always err on the side of waterboarding. Who knows, you might find out something not only important but also terrorist-thwarting and/or life-saving.

Anyway, Brennan did his best to put the Team "O" twist on the whole bungled bombing by the Nigerian over Detroit thingy. And, after listening to him, at least his worst would be better than Nincompolitano's best -- but he still didn't "sell" me.

I don't know what it is, if it's (a) just that Team Obama members, even the smart, experienced ones, are just delusional enough from drinking too much of the liberal Kool-Aid that they really believe what they're peddling (at least that would mean, technically, that they're not pathological liars), or if it's (b) just that, in their arrogance and elitism, they just think the rest of us are too stupid, or are simply not paying enough attention, to know any better than when they're trying to sell us snake oil.

Now, I've already laid out how experienced and evidently intelligent Brennan is, but some of what he said on FNS made me wish Chris Wallace had a little, flashing sign, saying "Idiot" or "Liar," which he could have had light up behind Brennan's head a few times. That's okay, though, because I supplied my own mentally, while I watched and listened to him spin and spin and spin. And with such a straight face, too. I guess they teach you how to do that at the CIA and in the intel biz, though.

However, not only as an old soldier but also as one who worked in law enforcement and who also has a law degree, one thing really struck me. As Wallace was pressing Brennan on the issue of "is it terrorism and an act of war, or is it simply criminal and a law enforcement matter," Brennan said, in supposed defense of losing the chance to really interrogate the "subject" by arresting him, Mirandizing him and giving him a lawyer who told him to clam up, that we could still get information from him by offering him a plea bargain.

Uh, wait. Did he say a PLEA BARGAIN?! Time out. I'm hyperventilating. One, take a breath.....two, take a breath.....three, take a breath.....four, take a breath.

WHAT! No, what I really mean is WTF!!

The last time I was this incredulous was when Obama's Attorney General Eric "pick and choose who to prosecute" Holder was before a Senate committee defending "his" (who's his boss?) decision to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammad (KSM) and cohorts in a New York City civilian criminal court, instead of in a military tribunal at Guantanamo. So, let's side-track into that for a little bit.

When asked if KSM (a) had already pled guilty, (b) had agreed to be tried by military tribunal, (c) had indicated that he wanted to be martyred, and (d) his military tribunal trial was imminent, why Holder at that time decided to transfer KSM's case, Holder bizarrely answered that it was not KSM who would decide where and by whom he would be tried, but it was he, Holder, who would decide.

So, lemme see now, KSM was (a) already being detained at Guantanamo, (b) where no additional security measures would have to be instituted or paid for (unlike in NYC, where it will cost somebody millions), (c) where we have already spent millions of taxpayer dollars building a state-of-the-art trial facility, (d) where we could have ensured no public revelations or compromise of national security info, techniques or personnel but (e) where KSM could still get a fair trial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) as an enemy combatant, and (f) where he was already squared away and in a hurry to be hanged as a martyr -- and yet you, mean ole Mr. Holder, wanted to "rob" him of all that and give him rights similar to a U.S. citizen, instead? Well, take THAT, KSM! Who do you think you are? We'll give you rights and privileges you're not entitled to if we want to, so there!

When pressed on what would happen if, by some stretch of the imagination, the federal court's civilian jury should find KSM, et al., not guilty, Holder just repeatedly insisted that would not happen. When asked how he could be so sure, Holder reverted to what I call "the Obama because I say so, it is so" rationale. Rationale? Well, it's not a very rational rationale, but you get the idea. Anyway, I can see a prosecutor being confident of his case and sure of a conviction, but nothing's ever really sure in a criminal trial, much less what a jury might do. So, either Holder knows something he's not telling which ensures KSM's conviction will be a slam dunk -- and, if so, why go through a show trial, unless simply for political theater (ah, yes there is that, isn't there?), or as a minimum, Holder -- as well as Obama by his subsequent nationally televised comments of confidence about a conviction -- has at least potentially poisoned the jury pool, if a fairly impartial and objective jury could have been found anywhere around NYC in the first place, and/or given rise to a competent defense attorney's appeal of any conviction. And both Obama and Holder are lawyers, one from Hah-vahd and the other from Columbia, no less. You would think they would know these things. I do, and my JD is just from Mercer University's little ole Walter F. George School of Law.  
 
As to Mr. Brennan and his plea bargain idea, I'm pretty sure we've had a long-standing, pretty firm policy of NOT negotiating with terrorists. And isn't plea bargaining negotiating? Well, of course it is. I guess that's just another policy of Bush -- and Clinton, and Bush, and Reagan, and Carter, and Ford, and ... -- that we are going to just change and/or ignore now in the new and enlightened era of Obama.

Obama and his harem of henchmen and handmaidens need to learn that while all terrorists are criminals because of their lesser included criminal acts, not all criminals are terrorists. Terrorists are criminals-plus, and that's a big PLUS. Therefore, terrorists should be treated DIFFERENTLY than mere criminals.

You don't treat the guy who tried to hold up a 7-11 with a fake gun the same as you do the guy who actually shot and killed somebody, and you don't treat the guy who tried to blow up a whole plane of almost 300 people, along with himself, the same as you do the guy who shot and killed one person. DUH!

Being ideologically determined to close Guantanamo, as Obama adamantly remains, and therefore probably not wanting to add not even one more detainee there, and being a liberal ideologue, as both Obama and Holder are, and wanting to make "us" look good and feel good by giving our enemies rights to which they are not entitled, will make even otherwise reasonably intelligent men say and do strange and twisted things in attempts to "justify" the desired outcomes. And those strange and twisted things seem thus not only to many of us but also to our enemies, which gives them encouragement to respect us less, to fear us less, and, probably, to laugh at us more.

The Nigerian, just like KSM, is a foreigner and a terrorist and an enemy combatant. He has no rights under the Geneva Conventions or the Law of Land Warfare, much less under the U.S. Constitution. He should have been turned over to military authorities right off the plane, treated for his self-inflicted lap burns, transported to and interrogated at Guantanamo as a detainee, and he should be either held there until the war in which he voluntarily made himself a "warrior" is over, or he is tried by military tribunal and found guilty or innocent and is either additionally imprisoned, executed, or someday repatriated.

So, plea bargain, Mr. Brennan? Oh, hell no! We don't need no stinkin' plea bargain. We just need a president, attorney general and DHS secretary who all stand up more for Americans and more against terrorists and who worry more about being realistically and practically correct, rather than so much about being ideologically and politically correct. And who tell anybody who doesn't like it to just go play in the traffic, to boot.

My initial reaction was: Hey, Obama's on VACATION, folks! Give him a break. After all, this is only his THIRD vacation since taking office less than a year ago. Why, in less than a year in office, Obama has already played more golf and taken more time off than George W. Bush did in his whole first term in office. (Where are the liberal lamestream media who used to count any and every time George W. Bush went to either Camp David or Crawford, Texas, and just moan and wail and wring their hands about it?) Given that and how much time Obama spends in front of any available TV camera (daily), it's a wonder he has any time to spend in the Oval Office and get any real work done at all, even when he IS here and not off traveling around the world somewhere, bowing and apologizing for all of America's faults.

My second reaction was that this was just POLITICO.com, once again "explaining" for the president, i.e., trying to give cover for why Obama was slow out of the gate -- again -- when something bad happened. This reaction was sort of confirmed later, when White House Press Secretary Robert "frat boy" Gibbs lamely tried to claim that Obama didn't want to react too publicly, too quickly so as not to give too much publicity to the "incident" and therefore "credit" to its perpetrator(s). Pardon me, but what a crock! 

Besides, we were reassured by Bobby Gibbs-erish and others of Team Obama that the prez was being kept "informed" and had directed this and that be "investigated," etc. (Well, I don't know about you, but I felt better right away.) Meanwhile, Team O got busy trying to figure out how this latest terrorist incident was just somehow more of Bush's fault. Plus, maybe Obama being in Hawaii was complicating getting what George Soros wanted him to say about this "incident" through to him -- although I'm sure George has Barry's Blackberry contact info, so, in all not-so-subtle sarcasm, but also in all fairness, maybe that wasn't it.

Obama being in Hawaii did not, however, prevent his Secretary of Homeland Security Janet "nitwit" Napolitano from saying on the following Sunday talk shows that "all systems worked smoothly." This not only caused the gaffe-prone Madame Secretary to have to backtrack on that Monday that what she actually meant was that all systems worked smoothly after the Christmas Day "incident" but what she had said on Sunday also went against what Rahm "run amok" Emanuel's White House henchmen had come up with about everything being Bush's fault again, which was that it was the systems he had put in place which failed to work. What an idiot! No, not Run Amok Rahm this time, but Nitwit Napolitano. She doesn't even pass Lenin's "useful idiot" test. How much are we paying her to "keep us safe," anyway? Never mind. Anything would be too much in her case.

But also, three more things about that. First, you people on "Team Obama" need to get your stories together. Either it was as Nitwit Napolitano first said, that the systems which Bush put in place worked smoothly, or it was, as the WH spin doctors tried to later claim, that the systems Bush had put in place failed to work. You (a) can not have any cake, or you (b) can have your cake but not eat it, but you (c) can't have your cake and eat it, too -- or, so I'm told. So, at least coordinate and try to get your stories straight, or at least not antithetical to each other.

Second, neither Nitwit Napolitano nor the White House henchmen even addressed the issues that (a) whether they were good systems or bad, you have to "work them" to maintain and maximize their effectiveness, or (b) if Bush's systems were so flawed, why hadn't Team Obama done something -- anything -- to improve them in the better part of the year that Team Obama's been in charge?

Third, what Napolitano initially said on Sunday and clarified she meant on Monday, that the systems worked smoothly but only after the incident occurred, was seemingly all too true -- you know, to expeditiously notify TSA and airlines to "reactively" step up measures to further inconvenience the American domestic flying public after the fact, to wit: nobody goes to the bathroom for the last hour of a flight (useful only if terrorist suicide bombers don't want to blow the plane up any earlier than that), no blankets or anything else in your laps on approach to landing (assuming that al-Qaeda operatives will be so hell-bent on making that particular explosives-in-your-underwear method work that they will try it again -- and probably soon -- duh!).

One wonders where was the emphasis on what happened before the "incident" -- you know, when the systems apparently didn't work quite so smoothly to prevent a foreign jihadist, who (a) was on one "watch list" but not on another, (b) whose own father had alerted the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria was radicalized and had spent time in Yemen, (c) who was evidently traveling without a passport, (d) who the U.S. issued a visa, although the Brits refused to give him one, and (e) who paid cash for a one-way ticket and boarded an international flight in Amsterdam without any luggage but with explosives concealed in his underwear.

Finally, three days after the incident, on Monday the 28th, our Ditherer-in-Chief -- oh, I'm sorry, that's just not fair, is it? -- I mean our Deliberator-in-Chief -- interrupted his Hawaiian holiday long enough to address the attempted terror attack on Christmas Day, saying: “We will not rest until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable.” He added: “The American people should be assured that we are doing everything in our power to make sure you and your family are secure during this holiday season.”

Well, I'm sorry, Mister Prez, but I don't think so. First, I don't think you're doing anything close to everything in your power to make sure we're safe, either during the holidays or generally. Second, I don't think you know what to do to keep us safe. And, third, I think your being (a) consistently slow out of the gate, (b) inappropriate in your remarks when you do finally make them, and (c) you, your AG and your DHS Secretary all treating each of three recent incidents as law enforcement type criminal acts, rather than wartime terrorist attacks, is just plain wrong-headed, as well as encouraging to our enemies.

Just consider:

June 1 - Little Rock, Arkansas - Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, formerly known as Carlos Leon Bledsoe, is a black American Muslim who opened fire on a U.S. military recruiting office, killing one Army private and critically wounding another. He was arrested and is being held in a civilian confinement facility. He is currently under indictment on one count of capital murder and 15 counts of terrorist acts. In October, his lawyer requested additional time to prepare his defense. At some point prior to his attack, he had been detained in Yemen for having a fake Somali passport. That episode prompted a preliminary inquiry by the FBI and other American law enforcement agencies into whether he had ties to extremist groups, but that investigation was inconclusive, they said, leaving the FBI with insufficient evidence to wiretap his phone or put him under surveillance. (Uh, WHAT?! Hmmm, black American born Muslim, in Yemen (one of the poorest Muslim countries and where al-Qaeda is known to be very active), with a fake Somali passport (and we know Somalia is not only home to Black Hawk Down, ruthless warlords and no government to speak of, but also mainly exports terrorism and high seas piracy). What, do they think he was just over there in Yemen, with a fake passport, shopping? If I were a federal judge, I'd sign a wiretap and surveillance warrant for the FBI on that dude in a heartbeat. But then, the too-PC FBI probably never even pursued it and it's doubtful that Obama's Attorney General Eric "hold 'em til you fold 'em" Holder's Justice Department would exactly have pressed the FBI to do so, either.

November 5 - Killeen, Texas - Army major and psychiatrist Nidal Malik "AbduWali" Hasan, an American born Muslim of Palestinian descent, opened indiscriminate fire with a semi-automatic pistol on Fort Hood military installation, killing 13 of his fellow soldiers and civilians and wounding another 30. Connections to al-Qaeda were found through a radical Yemeni-American Northern Virginia Muslim imam, Anwar al-Awlaki (Anwar al-Aulaqi), who was suspected by the FBI of involvement in 9-11 and who subsequently went to Yemen and is now believed (hopefully) to have been recently killed there, along with other al-Qaeda operatives, by a Yemeni-U.S. air strike. Hasan, also wounded during his attack, was apprehended and, at last report, is paralyzed from his wounds and in military custody at Brooke Army Medical Center at Fort Hood. He has been charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted murder and presumably will be tried by military courts-martial.

December 25 - Detroit, Michigan - Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Muslim, attempted to detonate about 80 grams of a high explosive concealed in his underwear while on an aircraft enroute from Amsterdam to Detroit. During the incident, he ignited himself on fire, was extinguished by flight crew and overpowered by two passengers. The aircraft landed safely in Detroit with the only injuries reported to be the suspect himself and two others. He was arrested and charged with attempting to blow up an aircraft (doesn't sound too legal or technical to me) and is currently in civilian custody in the Burn Unit of a local hospital for treatment of burns to his legs. (I say give him some Bacitracin ointment and gauze bandages and be done with it, but that's just me.) After being taken into custody, he claimed the explosive and how to detonate it, as well as his task, had been given to him in Yemen by al-Qaeda operatives. And a Yemeni al-Qaeda group has since claimed responsibility, as well.

Now, in each of these cases, the liberal lamestream media and Team Obama have made a big point about "lone wolf," "isolated," "acting alone" perpetrators and cautioned against jumping to hasty conclusions (you know, like Obama did about the "stupid" arrest of his big mouthed, over-entitled black Harvard professor buddy by the near-perfect role model white police sergeant -- open mouth, insert foot).

But, let's see now, three "incidents" -- Muslim, Muslim, Muslim; Yemen, Yemen, Yemen; al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda. Hmmm. Although each perpetrator may have acted alone in carrying out, or trying to carry out, his actual attack, isn't that exactly what suicide-bomber-wannabe-martyr types do? But also could it be that -- oh, my gosh -- there's a "pattern" here?! You know, connect the dots? Something we weren't doing too well pre-9-11, but which Bush got us doing better, and which Obama and Holder and Napolitano, et al., now seem intent on having us do less well again?

Despite Team Obama apparently having an absolute gag reflex against even using the word "terrorist" and treating all three of these "incidents" like "isolated," criminal, law enforcement cases, instead of full-on, al-Qaeda influenced and/or assisted terrorist attacks, could it be that our enemies, al-Qaeda and the al-Qaeda type terrorist jihadists in Yemen, as well as many other places around the world, just don't care about, much less appreciate, our legalistic "nuances," except to exploit and use them against us, and, although we evidently are no longer waging a war ON terror against them, they are still waging their war OF terror against us and still want to kill us and destroy our way of life?    

Obama, Holder and Napolitano, as well as every other liberal who's received the official liberal talking points memo on terrorism, make a lot of noise about THE RULE OF LAW. And they do this especially when pressed with logical arguments and questions about their rationale for such things as (a) calling acts of terrorism "man-caused disasters," (b) calling the war on terror "overseas contingency operations," (c) still rushing to close Guantanamo without any real plan to do so and despite circumstances surrounding whether to close it or not having changed, or (d) moving the trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammad (KSM) and his terrorist cohorts from a Gitmo military tribunal, in which they had already agreed to be tried and to plead guilty in a trial which was imminent, to a New York City civilian court, where they have now claimed to be innocent, they have the rights of U.S. citizens, and there's no telling when that trial will start, much less how long it will drag out -- but however long it is, it will be free propaganda "advertising" for Islamist jihadist terrorists everywhere.

So, let's consider this whole RULE OF LAW misdirection ("because I really don't want to answer your probing questions") smoke screen -- for that's what it is. Applicable law in such cases derives from the U.S. Constitution, certain federal statutes and legal precedents, the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the Law of War (the Law of Land Warfare) and certain other international laws.

U.S. military tribunals are established based on the Constitutional grant to the president as the head of military authority. It is the primary responsibility of the president, as the commander-in-chief, to fulfill the expressed dictate of the Preamble of the Constitution ­- to protect and defend the citizens from foreign attack. It is this same conveyance of power that Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt relied upon when they engaged in similar wartime actions. Tribunals are to be conducted pursuant to The Uniform Code of Military Justice, which was duly passed by Congress and is the same code which is applied to discipline our own military servicemembers.

An example of applicable legal precedent from the past took place in 1942. On June 13, 1942, four German agents were landed from submarine U-584 on Amagansett, Long Island, New York; and on June 17, 1942, four agents from U-202 were landed on Ponte Vedra Beach, south of Jacksonville, Florida. The eight Nazi saboteurs were tried in FDR-created military tribunals, all were convicted, six were executed, one received life imprisonment and one was given a 30-year sentence. And the Supreme Court unanimously upheld both the procedure and all of the convictions. President Truman subsequently granted executive clemency on condition of deportation to the two surviving agents who were deported to the American Zone of Germany in 1948.

Briefly speaking, the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the Law of War (the Law of Land Warfare) and certain other international laws, all taken together, are what spell out the categories of who are legitimate prisoners of war (POWs) -- generally captured uniformed and equipped military personnel of foreign governments -- and are therefore entitled to certain humane and legal "protections" pursuant thereunder.

Radical Islamist jihadists who are foreigners, captured on the battlefield (or anywhere else, for that matter), are NOT uniformed and equipped military personnel of any single, recognized foreign government and are therefore NOT entitled to the protections of, say, the Geneva Conventions as POWs. They are instead mere adherents to a radical movement or cause, do not represent any one, particular recognized foreign government and are not uniformed. An interesting note about the U-boat German saboteurs mentioned above is that at least some of them carried German uniforms with them expressly for the purpose that if they were captured, they would be treated and tried as legitimate enemy combatants and not as spies.

And, of course, foreigners have no "rights" under our Constitution, except those which our government officials may grant them, because they are not U.S. citizens. That's why the Gitmo detainees are "enemy combatants" and not POWs. And that's why they should be tried by military tribunals and not in our civilian federal court system.

As to Americans and treason, treason was specifically defined in the U.S. Constitution, the only crime so defined, primarily to avoid the abuses under English law by Henry VIII of executing almost anyone who criticized his repeated marriages. Article III, Section 3 delineates treason as follows:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

"The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

Congress has also, at times, passed statutes creating related offenses which undermine the government or the national security, such as sedition (the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts), or espionage and sedition (the 1917 Espionage Act), which do not require the testimony of two witnesses and have a much broader definition than Article III treason. For example, some well-known spies have been convicted of espionage rather than treason. The Constitution does not itself create the offense; it only restricts the definition (the first paragraph), permits Congress to create the offense, and restricts any punishment for treason to only the convicted persons themselves (the second paragraph). The crime is prohibited by legislation passed by Congress, e.g., the United States Code, at Title 18 USC, Section 2381, states "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

So, in the case of "incident" number 3, the Nigerian foreigner, he has no rights under our Constitution, he is an enemy combatant and he should have been turned over to military authorities and detained at Gitmo, where he should have been questioned for whatever intelligence he could provide, rather than Mirandized, given a lawyer and held in civilian custody.

As to "incidents" numbers 1 and 2, Americans Muhammad (Bledsoe) and Hasan are also enemy combatants but as citizens do have rights under our Constitution. Muhammad should be tried in federal court and Hasan, as an Army major, should be tried by military courts-martial. However, where are the charges against them both for treason, in addition to whatever other charges have been brought? Added note: It personally would not bother me in the least if those accused of treason during wartime were also held in military custody and tried by military tribunals, but I'm not aware of any U.S. precedent for that.

All terrorists are criminals, because their acts of terrorism necessarily include criminal acts as lesser included offenses, but of course not all criminals are terrorists. That is to say, terrorists and criminals are not the same and should not be treated the same, as if they were somehow "interchangeable." Our president, attorney general and homeland security secretary need to distinguish between those who are mere criminals but not terrorists and those who are terrorists but who have also committed criminal acts. The former should be held and tried as criminals; the latter should be held and tried as terrorists, with American-bred, traitorous terrorists as the most insidious and worst among them.