A FEW SIMPLE TRUTHS

As we approach the 2012 elections, there are a few truisms that you need to understand about our current political climate. 

• Obama will campaign on a platform of wealth envy because he knows the people of this country are too ignorant and lazy to understand they’re being manipulated.

• Creating wealth is greedy and people who have wealth got in by cheating or scamming the system.  Therefore, stealing their wealth and giving it to those who did not work for it is justified.

• There are two types of ObamaMedia coverage: Defending Barack Obama and demonizing conservatives.

• To Democrats seeking re-election, facts about the fiscal crisis our country faces are about as useless as the Constitution.

• The unions WILL support Barack Obama and the Democrats.  Big time.
  
• Any utterance in opposition to Obama or any Obama idea or proposal is racist.

• The average college student will support Obama because it is the “cool” thing to do.
  
• The vast majority of black voters will support Obama because he looks like them. 

• If nothing happens with entitlement reform in 2011, you can bet your buns that it ain’t gonna happen in 2012, an election year. 

• If the tea parties re-emerge in a big way, their efforts will be painted as “violent” or “hate-filled” or “raaaaacist.”

And finally …

• Make Sarah Palin the GOP nominee and you can guarantee another four years of President Barack Obama.

This certainly isn’t the end of this list .. just having a bit of fun this morning.  It will get longer.  Much longer. 

Obama Gives Israel to Hamas

No long rant here on Obama’s speech on the Middle East yesterday.  Frankly, I have never taken the time to really study the situation between Israel and the so-called Palestinians.   Here are some thoughts.  Some are certainties – the others are rebuttable presumptions:  

•  Obama gave Egypt one billion dollars which he will subsequently have to take away from the people in this country who worked for and earned it.

•  Obama now has essentially taken credit for the so-called “Arab Spring.”  He had nothing to say when the people of Iran rose up against their Islamic masters.  Now he’s the man who brought it all about.

•  The real Palestinian homeland is now known as Jordan.

•  Remember that Yassir Arafat was an Egyptian, not a Palestinian.  

•  Those we call “Palestinians” are essentially cannon fodder for Arab Countries that want to destroy the State of Israel.  

• If Israel is forced back to its 1967 boundaries the country may well become indefensible.  Several larger Israeli cities will be in range of rocket fire, and you can bet the ranch that Hamas, Hezbollah or some other anti-Israeli Muslim faction will load up the rocket launchers sooner or later.

• Jews in the United States can generally be counted on to vote for Democrats.  The Jewish vote will still go to Obama and the Democrats in 2012.  Obama could propose that Israel be divided up between Egypt and Lebanon and all Jews sent to Greenland, and the Jewish vote would still go to Obama. 

• Perhaps the principal point here is that under Obama countries who are generally not friendly to America are in much better shape than countries who clearly love us.   

SOME RANDOM THOUGHTS ON OBAMA AND bin LADEN

Trust me, after a solid week of wall-to-wall coverage of the Royal wedding, I am beyond thrilled to have wall-to-wall coverage of the death of radical Islamic murderer Osama bin Laden.  Just like much of the country, and the world, I’m trying to piece together the details of how we got here and how the operation went down.  One thing is for sure … our intelligence community should be praised for its diligent work in tracking him down, our intelligence and military must be praised for crafting this targeted mission and the Navy Seals who carried out the mission should be awarded the highest possible honor for their skill and heroism. 
And that brings us to Barack Obama ……
Have you heard?  I’m not exactly a fan of our current president.  I feel that he’s dangerous to the cause of liberty, and I earnestly hope that every single day I’ll manage to say something – to put across one small point somewhere – that will cause someone out there who supports Obama to pause for a minute and to say to themselves  “maybe, just maybe, there are some things about this man I haven’t considered.”  In order for that to happen, listeners – whether friendly or unfriendly – have to believe that I’m trying to be honest with them.  And just how will listeners believe I’m trying to be objective and honest if I am completely unable to give credit where credit is due, or if I have to grudgingly give credit laced with sarcasm.  So you’re now going to see hear me (or see me) use a phrase I generally try to avoid.  That phrase?  President Barack Obama.  When considering the operation that turned bin Laden into fish food Obama showed himself to be presidential.  Maybe it’s early in this particular game, but I can’t think of one single area in this entire scenario where Obama comes in for any legitimate criticism.  That may change tomorrow or next week as we learn more ... but for now it’s “job well done, Mr. President.” 
So yesterday we had Baba Wawa saying on The View that she “would hate to be a Republican running against Obama.”  There you go, my friends.  That’s going to be spin from the left.  We’re going to be told time and time again over that Obama has been made electorally bulletproof by virtue of two bullets in Osama’s head.  This is more the progressive dream than it is the American reality.  The progs think that those who believe in personal responsibility, freedom and economic liberty are the dark underside of America.  They also know in their hearts that Obama has been a miserable (and utterly predictable) failure as president – bin Laden’s death notwithstanding – and they are grasping at anything that will give them hope for 2012. 
So .. will this bump in Obama’s popularity vanquish that pesky little pro- liberty cabal next year?  Sorry … I don’t think so; and I certainly pray that it doesn’t turn out that way.  Remember, if you will, that Bush 43’s approval rating after the liberation of Kuwait was in the 90s.  Barbara Walters wasn’t grinning like someone had stuffed a coat hanger in her mouth then.  Not many presidents ever see approval ratings in the 90s, and Bush 43 found himself a one-term president in short order.  Sure, Obama is going to get a boost in his approval ratings, but they won’t carry him through next year’s election.  And why not?  Consider, if you will ………….

• The death of Osama bin Laden isn’t going to pay off a dollar of our national debt, nor is it going to result in any significant lowering of our deficit.

• Two bullets in Osama’s head aren’t going to create jobs in America or help Americans save their homes from foreclosure.

• Osama’s burial at sea isn’t magically going to lead to a discovery vast new undersea oil reserves that will ease the pain of record-high gas prices. 

Obama’s failure to find and deal with Osama (has)bin Laden wasn’t what brought him these negative approval numbers, and sending bin Laden to his eternal celestial waterbed is not going to permanently raise those numbers.  The economy still sucks, the dollar continues to fall, business start-ups continue to be slow (or non-existent) due to the tax and regulatory burdens they face in this country.  Obama continues in his belief that America’s greatness comes from government and that it is his role as our Dear Ruler to seize wealth from those who have produced it and give it to those who have not because that’s “fair”.  Obama’s proposed budgets still call for increased spending in a nation that has spent itself to the brink of insolvency.  In other words … the things that made Obama dangerous to the cause of liberty and our economic future haven’t changed one iota with the death of bin Laden.
Yes … Barack Obama should be praised for making the final call to carry out the mission.  He filled the role of Commander in Chief admirably doing what a good CIC does … telling his team to “go get ‘em.”   
But there are still some looming questions and new debates that have stemmed from the news of Osama’s death.  Let’s see if we can tackle a few of these … shall we?

The Gitmo/torture debate

As the story unfolds, we are learning that our intelligence community found Osama bin Laden’s compound by tracking his most trusted courier.  This was the guy whom Osama trusted to carry his messages out to the world.  But the controversy is how our intelligence found this guy to begin with … apparently through “harsh interrogation tactics” of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed  and others in secret CIA prisons in Poland and Romania.  It was in these secret prisons where KSM and his successor gave up the nom de guerre of the courier who eventually led the CIA to Osama’s compound.  I’m also led to believe that these names were given up by KSM, perhaps during a nice cozy little waterboarding session, during the presidency of George W. Bush.  Now once the CIA had the nickname for this guy, actually finding him proved to be tough but eventually did happen because of one phone call he took last year.  I highly suggest reading the details of that story, as they are very interesting and commendable.  But the point of all this is that it brings into question the gathering of intelligence material in secret prisons or places like Guantanamo Bay.  Do the ends (killing bin Laden) justify the means (“torture”)?  Up until Sunday night, the Left would tell you absolutely not.  That was until their guy – Barack Obama – used information from these tactics to end the decade-long manhunt for bin Laden. 
A quick word about what the left just loves to rant about --- torture.  A question:  Would you torture someone in order to obtain information that you knew would be absolutely necessary to save the lives of your family?  My answer?  Not only yes, but hell yes.  If your answer is any different then might I suggest that you have a little family meeting and tell them how you feel on this issue?  Then sit back and accept their love and understanding for your great stand on human rights. 

Should we really have shot the SOB?

At first I was disappointed with the news that Osama bin Laden was shot and killed.  But this is another “not only yes, but hell yes” question.  I was hoping that the SOB would have a little bit of suffering to do before visiting his 72 virgins.  But the more I thought about it, I was OK with the idea that the last thing this goon saw was a muzzle flash.  But some people are questioning the “Obama Doctrine: Better dead than Gitmo.”  Should we have captured the SOB for the purposes of gathering more valuable intelligence on this war with radical Islam?
Osama dead and feeding Arabian Sea lobsters is the best possible end to this.  If Obama had been captured he would be the focal point of protests and demands from the Islamic world.  It doesn’t take a brilliant intelligence and political operation to understand that if Osama were taken alive the very least we could expect would be that by now some Islamic goons would have kidnapped an American family touring some part of the world, and would be demanding the release of bin Laden in return for the lives of those Americans.  What president would like to see a video of some American tourist’s head being cut off while he refuses to release a murdering Islamic monster? 

What to do about Pakistan

Perhaps the biggest red flag in the wake of all of this has been Pakistan.  The fact that Osama was able to reside just outside of its nation’s capital and just meters from its main military training facility should make anybody’s spidey senses go on alert.  Something ain’t right.  Are you telling me that NOBODY in Pakistan or in Abbottabad noticed this compound, eight times larger than other structures in the area with high walls, security doors and barbed wire?
Come on, folks.  Of course Pakistan knew Osama was there.  They knew he was there and they wanted him gone BAD.  So here’s your probable scenario:  Pakistani officials make it clear to American intelligence operatives that they want bin Laden dealt with.  “Look .. you send your helicopters in here and take this guy out.  We will not interfere.  We will scramble some of our jet fighters at the last minute and chase your helicopters back to the Afghan border .. but they won’t shoot at your men.  Then when this is over we’re going to issue a few little mild complaints about you violating our sovereignty and how we had no idea that Osama bin Laden was hiding 100 yards from our principle military academy … and everybody is happy.” 

Osama’s wife used as a shield

What a coward.  When it came down to it, Osama bin Laden hid behind one of his wives in order to shield himself from the Navy SEAL team.  She died in the attack.  This is pretty much what you would expect from a brave warrior of Islam.  Muslim radicals are not exactly warm and fuzzy (beards notwithstanding) when it comes to respecting and honoring women. 

Should Bush get credit?

I’ve said this from the beginning … I have nothing negative to say about Obama’s handling of the bin Laden situation.  At the end of the day, it was Obama who gave the OK for the operation to take place.  He deserves all the praise for making the final call.  But how much of the credit should George W. Bush get in this situation?  Remember .. much of the intelligence information that was used to locate bin Laden was gathered either during or using techniques developed under Bush.  Would Obama have engaged in those “enhanced interrogation techniques?”  Hard to say, but you would have to guess that the answer is no. 

BIN LADEN D.E.A.D.

Really the only bad news here is that he died of a head shot.  That’s too quick.  Not enough suffering.  But our Navy Seal Team 6 ended a decade-long manhunt this morning in Pakistan in a brief firefight that ended with Osama bin Laden and one of his sons dead.  More good news?  Not one of our Seals was lost in the operation.  And just as Muslims celebrated the attacks of 9/11, flag-waving Americans gathered outside the White House to cheer the news last night.
We’re going to be hearing more details of last night’s raid as the day goes on.  I was particularly heartened by the news that bin Laden was given the chance to surrender to the Navy Seals.  He refused, and was promptly shot in the head.  I’m hoping that the gun was pointed to his head when the invitation was issued and declined, and that the last thing bin Laden saw was a muzzle flash.
While were celebrating the death of this Muslim goon, and as the details of the raid continue to come in, there are a few things to consider:  The threat of revenge and opportunities to advance the cause of peace with the Islamic world.
Revenge?  Of course!  Amid the celebration it doesn’t take long to realize that various factions of radical Islam are going to want to respond to the death of bin Laden with attacks on America and Americans.  The State Department has already issued a warning to Americans traveling around the world … telling them, in essence, to watch their backs.  Homeland Security forces will be on high alert for any threats or attacks domestically.  Radical Islamists are going to want to exact revenge … and they know they need to strike quickly.  Why quickly?  Because they know that our Navy Seals came out of that bin Laden compound in Pakistan with boatloads of intelligence in the form of documents and computers.  Al Qaeda operatives around the world know that they may well have been identified and located through the intelligence gathered during the raid.  They are all now targets.  In fact, my guess is that there are operations going on around the world right now to take these people out.  Perhaps they feel that they need to strike while they’re still able.
And what’s this about an opportunity for peace?  I haven’t heard this thought from anyone else, but perhaps this might be the time to reach out to the Islamic world with a message that the United States has achieved its goal of bringing Osama bin Laden to justice … and that now would be a good time to try to move toward peace and cooperation.  Who knows … it’s just a thought.  Perhaps the bigger question here is whether or not this particular president is capable of pulling this off.


Now … conspiracy theories?  I already heard a few.  Some are suggesting that bin Laden was actually captured some time ago and the announcement is just now being made.  Others will make a big deal out of the fact that there is no body.  Give us a break, folks.  First of all … do you think our military and every military man involved is going to go along with this type of a ruse?  No chance.  And a body?  That’s all we need right now is a body … a focal point for Islamic protests.  The word is that bin Laden was buried at sea.  If so, this was a brilliant move.  If he was captured and held, or if he was buried in a grave anywhere, then the place of his detainment or burial would become a focal point for radical Islam for years to come.  I’m sure there are pictures – and it would be great to see them.  Osama bin Laden with a nice round little red dot in his forehead.
Pakistan?  Bin Laden was discovered in a military town in Pakistan.  He was located less than a quarter-mile from a Pakistani army training facility.  I think we know that Pakistan knew where he was all along … now we find out just how helpful Pakistan was in bringing him to justice. 
By the way … I just loved the chants of USA USA USA from the midshipmen at the U.S. Naval Academy.

Let's just say it was entirely predictable

Now before we begin this discussion … let's point out that there is only one political party in Washington pushing for any spending cuts. Only one. And that is the Republican party. Obummer's budget even calls for spending increases. The only reason the Democrats are even willing to address spending cuts is because the Republicans – and the tea parties – have dragged them kicking and screaming to the issue. In Washington DC money equals power. When you take money away from politicians you take away their power. There are some politicians in Washington who will jeopardize the future of this country in order to maintain their power … and there are some who actually take their responsibilities to our children and future generations seriously. You figure out which is which.
Sadly, there are far too many Americans who believe that all we really have to do in order to balance our budget is to cut foreign aid and make the evil rich pay their "fair share" in taxes. More on that coming up …
The reality is that even if the federal government got rid of all foreign aid and earmarks, "we'd still have a huge problem, because most of our budget goes to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and defense spending, about 70 percent of the budget. Everything else we do is only about 30 percent of the budget." That's not a quote from Rep. Paul Ryan who just proposed his budget plan. That's not even a quote from a Republican. That's a quote from Barack Obama, our esteemed Community Organizer. I bring this up to show that Democrats, including Obama, are aware that entitlement spending is perhaps THE issue we are facing fiscally.
Now we have someone who has actually faced reality and come forth with a plan to do something about our debt and spending crisis … and a crisis it is! So somebody actually stands up and proposes we do something about it. That person was Rep. Paul Ryan. He suggests changing the way Medicaid and Medicare are funded and administered, putting more power back into the hands of the states. Uh oh. There's that power thing again. Taking power away from Washington and sending it back to your local government? Takes a rare breed of Washington politician to go along with that idea. Ryan doesn't even touch Social Security. But based on the reaction from Democrats and the media, you would think that he wanted to completely scrap entitlements in this country and "give" all of that money to rich people and corporations.
I'm serious, folks. Have you seen some of the reaction over the last 24 hours? Well let me give you a few of the highlights .. just in case.
- Princess Pelosi tweeted that Rep. Paul Ryan's budget proposal "is a path to poverty for America's seniors and children and a road to riches for big oil."
How childish – and how typically Pelosian. How absolutely ignorant must she believe her Twitter followers to be. "A path to poverty?" Letting the states administer these programs instead of the federal government leads us to poverty? Just because the federal government would play less of a role in Medicare and Medicaid doesn't mean that millions of Americans are going to be left destitute. It means that programs like Medicaid will be allowed to function more efficiently by spending money based on its states needs. It would give seniors under Medicare the freedom to purchase their own health insurance with a premium-support program. Choice! What an amazing concept! A retired person would be able to look at their own financial and health situation and select a program that best suits their needs! Democrats hate this, of course, because only Democrats can determine what these Seniors need. Giving people the power to chose leads them to poverty. Yeah .. right.
This country was founded on the principles of freedom and individual choice, and based on these ideals has created more wealth and opportunity than any other nation on the free planet. I don't buy this "Americans will end up poor if the federal government doesn't provide and make their choices for them" yak squeeze. And as for the "road to riches for big oil" .. I can only assume that Pelosi is referring to Ryan's plan to cap corporate tax rates at 25%. Understand something about Nancy Pelosi .. any money earned by a corporation does not belong to that corporation but belongs to the government and the government then decides how much of that money the corporation can keep. If the corporation is "allowed" to keep more of its money, this means .. in the bizarro liberal world according to Nancy Pelosi .. that we are "giving" money to these corporations. Got it?
- Illinois Democrat Senator Dick Durbin says, "When he doesn't address savings in the Department of Defense and doesn't deal with revenue, it results in dramatic cuts in Medicare benefits and Medicaid services."
In part, I agree; Ryan's plan does little to tackle defense spending (which has doubled over the last ten years) except to adopt Defense Secretary Robert Gates's plan to target inefficiencies at the Pentagon. There's plenty of excess in the Pentagon budget and military spending should not be treated as a sacred cow (no offense meant to the computer tech support industry.) But let's address this "doesn't deal with revenue" comment. When Dick Durbin says "deal with revenue," this is a code phrase for: "Ryan's plan doesn't increase taxes on the filthy, disgusting rich." On Meet the Press this week Durbin said that he was upset that the impending GOP budget, does "not imposing any new sacrifice on the wealthiest Americans." Remember … and I'll repeat this a few times today … the top 50% of Americans pay all of the individual income taxes, and the top 1% pay 40% of those taxes. When the top 1% of income earners are paying 40% of all personal income taxes I would say that the level of sacrifice is getting on up there. Doesn't matter to Democrats though .. .there's always more blood that can be drawn.
Democrats don't like to hear it .. but we have a spending problem, not a taxing problem. You'll see what I mean elsewhere in the Nuze. You generate more revenue for government by growing and expanding the economy .. and under Rep. Paul Ryan's plan, the Heritage Foundation estimates that we would see $1.1 trillion in higher wages and an average of $1,000 in additional family income each year. Could you use that $1000?
- Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the top Democrat on the Budget Committee:
"it is not courageous to protect tax breaks for millionaires, oil companies and other big-money special interests while slashing our investment in education, ending the current health care guarantees for seniors on Medicare, and denying health care coverage to tens of millions of Americans."
Again, note the language: "tax breaks for millionaires, oil companies and other big-money special interests." Tax breaks for millionaires? What is he talking about? Oh .. I remember! Not raising taxes on households and small businesses with over $250,000 in taxable income. Those people are "millionaires." At least Van Hollen didn't say "millionaires and billionaires." That's the new Democrat line, you know. I've made it clear that I do not support corporate welfare, but I also don't support the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world. But what Ryan's budget does address are these asinine ethanol subsidies .. that charade would end. Oh and as for "slashing out investment in education," that should read: losing our re-election campaign funds from the teachers unions.
- Democrat Sen. Debbie Stabenow: (I'm sorry, but this insipid woman puts a new definition to "idiot.") "Pulling the rug out from under seniors who have paid into Medicare and Social Security their entire lives is wrong, and extreme plans that dismantle benefits seniors have earned will not pass the Senate."
Did this woman even read the proposal .. a summary .. anything? Or is it one of those things where we would have to pass the budget in order to find out what's in it? That seemed to work for Princess Pelosi. But Ryan's plan doesn't even touch Social Security and Medicare would still exist but would allow for seniors to have more choice over their health insurance options. Wow, talk about "extreme!"
- Democrat Senator Tom Harkin:"House Republicans are taking a meat ax to programs for the middle class, and especially our senior citizens – everything from cancer research to Pell Grants to Medicare. It's the same game plan: Give huge tax cuts to the wealthy, and give budget cuts to the middle class and the most vulnerable people in our society, including seniors and people with disabilities."
The Democrats will not be able to get over the fact that Paul Ryan's budget caps the top corporate and income tax rates at 25%. Let me remind you of these three historical lessons of lowering tax rates. In each case - the tax cuts of the 1920s, the Kennedy tax cuts, and the Reagan tax cuts – the top tax brackets were slashed and revenues increased big time.
- Democrat Senator Tom Harkin, again … "This new tea party budget proposal gives new meaning to the term extreme and it represents an assault on the middle class in Iowa and around the country that is breathtaking both in both scope and depth. It could not come at a worse time for working Americans, who are already under enormous strain.
There it is again! "Extreme." Oh, that's right. Almost forgot. Chuckie Schumer did instruct Democrats that they're supposed to use the word "extreme" in referring to Republican budget cut ideas. Other talking points to look out for in this debate: assault, draconian and pull the rug out.
- Iowa Democrat Congressman Bruce Braley:"What really got us into this fiscal mess was letting Wall Street run wild, fighting multiple wars for a decade at a time, and giving the very wealthiest Americans every possible break. Iowans didn't create this deficit or double the debt – but politicians want them to be on the hook for the all of it. That's just not right."
Actually …. you people in Iowa, and every other person who votes in this country, are responsible. You DID create this deficit. You created it because you continued to elect people into office who spent this money, grew the size of government and looted for the purposes of wealth redistribution. You helped to create it by Democrats to Washington who protected Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from Bush 41s reform efforts. Nobody told you that you had to keep putting these people in office. You could have held them accountable. But you didn't and now you will pay the consequences.
- Democrat Rep. Emanuel Cleaver already managed to make this budget about .. you guessed it .. race! He says, "It's clearly a nervous breakdown on paper and it will do enormous damage, I think, to the vulnerable populations of this country. I'm not suggesting that Mr. Ryan wants to do damage but it is doing damage nonetheless. And when you consider the unemployment rate for African Americans is reaching a 25-year high, it's 15.5 percent and rising, and that means that the people who are going to be impacted by layoffs, for example, particularly in the public sector, are going to be minorities. Minorities make up one-fourth of the federal workforce. They did that because they figured if they can work for the federal government there will be less opportunity for somebody to discriminate against them."
So now we can't cut the size of our government because it will negatively impact blacks in this country. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver seems to hold a rather low opinion of blacks in this country to suggest that they need the federal government to provide them jobs, otherwise they will not be able to make something of themselves in the private sector. Two words: "Work ethic." 

REPEAL THE 26TH AMENDMENT

Carter was such an abominable president we got Ronald Reagan, tax cuts, a booming economy and the destruction of the Soviet Union.
   
Two years of Bill Clinton and a Democratic Congress got us the first Republican Congress in half a century, followed by tax cuts, welfare reform and a booming economy –- all of which Clinton now claims credit for.
   
Obama's disastrous presidency has already produced Republican senators from Massachusetts, Wisconsin and Illinois; New Jersey's wonder-governor Chris Christie; and the largest House majority for Republicans since 1946.

   
We deserve more. Clinton only threatened to wreck the health care system; Obama actually did it. We must repeal the 26th Amendment.
   
Adopted in 1971 at the tail end of the Worst Generation's anti-war protests, the argument for allowing children to vote was that 18-year-olds could drink and be conscripted into the military, so they ought to be allowed to vote.
   
But 18-year-olds aren't allowed to drink anymore. We no longer have a draft. In fact, while repealing the 26th Amendment, we ought to add a separate right to vote for members of the military, irrespective of age.
   
As we have learned from ObamaCare, young people are not considered adults until age 26, at which point they are finally forced to get off their parents' health care plans. The old motto was "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote." The new motto is: "Not old enough to buy your own health insurance, not old enough to vote."
   
Eighteen- to 26-year-olds don't have property, spouses, children or massive tax bills. Most of them don't even have jobs because the president they felt so good about themselves for supporting wrecked the economy.
   
The meager tax young people paid for vehicle licensing fees on their cars threw them into such a blind rage that in 2003 they uncharacteristically voted to recall the Democratic governor of California, Gray Davis. Wait until they start making real money and realize they share a joint-checking account arrangement with the government! Literally wait. Then we'll let them vote.
   
Having absolutely no idea what makes their precious cars run, by the way, young voters are the most likely to oppose offshore drilling.
   
How about 10-year-olds? Why not give them the vote?
   
Then we'd have politicians wooing voters with offers of free Justin Bieber tickets instead of offers of a "sustainable planet" or whatever hokum the youth have swallowed hook, line and sinker from their teachers, pop culture idols and other authority figures. (Along with their approved-by-the-authorities "Question Authority" bumper stickers.)
   
Like 18-year-olds, the 10-year-olds would be sublimely unaware that they're the ones who will be footing the bill for all these "free" goodies, paying and paying until they die of old age.
   
Brain research in the last five years at Dartmouth and elsewhere has shown that human brains are not fully developed until age 25 and are particularly deficient in their frontal lobes, which control decision-making, rational thinking, judgment, the ability to plan ahead and to resist impulses.
   
Unfortunately, we didn't know that in 1971. Those of you who have made it to age 26 without dying in a stupid drinking game -- and I think congratulations are in order, by the way -- understand how insane it is to allow young people to vote.
   
It would almost be tolerable if everyone under the age of 30 just admitted they voted for Obama because someone said to them, "C'mon, it's really cool! Everyone's doing it!"
   
We trusted them, and now we know it was a mistake.
   
True, Reagan tied with Carter for the youth vote in 1980 and stole younger voters from Mondale in 1984, but other than that, young voters have consistently embarrassed themselves. Of course, back when Reagan was running for president, young voters consisted of the one slice of the population completely uninfected by the Worst Generation. Today's youth are the infantilized, pampered, bicycle-helmeted children of the Worst Generation.
   
They foisted this jug-eared, European socialist on us and now they must be punished. Voters aged 18 to 29 years old comprised nearly a fifth of the voting population in 2008 and they voted overwhelmingly for Obama, 66 percent to 31 percent.
   
And it only took 12 to 14 years of North Korean-style brainwashing to make them do it! At least their teachers haven't brainwashed them into burning books or ratting out their parents to the Stasi yet. (Of course, before teaching them book-burning, their professors would be forced to teach them what a book is.)
   
It would make more sense to give public school teachers and college professors 20 votes apiece than to allow their impressionable students to vote.
   
The Re-Education Camp Effect can be seen in how these slackers living at home on their parents' health insurance voted in the middle of the Republican tidal wave this year. Youths aged 18-29 voted for the Democrats by 16 points. But the kids aged 18-24 -- having just received an A in Professor Ward Churchill's college class on American Oppression -- voted for the Democrats by a whopping 19 points.
   
Young people voted for Obama as a fashion statement. One daughter of a friend of a friend of mine spent her whole college summer in 2008 working at a restaurant and then, with teary eyes, sent everything she made to the Obama campaign.
   
Luckily, she doesn't have to worry about paying for tuition, rent or food. Or property taxes, electric bills, plumbers and electricians. After being exploited by the left, she'll end up paying for it for the rest of her life, with interest.
   
Liberals fight tooth-and-nail to create an electorate disposed to vote Democratic by, for example, demanding that felons and illegal aliens be given the vote. But it's at least possible that illegal aliens and criminals pay taxes or have fully functioning frontal lobes.
   
Republicans ought to fight for their own electorate, which at a minimum ought to mean voters with fully functioning brains and the possibility of a tax bill. Not old enough to buy your own health insurance, not old enough to vote.

OBAMAWORLD

One thing has become abundantly clear ... Obama has no idea what he is doing. For weeks, he failed to take any sort of leadership role on the increasing humanitarian crisis in Libya. Progressives will tell you that this was Obama's plan all along - that Obama wanted to hem and haw and hope that some other country or international organization stepped up to fill the void. This would take the pressure off the United States and wouldn't make it look like the evil hegemonic nation that is has come to be known as. This is what you get when you put an inexperienced, community organizing, Marxist-leaning hack in the White House and expect him to uphold the ideals of this nation. Janet Daley in the UK Telegraph says that this is a troubling direction for the US:

Obama's foreign policy is really perfectly consistent with the goals of his domestic policy. His object is to turn the US into a European-style social democracy complete with hugely expensive welfare provision and a federal healthcare programme: a country where security and universal provision of services is the first priority. What he was saying to Europe was: you have relied on our defence cover to spare yourselves the cost of military spending and that allowed you to lavish benefits and public services on your populations. It's our turn now. The great threat from Soviet power is gone, so we are going home to tend our own fire.

Also, the last-minute turn-on-a-dime decision making on Libya indicates that Barack Obama does not have a real strategy for handling world affairs. Why would he? He never had to have a strategy for balancing his own check book much less foreign policy. Instead, Barack Obama seems content to let the rest of the world do the dictating and only react when absolutely necessary. Is this what you call leadership? And one other question to consider from this McClatchy article: "While the Iraq war and the Libya crisis differ fundamentally in many ways, the question now, according to outside experts, is whether Obama's multilateral approach will turn out any better than Bush's unilateralism."

---