Patterico's Pontifications

2/26/2009

Obama’s Budget: What the [String of Expletives Deleted]ing [Still More Deleted]

Filed under: General,Obama — Patterico @ 9:29 pm

Obama today said: “[T]here are some hard choices that lie ahead. Just as a family has to make hard choices about where to spend and where to save, so do we as a government.”

How hard will the choices be? I’ll tell you how hard: his new budget is $3.55 trillion.

If that’s not making the hard choices, I don’t know what is.

Speaking of things that are hard to do, it was hard to write this post without using several expletives.

Then I read that this budget amounts to $25,000 per taxpayer, and it got harder.

I’m going to stop writing now. The kids are asleep, so I need to find a pillow to scream into. Thanks for reading.

The Real Hitchens/Nazi Story

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:00 pm

It was posted yesterday, but I’m just reading it today. I love this line: “One must take a stand. One simply must.”

Love it.

And Another One Comes, And Another One Comes . . .

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:01 pm

The Rocky Mountain News bites the dust.

P.S. I will occasionally point out when I post something in the evening that I put up on Twitter at lunchtime. This is one of those times.

Mea Culpa: Turns Out Obama Is a Deficit Hawk After All . . .

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:19 am

The other day I mocked Obama’s radio address in which he “expressed determination to ‘get exploding deficits under control.'”

Everyone has to eat crow on occasion, and with today’s news, I have to say: “Boy is my face red!”

President Barack Obama is sending Congress a budget Thursday that projects the government’s deficit for this year will soar to $1.75 trillion . . .

See? Only $1.75 trillion! Why, just imagine how bad it would have been without his determination to get exploding deficits under control!

I feel confident he has created or saved at least another $1.75 trillion with his deficit-controlling determination. So, you know, thank God for that.

2/25/2009

Holder: Gitmo Is Well-Run and Professional

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:18 pm

Via Instapundit comes a link that should get wide play . . . but will it?

Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday the Guantanamo detention center is a well-run, professional facility that will be difficult to close — but he is still going to do it.

. . . .

Holder said his visit to the site was instructive. He met with military officials and toured the facilities, including the court setting where military commissions were to be held until Obama suspended them.

He said he did not witness any rough treatment of detainees, and in fact found the military staff and leadership performing admirably.

“I did not witness any mistreatment of prisoners. I think, to the contrary, what I saw was a very conscious attempt by these guards to conduct themselves in an appropriate way,” he said.

Instapundit says: “Now they tell us.” True — but some of us knew this all along.

Quote of the Day

Filed under: Humor — Patterico @ 9:59 pm

“Next time you invite me, I will tell you about the time then Mayor Dianne Feinstein sidled up to me and asked, ‘Carol, will you tell me what a glory hole is?’”

(H/t: ninjapirate420 via Allahpundit.)

Nostradamus the Venture Capitalist

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:42 pm

A venture capitalist before Obama’s speech last night: “Every time the guy speaks, the Dow starts falling.”

And whaddya know. Early in the day, Reuters reported:

U.S. stocks fell on Wednesday on disappointment U.S. President Barack Obama provided few new clues about how his administration would shore up the economy in a major speech before Congress.

The market briefly bounced back late in the day, and before the close of trading, was up 32 points. ennuipundit wryly observed:

President Obama today (as of 3:20) has created or saved an add’l 32 stock points

Heh.

And that prediction remained correct! True, at the close of trading the Dow was down 80 points. But if it hadn’t been for the 32 points Obama created or saved, it would have been 112.

So, you know, thank God for that speech.

Obama’s Homeland Security Chief: Why Is ICE Arresting Illegals?

Filed under: Immigration — Patterico @ 7:04 pm

You can’t make this stuff up:

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has ordered a review of a raid earlier this week at a Bellingham, Wash., manufacturing plant that ended with the arrests of 28 illegal immigrants.

Napolitano told lawmakers during a hearing in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday that she did not know about the raid before it happened and was briefed on it early Wednesday morning. She has asked U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which conducted the raid, for answers.

“I want to get to the bottom of this as well,” she said. She said work-site enforcement needs to be focused on the employers.

So, now it’s wrong for ICE to arrest illegal immigrants?

Make no mistake: comments like that ensure that raids like that aren’t going to happen again. If a top federal official says she’s conducting a review of a raid because illegals were arrested instead of employers, lower-level bureaucrats will get the message loud and clear.

Look. I’ve repeatedly argued on this site that the federal government should prioritize deportation of illegal aliens who commit crimes after they enter the country. Had Napolitano said she wanted to see fewer workplace raids in order to divert resources to deport criminals, I’d be all for it.

But she didn’t say that. Instead, she made it sound like it’s wrong to arrest illegals. And it isn’t. They’re violating the law.

If you’re going to do workplace enforcement and you can prove the employer knowingly employed illegals, I have no problem with arresting the employers (as long as we deport the criminals first). But proving such violations can be a very tall order because illegals (including the ones described in the story) often use fake documentation.

If ICE agents can’t amass enough evidence to charge the employers, why on God’s Green Earth would it be wrong for them to arrest the illegals they find? And why would the head of Homeland Security be sending a message to ICE agents that arresting illegals is wrong??

Thanks to Michelle Malkin.

UPDATE: Slightly rewrote a sentence in the next-to-last paragraph for clarity (“that” replaced with “arresting the employers” and link added).

Rupert Murdoch Considering Buying L.A. Times?

Filed under: Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 6:33 pm

Yes, says Variety. And The New York Times. And your little dog, too!

[D]oes Murdoch want to follow News Corp.’s $5 billion buyout of Dow Jones by gobbling up the struggling New York Times Co.?

The answer appears to be yes, as impossible as present economic conditions make it for most deals of any kind to get done.

What’s more, incredulous News Corp. insiders say Murdoch’s love of print media is so fervent that he’s also been talking about a play for the Los Angeles Times, which could make easier prey for several reasons.

All hail Rupert Murdoch’s love for print media!

Allahpundit calls it too good to check, and indeed, a staunch conservative could pass hours daydreaming about snarky responses to liberals upset about the L.A. Times‘s conservative bias. “Stop whining.” “Why can’t liberals produce a paper that sells?” All the unfair and stupid arguments they have made for years, thrown back in their faces!

All I ever really wanted was a paper that was fair, and reported the facts — straight down the middle, without distortions and misrepresentations.

But if I can’t have that, a Los Angeles Times owned by Rupert Murdoch would be an improvement over what we have now.

P.S. If you followed my Twitter feed, you would have known about this at lunchtime.

This Just In: Obama Didn’t Tell the Truth About Everything in His Speech

Filed under: General,Obama — Patterico @ 7:07 am

Pretty good fact-check of the speech here. A sample:

President Barack Obama knows Americans are unhappy that the government could rescue people who bought mansions beyond their means.

But his assurance Tuesday night that only the deserving will get help rang hollow.

Even officials in his administration, many supporters of the plan in Congress and the Federal Reserve chairman expect some of that money will go to people who used lousy judgment.

. . . .

OBAMA: “Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs.”

THE FACTS: This is a recurrent Obama formulation. But job creation projections are uncertain even in stable times, and some of the economists relied on by Obama in making his forecast acknowledge a great deal of uncertainty in their numbers.

The president’s own economists, in a report prepared last month, stated, “It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error.”

Beyond that, it’s unlikely the nation will ever know how many jobs are saved as a result of the stimulus.

This business about creating “or saving” jobs is particularly annoying. As Matt Welch said: “Is there anyone listening to that that doesn’t see the B.S. in it?”

But in the whole speech, probably the most aggravating statement was this: “I’m proud that we passed the recovery plan free of earmarks . . .” Now, if there weren’t technically “earmarks” in it then it’s not technically “false.” But the implication that there is no pork in the stimulus — an implication that Obama repeats constantly — is the biggest lie imaginable.

But hey. The Big Lie is the one that’s easiest to miss.

« Previous PageNext Page »

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6146 secs.