What it takes

If I understand the president correctly, when a few thousand people go into the streets protesting, looting and burning, the leader of that country should step down.
But, isn't it strange? That's what happened in the 1960s and Lyndon Johnson stayed in office -- at least until the next election.
The current president says the head of Egypt should not wait that long.
Tea Party protests were peaceful. But apparently if they had been a bit more vocal, we would have a new president now.
The downside is that it would be Joe Biden, who may be one of the stupidest people ever to hold public office.

The Great Uniter

We are now in the third year of what was to be the Era of Good Feeling, and Gallup reports that Barack Obama is the most polarizing president of the past 50 years.
So much for hope.
Polls are helpful, but some of the questions people are asked really are pointless.
Case in point: Gallup reports most people want politicians to "work together."
To do what?
The two major political parties want to go in different directions. Can you imagine a team of horses "working together" to do that?
The solution is for the conservative party to soundly defeat the obstructionist Democrats and then they can work together to help restore America to where it was from 1789 to 1932, the years that it went from backwoods colony to leader of the free world.

Oh, the horror

"Shutting down the government" is back.
Liberals are saying conservatives should not "shut down the government." Conservatives have no such plan, nor has it been discussed.
What's that all about.
Libs have not had many good days. One they think was good was when the government "shut down" in the 1990s during a dispute between the Republican Congress and Bill Clinton over spending.
Let me ask this: Do you remember where you were the moment the government shut down? Is it firmly etched in your memory, like the morning of Sept. 11, 2001?
What actually happened. Thousands of government employees got a few days off with pay.
No one died. Hardly anyone noticed.
But the polls showed people didn't like it, and so libs think they had a great victory.
May all their victories be so triumphant.
Now, can we talk about 9 percent unemployment 17 months after the recession supposedly ended, and the trillion dollars that was spent to "create jobs"?

Enigma

What is going on in Egypt and elsewhere in the Mideast is a true mystery, for all the wall-to-wall coverage.
I've read a number of opinions as to what will happen, both positive and negative. Some of the sources I consider reliable think there is a shot Egypt will wind up with a viable democracy.
I'm not so sure. The odds seem otherwise.
Mubarak is not a wise and benevolent leader, but throwing him under the bus as the Obama administration is doing does not seem the best course.
Egypt has been getting the second largest check Uncle Sam writes to other nations each year. We own him. While we can't control him entirely, at least we had him by the pursestrings.
We won't own the Muslim Brotherhood, if it winds up in charge. Already it has threatened war with Israel. That is not in the best interest of the United States.
The reason we don't know what is going on and have to operate in the dark is liberalism. For the past 35 years, liberals have fought to cripple our intelligence agencies and they have done a good job. We knew next to nothing about the Iranian revolution, or the situation in Iraq before it was liberated.
We may have better intelligence about Egypt but it is just not for public consumption. The evidence against that, however, is the actions of the White House. It must know what the intelligence agencies know, but it is acting as if it knows no more than the man in the street.
We'll know when it is over.

Scratch one

Newt Gingrich is off my A-list of presidential candidates.
He is a bright guy. Did a good job bringing Republicans to power in 1994, with a little help from Bill Clinton.
But he bungled the moment of opportunity. After balancing the budget, Republicans went on a spending spree that George W. Bush joined in, and then came 2006.
Now, the final straw for me. Gingrich is embracing the ethanol subsidy, a handout to corn farmers that is a disaster.
I went to see Gingrich when he visited Jacksonville. His speech was uninspired. He has lost his way. Conservatives need to find other options.
The best hope would be Jeb Bush vs. Obama but apparently that just isn't going to happen. There are plenty of contenders left. Sarah Palin -- imagine a Palin-Cain ticket with businessman Herman Cain -- Pawlenty, Huckabee, etc. Mitt Romney is not my first choice but it always "Who is the alternative," so if it was Romney vs. Obama, there would be no contest.
In 2008 I voted for Palin, and had to take the other candidate on the ticket. I didn't expect him to live this long.
Gingrich, however, is just another conservative who lost his way inside the Beltway. It happens.

You gotta love them libs

Not long ago, a liberal answered my query about what liberalism ever had accomplished with "Social Security" and "the public schools."
Oh boy.
So, liberalism's accomplishments are to create a Ponzi scheme that is near bankruptcy and dragging down the economy with it, and a dreadful system that produces children who can't read and write, even if they are lucky enough to survive the rapes and muggings.
Thank a deity they haven't produced any failures.
To protect these accomplishments they steadfastly oppose any attempt to improve either.
Suggest raising the retirement age and they scream "Republicans want to take away your Social Security"!
When it was enacted, the retirement age was 65. That was about the median age of death, so FDR only intended to "protect" half the population anyway. (Social Security also was NEVER intended to be the sole source of retirement income, but that's another story.)
As in most Ponzi schemes, it did well at first. The first retiree put in $22 and got back more than $20,000. As politicians piled on promises and the average lifespan increased, return on the mythical "investment" declined. Fewer workers were supporting more retirees in this instant payout program.
Pegging the retirement age for future retirees at the average lifespan only would put the program back where it was under the sainted FDR.
Choice and accountability are proven ways to improve the government schools. Teacher unions spend millions to elect liberals who will protect them from this "threat." Since unions took over the schools some four decades ago, educational achievement has nosedived, despite the injection of ever increasing amounts of cash.
If you want to see a deer-in-the-headlights look, ask a liberal, "Exactly how much money will it take to get the schools to do what they did years ago for much less money?"
As for giving poor kids the same option rich liberal kids have -- to attend a private school that would protect and educate them -- fuggedaboudit.
One can see why liberals would consider these to be major accomplishments -- if you were to assume that they wanted to bring this country to its knees.

The rule of law

A Florida judge has declared that the Constitution places limits on the power of the federal government. Imagine!
He struck down Obamacare because its individual mandate requires all Americas to buy a product, which has never been done before and is illegal.
"If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,” someone opined in 2008.
Who? A guy named Barack Obama. That was two years before he signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act with its individual mandate that would inevitably and inexorably eliminate private health insurance and push the nation into socialized medicine.
So, should we look for the Homelessness Protection and Affordable Housing Act next?
Maybe, but meanwhile we can look for an appeal that will take the case to the 11ith Circuit and then the U.S. Supreme Court.
With its new liberal justices the court may well overrule Judge Roger Vinson's opinion but it cannot invalidate his reasoning or the words in the Constitution -- except by finding that "international law" takes precedence over the primary law of this nation.
If the day comes when sharia law is international law, the court may find itself in a pickle, trying to separate church and state when the church IS the state.