Dear Majority Leader Reid:

We have spent the better part of this year fighting for health reform that would provide insurance access and continuity to every American in a fiscally responsible manner. We are concerned that – absent a competitive and continuous public insurance option – health reform legislation will not produce nationwide access and ongoing cost containment. For that reason, we are asking for your leadership on ensuring that the merged health reform bill contains a public insurance option.

Read the rest here…

Signatories include:

Al Franken
Barbara Boxer
Roland W. Burris
John F. Kerry
John D. Rockefeller
Bernard Sanders
Patrick J. Leahy
Debbie Stabenow
Dianne Feinstein

Via: Memeorandum

Via: RightKlik

In his own words, Obama has told us that he strives for “ruthless pragmatism.”  We can see that very clearly in his response to the plight of the Iranian people.

The Iranians yearn for justice and put their lives at risk in hopes of acheiving freedom from their opressive regime, but Obama offers cold comfort.  Seeking support from their friends in America, the Iranians cry out in English.  Yet Obama is ostensibly unmoved.

At first glance, Obama’s apparent indifference is perplexing.  But Obama’s committment to ruthless pragmatism explains why he has been so circumspect with regard to the struggles of the Iranian people.

In an article published in the Washington Post, Robert Kagan makes some very poignant observations.  It’s an excellent piece, and I urge you to read it in its entirety.  Here is the condensed version of his argument:

Obama’s supporters railed against the Bush administration’s “freedom agenda” and insisted on a new “realism.”  Now Obamaphiles find themselves rooting for freedom and democracy in Iran.  But the upheaval in Iran is not good news for Obama. It is an unwelcome complication in his strategy of engaging with the Iranian regime.

One of the great innovations in Obama’s approach to Iran was supposed to be its embrace of the regime’s legitimacy.  The idea was that the U.S. could not expect the Iranian regime to negotiate on its nuclear program so long as Washington gave any encouragement to the government’s opponents.  This was widely applauded as a realist departure from Bush’s “idealism.”

It would be surprising if Obama departed from this realist strategy now, and he hasn’t.  His muted response to the outburst of popular anger at the regime has been widely misinterpreted as reflecting concern that too overt an American embrace of the opposition will hurt it.

Whatever his personal sympathies may be, if Barack sticks to his original strategy, he can have no interest in helping the opposition. His strategy toward Iran places him objectively on the side of the government’s efforts to return to normalcy as quickly as possible, not in league with the opposition’s efforts to prolong the crisis.

Once Mousavi lost, however unfairly, Obama objectively had no use for him or his followers. If Obama appears to support to the Iranian opposition in any way, he will appear hostile to the regime, which is precisely what he hoped to avoid.  Obama’s policy now requires getting past the election controversies quickly so that he can soon begin negotiations with the reelected Ahmadinejad government. This will be difficult as long as opposition protests continue and the government appears to be too brutal to do business with.

Obama needs a rapid return to quiet in Iran. His goal must be to deflate the opposition, not to encourage it. And that, by and large, is what he has been doing.  The worst thing is that this approach will probably not prevent the Iranian regime from getting a nuclear weapon. But this is what “realism” is all about.

From a comment posted in the Wonk Room:

…There is no neutral stance in this. A subdued reaction sends a message just like a condemnation does. Obama is hedging his bets so that he can negotiate with the Iranian regime no matter who wins, even if it’s understood by the entire world that an Ahmadinejad-led Iranian Government is nothing more than a fraud…

What is it all for?  The truth is that this supposedly prudent restraint has won us nothing. We now have a fresh report that Iran is accusing the United States of “meddling” anyway.

I ask again: what is it all for? At what point does Obama lend rhetorical support on the side of justice?

Comments from William A. Jacobson:

You knew this was inevitable. Regardless of what Barack Obama said or did, the Iranian regime would accuse the U.S. of meddling in Iran’s internal affairs.

Obama’s near silence achieved nothing, as regards the Iranian regime. Which proves the foolishness of those who argue that comments in support of the right of Iranians to free and fair elections somehow would provoke the Iranian regime…

Obama’s statement yesterday that he did not want “to be seen as meddling” all but invited an accusation of meddling…

These accusations appear to be a precurser to, and excuse for, a violent crackdown by the regime, which could start as early as Thursday…

Rather than placating the regime, weakness by the West and Obama may actually embolden the regime to resort to more violence. In the same breath that Obama voice tepid support for the Iranian people, he also voiced an intent to commence negotiations with the current regime. This mixed message was unnecessary, and counter-productive.

If as appears likely, tomorrow brings a new level of regime violence, will Obama remain silent, or straddle the fence once again? Obama’s 3 a.m. test is here.

So the ruthlessly pragmatic Barack Obama has decided not to support the Iranian people.  They lost — they’re losers. Why provide them with rhetorical support, only to burn bridges with the tyrants who will likely retain power?  Whether or not Ahmadinejad’s victory was legitimate  is irrelevant…he won.  And winning is the only thing that matters in the mind of a tyrant.

“I won, I have the power, I’m the decider. Capice?”

Liberals pride themselves in their relentless pursuit of justice.  Is this what they voted for?

This has been on my mind ever since the brouhaha over David Letterman’s crude joke about Sarah Palin’s daughter.  It was just 50 years ago that you couldn’t show pregnant women on TV, Lucy and Dezi had to sleep in twin beds, and June Cleaver wore pearls while cooking dinner.

Nice women didn’t go into bars without a male escort, and showing too much cleavage was a no-no.  Now we live in a society where crude, and what my Mom would call vulgar behavior, is not only common but considered the norm.

Both men and women dress like slobs, use obscene words in public, often while talking loudly into a cell phone – another form of rudeness, and yell at sales people. Comedians garner most of their laughs by making fun of people’s physical appearance.  Talk show hosts routinely use bad language and the blogosphere is lit up each day by vulgarity.

Carrie Prejean voices an honest opinion, carefully and with tact, and is publicly called a “dumb bitch” by one of the judges. Sonia Sotomayor is called a fatty and the same David Letterman of the child rape comment thinks “slutty flight attendant” is a good description of Sarah Palin’s wardrobe. Crude words and behavior betray crude hearts and filthy minds.

And through it all we accept it.  We tune in to their programs, pay to go to their movies, and read their books and magazines. Whether you do or don’t like Sarah Palin is immaterial.  In a decent country, the only person tuning in to watch David Letterman should be his mother.

Listen to what Bruce Walker says in his article at the American Thinker, “The Murder of Civil Life”.

“What has happened to Sarah and Carrie has happened to our whole social fabric.  Decent people relating in normal lives have traditionally been able to share values:  truth, learning, amusement, family, country and faith.  These have been disappearing from our social lives; each strangled and then hauled off for a clandestine burial.”

Jammie Wearing Fool: Damage Control: Letterman Offers Apology to Palin

Gateway Pundit: Letterman Apologizes For Sick 14 Year-Old Willow Palin Sex Jokes

Newsbusters: Ed Schultz Finds “Hate Mongering” Intolerable – Except His Own

Read more of Adrienne’s posts at her website.

With tragedies such as the murder of Pvt. William Long in Arkansas last week, the wounding of Pvt. Quentin Ezeagwula, the George Tiller murder and the Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting, I think it’s a good idea to show some respect, step back and let the grieving families sort things out before jumping in to score political points.

The left isn’t going to allow that happen.  After two recent “right-wing” shootings, leftists are eager to connect the dots:

I don’t know about you but I am getting sick and tired of the left playing armchair psychiatrist after every political-type shooting. They way they tell it, von Brunn had a vision of the tea parties in his mind when he pulled the trigger.

According to the left, it’s the right’s fault — specifically, the tea party movement. Or “hate speech.” Or Christian fundamentalism. Or simply because conservatives enjoy killing people.

In their haste to impugn conservatives, the lefties are drawing conclusions too quickly and are missing (or ignoring) some of most important facts that are emerging from this unfolding story.

Apparently, even though von Brunn has been identified as a “right wing Christian,” his credentials are very questionable.  He  has left us with quite an extensive paper trail documenting his disdain for said right-wingers — especially neocons — and George W. Bush.  Had Von Brunn succeeded in getting away from the scene at the museum, other targets would have included the conservative Weekly Standard magazine and Fox News.

From RedState:

American leftists, still giddy after the murder of George Tiller, are at this moment attempting to chalk von Brunn’s actions up to “right-wing extremism”; apparently, von Brunn was a white supremacist, and with typical leftist projection, they have assumed that anyone who is a racist must also be a right-winger.

What we know about von Brunn is that he:

• Hated Christians
• Despised Bush and McCain
• Posted lengthy rants about “Neocons” involved in Jewish conspiracies to alter U.S. foreign policy in favor of Israel
• Placed credence in 9/11 “truther” theories

Some “right wing” Christian!

A sensible leftist reacts to liberals’ nasty blame-fest:

…the fact that von Brunn might have been planning to shoot up the flagship publication of neoconservatism and not, say, the offices of Mother Jones — absolutely “complicates” the narrative that many liberals are cynically trying to construct around this tragedy.

But the most vocal leftists apparently have no intention of behaving sensibly.  Even now, before the facts of the case have been examined, libs are pointing fingers at Tea Party patriots, Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage,  and the “racist and fanatical” GOP base.

From Michael Rowe:

There is no Environmental Protection Agency to measure hate pollution in national dialogue, and no mechanism in place to warn us when the poisonous rage spewed into the national consciousness by shock-jocks, poisonous television pundits, megachurch leaders, and oh-so-subtle politicians, has reached dangerously toxic levels.

No, there is only the result: widows, orphans, collective grief, and an absolute refusal on the part of our loudest, coarsest voices to take any responsibility for their part in the carnage.

Wanna talk about cause and effect?  Okay, let’s talk about cause and effect.  Here’s more from RedState:

If the right were to blame for the tragedy at the Holocaust Museum, Markos Moulitsas, Keith Olbermann, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama must be positively scrubbing the blood off their hands after the tragic murder of Pvt. Long in Arkansas last week and wounding of Pvt. Quentin Ezeagwula. I’m surprised leftwing bloggers can type with all the blood on their hands.

But this isn’t just an opportunity to malign conservatives; it’s an opportunity to score political points as well.

Should Blue Blogistan kick the crap out of buffoons like Ed Morrissey and Michelle Malkin for claiming that vigilance against right-wing extremism amounted to “smear[ing] half the country” and that the [DHS] report was a “hit job” and a “sweeping indictment of conservatives”?
Why not?
Should the Democrats shamelessly exploit this tragedy to make Republicans on Capitol Hill (e.g., Imhofe, Coburn, Vitter, Brownback, DeMint , Burr, and Murkowski pay a price for having called that report “absurd and offensive”?
You betcha.

Learn more at CPR.

Government Does Not Create Wealth.

Surprised? Well, listen up.  All the government can do is take away one person’s money and give it to someone else.  The only other thing they can do is print more money. 

Can you say “$40.00 for a loaf of bread”?

Obama’s latest spending spree to create or “save” 600 thousand jobs is nothing more than a shell game of “watch the pea.”   You tell me how to quantify a job “saved”.  You can’t because it is based on nothing but air.  And the so-called jobs “created” are make-work temporary jobs.  

Hand out federal money to hire more police for some community you’ve never heard of? I’ve witnessed that before. When the money runs out, the extra officers are laid off. Additional money is then needed to pay for their unemployment.  It will be a real boon to our economy for our tax dollars to fund 125 thousand summer jobs for teenagers. /sarc 

Of course, this is the big headline today.  I’ve written about distractions before and this smells like a distraction rotting in the compost pile.  While the Kool Aid drinkers rejoice over all these magical jobs, our current president is hard at work on the biggest takeover of our freedoms – evah!   Health care reform… 

Keith Hennessey has a pretty good breakdown of the bill. Read it and weep for what may become of our once great nation.  

H/T Hot Air

Obama, facing high unemployment, defends stimulus

Barack Obama to increase stimulus spending

Obama: Get ready for 600,000 new stimulus jobs 

Read more of Adrienne’s posts at her website.

Okay…next time I’ll leave the photoshopping to the professionals.

Some notes and observations on Obama’s speech in Cairo:

I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

Really?  With all you have on your plate, this is a priority?

Let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America.

Oh, there’s no doubt: 9-11-01, 5-20-09, 6-1-09 …yeah, we get the picture.

Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.

This is one of the most asinine statements I have ever encountered. 

The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.

Tell your Muslim amigos to stop skipping over that part of the Holy Koran.

9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.

Never stop apologizing, groveling and pandering Hussein!  You’ll earn enormous respect.

Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice…

Obama’s reference to the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a “war of choice” touched at least one nerve.  Iraqi National Security Adviser Muwafaq Rubaie said that while it was a war of choice, “it was a good choice, because that choice brought down one of the most brutal dictators in history.”

More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. 

Aww, that’s so sad!

[Palestinians] endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation.

So they know what it’s like to be a conservative living in an ObamaNation.

No system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.

America imposed systems of government — thank goodness — in Germany, Japan, and South Korea. 

I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.

You naif!

I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

You believe in free speech?  The rule of law? Equal administration of justice? Transparent government? Government that doesn’t steal from people?  The freedom to live as you choose?  Ha! Could have fooled me!  Your actions speak louder than your words.

There are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others.

You would know.

For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.  [Zakat: It is an obligation on Muslims to pay 1/40 (2.5%) of the wealth which they have had for a full lunar year.]

What exactly is Obama talking about here?  Does he want to make it easier for Muslims to contribute to terrorist organizations?  Apparently no one knows where Obama’s going with this.

In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

Hey, thanks for defeating Hillary Clinton!

It is easier to blame others than to look inward…

Is that why you always blame America first?

Much is to be had on the internet regarding the history of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine.”  When it was introduced in the U.S. in 1949, the thought was that while there was an unlimited supply of paper and ink for newspaper publications, the number of available airwaves was extremely limited, and that they should be used to present opposing points of view in an equal manner. The thought turned out to be ill-formed. The doctrine was finally abolished in 1987, not only because it was determined that it was not in the public’s best interest, and that it violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, but because very few people were interested in presenting views opposing those which were broadcast.

While there doesn’t appear to be any serious legislation proposing the reinstatement of the act at the moment (despite a few prominent politicians wanting it otherwise) a thought occurred about all of this. I may be wrong, but I don’t believe a Fairness Doctrine, or any similar animal or mutation will be visited upon us any time soon.

The reasons have to do with the very things that politicians would like to have on a tight leash; conservative blogs and talk radio. Although there may be no way to know if either or both are monitored, or to what extent, I believe such things are monitored. As long as we’re all just talking and blogging away, however, and things don’t get beyond venting and wringing of hands, no harm done. We’re all letting it hang out for the world to hear and see.

On the other hand, if there were no conservative blogs and talk radio to monitor, Plan B would be the formation of underground resistance movements. Although “resistance movements” in the generic sense have been around for centuries, dating from the American Revolution and even earlier, the term really came into being during World War II. By definition, underground movements are….underground. They are also by definition, action and result-oriented. Unless they are infiltrated, no one knows exactly what they’re up to, and improvements in technology continue to make them more efficient.

Given the current state of conservative talk radio and blogs, the powers-that-be would probably prefer to know what talk radio hosts and bloggers are up to, rather than risk implementation of Plan B.

Read more of Adrienne’s posts at her website.

Help advance Obama’s agenda.  Buy GM.